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 » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is photography art?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 1st 03, 10:02 PM
C J Morgan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?


"jjs" wrote:
I think I understand, and I especially appreciate the way you described

it.
Thanks for that.


Well, it's as best as I can describe it, although in fairness, I have to
credit Persig for his describing of it first. I simply lifted from that
as I could see it relating to the work of a photographer, or perhaps
how others have told me I sometime look as I seem to skulking around
in a situation (my mind seeming engrossed in the work itself).

And it's not that I'm any great master, or anything like that (although
I'd like to think that after all these years of photographing I've become
more an image maker rather than just an aim and shoot picture taker).
But I can relate to what Persig is say as it might relate to the making
of photographs and to the idea of "art" as a process rather than
product.

*************

Now you can argue and say "that's not art." But it's as good a working
definition as I've ever found, and I'd sooner use that than all those
who simply want to pontificant all of the things of what art is not.


Well, it's an art as in the exercise of a mindful, creative task, but I
still consider the outcome in terms of historical impact rather than the
process itself. We merely differ, or rather compliment the overall view
between us.


In earlier post, I talked (or at least I think I did) about how any of us
might define "art" is at least in part a function of our roles and the kind
of definition we might find most useful for our roles. And so, for example,
as a person who makes photographs and "dances" with his camera, as it
were, it is more meaningful for me (or any of us who might create) to
regard "art" as a process. On the other hand, if my role were rather that
of art critic or art historian, then "art as a process" doesn't much enter
into the sphere of what I do because my concern is to otherwise look
at finished photographs. And so these objects to me are (or perhaps
critized as being not) the "art".

So as photographer, I think of "art" in terms of process, and if I were
an art critic or art historian, my working definition of "art" would have
more to do with the outcome, with the finished product.

So I have no argument with those who talk about "art" in terms of
the final outcome or finished product, the photograph itself. The
definitions
for given word we find most useful is at least at sometimes a function
of whatever role we are playing at moment -- talking to other photographers,
we'll perhaps engage in conversation about the creative process, but
when talking to an art critic or art historian, the discussion is not so
much about the "dance," as it were, but rather about the finished objects
we are viewing.

So I certainly have no qualms to admit a word like "art" may have
a number of definitions, each one as valid as it may be helpful
to our individual roles and work.

**********

And by the way, so that we can all appreciate what Pirsig wrote, here's

the
paragraph in which he describes the act of brazing/welding and uses the

word
"dance". (BTW, it is the only place in the book he used the word "dance".

He
uses the plural two times.)

"He sparks the torch, and sets a tiny
little blue flame and then, it's hard
to describe, actually dances the torch
and the rod in separate little rhythms
over the thin sheet metal, the whole
spot a uniform luminous orange-yellow,
dropping the torch and filler rod down
at the exact right moment and then
removing them. No holes. You can hardly
see the weld. ``That's beautiful,'' I
say."

I'm afraid you tapped a subject I've been through so often it may be
unhealthy.


Ah, I see. Well, I stand corrected, although the passage I was more thinking
about when this discussion started was different from this one. At a certain
point in "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance," Persig is talking
about the need for "peace of mind" and the seeming divorce in our culture
between things like "art" and "technology". And somewhere in there, was
this little discussion, which at least for me and my work as an image maker,
finally resolved that question of "what is art?".

Here specifically is the passage which I've found myself going back to
time and again:


"Sometime look at look at a novice workman or a bad workman and compare
his expression with that of the craftsman who's work you know is excellent
and
you'll see the difference. The craftsman isn't ever following a single line
of
instruction. He's making decisions as he goes along. For that reason he'll
be
absorbed and attentive to what he's doing even though he doesn't
deliberately
contrive this. His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony. He
isn't
following any set of written instructions because the nature of the material
at
hand determines his thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change the
nature of the materials at hand. The material and his thoughts are changing
together in a progression of changes until his mind's at rest at the same
time
the material's right. Sounds like art. Well it is art."
-- Robert Persig
(From "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance")


It's a passage which I won't be surprise if other photographers could
relate to as well.

CJ



  #62  
Old October 2nd 03, 12:27 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?


NJH wrote in message
om...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:IG5eb.639734$uu5.102483@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:nhKdb.624579$uu5.100533@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
m...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:Ocndb.600021$YN5.443639@sccrnsc01...
[ . . . ]

on a map) And there are many other examples of

projects/disciplines
that
take years and years of practice and study to learn. Can you

quantify
the
difficulty of the medium that is required before you are willing

to
give
it
the distinction of, "a fine art"?

