I certainly do not want the discussion to devolve into who is or is not a True Scotsman, but I think that your belief that some form of meaning is required before defining something as "art", is a bit exclusive, eliminating many forms of art. Aesthetics is usually critical for any art in the beginning. It establishes popularity. Semantics may or may not be important for a work of art to survive for the long term but, if it does survive, meaning is usually attached to the work whether it may actually have been there in the first place.
I don't see Ms Maier's work as snapshot photography, though some of what she did was take snapshots. Obviously Vivian Maier's work has aesthetic value, I think most will agree with that. But in my mind there is also great meaning for me in her work. One major thread I see is an exploration of age, and how people are affected and respond. Others may or may not see the same since it is my own individual interpretation.
As regards the first bold sentence, I have to respectfully disagree. Calling a definition of art exclusionist because it excludes certain types of art is begging the question, surely? It takes for granted that those things are art (rather than craft alone as I had contended). I'm not in any way saying aesthetic considerations aren't often
important, but they can't possibly be the only thing that defines something as art. Is a beautiful sunset art? No because, it was not created.
As for the second bold sentence, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think she IS a snapshot photographer, more that we don't have a way of knowing without editing. Call back to the google streetview car etc
🙂
airfrogusmc said:
And I believe as Adams did about categories.
"Lets hope that categories will be less rigid in the future; there has been too much of placing photography in little niches-commercial. pictorial, documentary, and creative( a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it. I would like to think of it as just “photography” ; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities in proper degree to achieve its purpose. We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit.”-Ansel Adams
Couple of points here
Categories are bad when they constrain creativity. they are necessary in other circumstances. I mean, categories are essential to how humans see the world! A photograph is not a sandwich. If you see a photograph, you know whoever made it intended for it to be looked at, not sat on. Drawing the line there seems arbitrary. But of course I have todefer to Adams' wisdom, I mean the man's output spanned so many genres! From documentary, to fashion, to macro insect photography, you name it the man did it
Second, 'outsider art' as me and some others take it to mean, isn't a category in the sense that I assume Adams meant. It's more of a statement about her relation to the norms of the time. You can be an outsider artist and still every piece you create would be classed as a different genre, or create new genres altogether.
It is also, I hasten to add, NOT a value judgement, or elitism, or whatever. A lot of people here seem to have assumed as much. The question was whether she can be said to have created her work outside of the art establishment, it was never said that
only the art establishment is allowed to create work.
telenous said:
You've consistently made some very isteresting points. Here I think you've presented a case where classifications are a boon - if Winogrand's chosen work had certain criteria in common with one another (call them what you will), then someone curating an exhibition when he is no longer able to choose would do well to look for works sharing these criteria. Otherwise they risk straying further from his presumed vision, and injecting their own preferences into the choice
