On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said:

Robert Coe wrote:
Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
encouraged.


What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?

Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art",
Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to
reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post
commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe
defines art.

I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
people at random, you would get ten very different answers.

I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who
agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our
individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and
still not agree.

I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
"brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.

That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly
those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in
their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics
and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work.

Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it
something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or
something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common
factor).

With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through
before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all
of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of
that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art.

Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as
art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see
below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately.

The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and
deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the
production of "art" is not the typical intent.

The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension
or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a
photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art".


Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.

It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at
a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that
sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"?

I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very
interested to hear your and others' views.

OK! Let's get my definition out of the way.
To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance,
photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes
the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response,
be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter,
nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art".

A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure
photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here,
as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories
as "art".

A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it,
disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art".
That is probably just a snapshot.

So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's
say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they
elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not,
even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky"
waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art".


--
Regards,

Savageduck