David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/28/2004 11:08 AM Ken Smith spake thus:

I never posted a thought to this original discussion, but for what
it's worth, here's my take on it. The medium does not determine
whether or not something is or isn't art.Art is what an artist does.
What becomes difficult and subjective is determining who actually
qualifies as an artist, but honestly one shouldn't trouble over
whether one kind of material or another is used. At least that is what
the 20th century decided about it all. The 19th seemed more adamantly
materialistic and rational about the subject. Photography was an
affront to the handmade.


I'll admit that my aversion to recognizing photography as art is
something of a throwback to the 19th century; I also know that I'm
clearly out of step with the 20ths take on it (I like the way you put
it, that the previous century "decided" that photography was Art, which
I suppose is the end of the discussion for most people). And I do hanker
after certain aspects of that bygone age; maybe not the deficiency of
medical knowledge compared with ours, but other things.


Art is something that when experienced repeatedly invokes the emotional
response intended by the artist. If a movie tries to make you sad, and
continually does so, then the artists have done their job.

A portrait of a politional that imvolves the response what a pompous $#@
probably doesn't qualify as art. A photo from a war zone, that
invokes sympathy for the victims probably has involked the proper
response, and therefore does qualify.

This is the problem I have with arts councils that make a grant for a
piece of blue painted paper, or a scuplture made from rotting meat,
isn't art it's crap.

W