A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 11th 12, 06:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 8/11/2012 12:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


And also the many inbetweeners.


--
Peter
  #12  
Old August 11th 12, 06:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
said:

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.


That doesn't quite read coherently.

Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-)
A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
investment, is certainly not art.



Which viewer? What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? I may not
think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.



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".





--
Peter
  #13  
Old August 11th 12, 06:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012081109411721123-

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


For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art;
however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas.

First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier
views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively
develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera
and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would
try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium
and develop a certain style of his or her own.

This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post
secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has
devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her
field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person.

This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the
activity.

Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a
part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that
causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject
of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't
experience much of an emotional response to the work itself.

Take Care,
Dudley



  #14  
Old August 11th 12, 06:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
said:

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.


That doesn't quite read coherently.

Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-)
A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
investment, is certainly not art.



Which viewer?


Any viewer.

What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?


His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".

I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.


It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
defines it as art whether you like it or not.
If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
firmly establish an indifference to it.

Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
....but that is my opinion.
Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k







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

  #15  
Old August 11th 12, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 2012-08-11 10:38:42 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012081109411721123-

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


For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art;
however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas.

First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier
views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively
develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera
and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would
try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium
and develop a certain style of his or her own.

This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post
secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has
devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her
field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person.

This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the
activity.

Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a
part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that
causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject
of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't
experience much of an emotional response to the work itself.

Take Care,
Dudley


That all makes perfect sense to me, and underscores, and expands my
opinion in this little discussion.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #16  
Old August 11th 12, 07:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 8/11/2012 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
said:

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.

That doesn't quite read coherently.

Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-)
A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
investment, is certainly not art.



Which viewer?


Any viewer.

What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?


His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".

I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.


It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling
and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being
declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual
response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work
of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as
art whether you like it or not.
If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about
the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly
establish an indifference to it.


Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby
elevated to art?

BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.


Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
...but that is my opinion.
Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute,
Utica, NY.
http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k





--
Peter
  #17  
Old August 11th 12, 08:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:56:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:
:
: I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
:
: It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
: feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
: being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
: intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
: level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
: defines it as art whether you like it or not.
: If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
: about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
: firmly establish an indifference to it.
:
: Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
: closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
: ...but that is my opinion.
: Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
: http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background
on which they displayed it.

Bob
  #18  
Old August 11th 12, 08:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 2012-08-11 11:56:29 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2012 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
said:

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.

That doesn't quite read coherently.

Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-)
A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
investment, is certainly not art.


Which viewer?


Any viewer.

What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?


His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".

I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.


It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling
and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being
declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual
response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work
of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as
art whether you like it or not.
If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about
the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly
establish an indifference to it.


Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is
thereby elevated to art?


No. You looked at it, it was meaningless to you, and you are somewhat
indifferent to it, ergo it is probably what it always was, a snapshot,
never art, mostly a wasted effort.
There are shots which have been submitted to the SI which can only be
deemed snapshots. It takes one look by the viewer (in this case me) and
the first thing that goes through my mind is, "Why did this individual
even bother submitting this, SNAPSHOT"?

Pretty much as some press shot of a politician at a press conference is
just that, an example of non-art photojournalism recording a moment for
which I feel nothing but indifference.
This for example, is not art:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics..._120811_wg.jpg

However, if you are somehow asked to comment on a postcardish, or worse
image the photographer believes to be "special", and it doesn't grab
you in anyway, good or bad, there is nothing wrong with expressing your
indifference by saying something such as, "For me it is just a
snapshot". This applies to 99.9% of baby, cat, dog, goldfish, and
family vacation shots, the group in front of the Tower of Pisa for
example.

Though most wedding photographers would disagree, I don't think of
wedding photography as art, satire maybe, art no. It is commercial
photography documenting a personal life event aimed at a very small
sector of the public, and I am truly indifferent to it. Regardless of
how tough it might be to shoot, I can truthfully say, when I am asked
an opinion of wedding photographs, "Oh! wedding photographs, what else
do you have"?

BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.


maybe not, but you implied that you did not think of it as art.

Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
...but that is my opinion.
Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute,
Utica, NY.
http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #19  
Old August 11th 12, 08:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.

Doug McDonald

  #20  
Old August 11th 12, 08:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 2012-08-11 12:31:48 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:56:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:
:
: I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
:
: It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
: feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
: being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
: intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
: level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
: defines it as art whether you like it or not.
: If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
: about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
: firmly establish an indifference to it.
:
: Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
: closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
: ...but that is my opinion.
: Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
: http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background
on which they displayed it.

Bob


I have to agree.
When I first saw this work, in the same gallery in 1973, it was mounted
on a flat white wall. I was surprised to see it moved to the paneled
wall when I took the shot in 2005.
That said the "Munstertute" or The Munson, Williams, Procter, Art
Institute is well worth a visit if you find yourself in UpState NY,
between on the NY State ThruWay (I-90) between Albany and Syracuse, or
on a drive out of the Adirondacks or Thousand Islands area on NY-12
which would take you into Utica, the rust focal point of NY on the Erie
canal.
http://www.mwpai.org/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photogs rights "Slim" threat, as in, "thin edge of the wedge??" Seymore Digital SLR Cameras 1 April 10th 10 09:07 AM
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ \The Great One\ Digital Photography 0 July 14th 09 12:04 AM
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode ashjas Digital Photography 4 November 8th 06 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.