The fine arts as far as I'm concerned are pretty much limited to

the
traditional ones: painting, drawing, sculpture and related

procedures
as
far
as image-producing stuff is concerned.

Cinematography can surely be an art, and a very important one, but

I
can't
see it as a fine art.

"Art photography" makes pretensions to being a fine art and to

some
degree
is accepted as such, which makes its categorization more

difficult.
But
Westons and Adamses will never be regarded as Rembrandts and
Michelangelos,
and will never even come close.

Other photos, including lovely images of sunsets, pretty flowers,

etc.
that
are sometimes presented as "art" by the people who took them, are

not
art,
fine or otherwise.

Neil

Well, then. at best, you have to admit that the definition is,
"fuzzy"......

There are several definitions for "art," as with most words in the

English
language. Some of them require that the definition be somewhat

"fuzzy."
That
does not mean that the definitions can be discarded.

In the field of politics for example, do you suppose "liberal" means

exactly
the same thing to all people? Or "conservative"? Those terms are

defined,
but what they mean EXACTLY, in detail, depends to some extent on one's
political position and viewpoint.

Some words are less likely to be argued over. We discussed frying eggs
before. It is unlikely we'd ever get into an argument over what

"frying
eggs" means. ;-)


As a mathematician (my degree) I tend to think in
absolutes....I don't like fuzzy definitions, although I have to

admit
that
they exist....But I always try to bring any discussion to its

obvious
extremes.....Sort of, (in mathematical terms) investigate the end

points,
or
inflections of the equation.....I instinctively reject the idea that

there
are only five fine arts, for example......

Those five make up what are called "the fine arts." In this usage

"fine"
does not mean "better than any other kind of art" necessarily (though

they
do generally have that sort of stature), it is just used to

distinguish
those five arts from all other kinds.


I think that the neurosurgeon that
you mentioned above, will sometimes create wonderful artistic work

inside
of
the heads of some of his patients.....

One hopes he does good work, but it isn't art. Millions of people do

very
good work that isn't art.


It's just a pity that we can't see it,
or know about it, because we weren't there to see it done, and/or

haven't
got the capacity to understand it if we were......I guess what I am

trying
to say is that the world is too complex a place to be able to pin

the
definition of "fine art" on only 5 or 6 disciplines......

The definition is what it is. It may be expanded to include something

else
at another time; who knows?

Neil


Again, I sense that the work of the neurosurgeon isn't art to you

because
it
has a useful purpose other than just the amusement of the observer. You
believe that fine art can't have any practical value.


Again, art (any real art, or any of the fine arts) does "have . . .
practical value"--if it did not, no one would bother doing it. But having
practical value does not make a thing art.

Neil


Well, now I don't understand your definition of, "practical value".......How
does a painting have practical value? It is only decoration.....The wall it
hangs on has all the practical value......


  #63  
Old October 2nd 03, 01:04 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?


jjs wrote in message
...

"William Graham" wrote in message
. net...

You sound like J.S. Bach who complained about those who play at the

keyboard
instead of following mathematical or rigid metrics. That's perfectly

fine,
but the so-called 'modern' (avant garde) jazz was, and is, a

legitimate
and
powerful thing - those people are conversing in music you simply don't

like
or don't understand.

In that case, they (or anyone) should be able to tell from that middle

ten
minutes, one song from another.....Wouldn't you say? [...]


No, I would not say that. A session in it's entirety has to be considered.
These avant-gard jazz musicians speak not only to the piece at hand, but a
previous piece, and possibly the next - the session as a thing unto itself
speaking about their kind of music/art. There are similar considerations

in
art and photography. In photography, for example, a person might set out

two
or more photographs to be considered together. One standing alone is not

the
statement. Often an 'image' or 'idea' arises between the frames, so to
speak. That's a legitimate artisitic statement. Call it 'series' if you
want to research such efforts.



We must agree to disagree on this....It there is no discernable difference
in the middle 10 minutes between two pieces, then they are wasting MY time,
at least....They can call it anything they like.....


  #64  
Old October 2nd 03, 05:07 PM
Dennis O'Connor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?

Bill, not trying to tell you to like jazz... I don't care if you do or
don't... And there is bad jazz out there that is mostly sound and fury and
a lot of screeching that I won't listen to... But good jazz is a world
apart... Good jazz is like listening to a good poet using the sound, and the
meter, and the imagery the words evoke, to mean more to us than the
individual words mean standing alone.. Jazz is a play on musical words (the
phrase), using the relationships between scales and meter... A course on
music appreciation at the local college will often open ones ears to new
sounds and new ideas...
Cheers ... Denny
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:WXJeb.648801$YN5.497886@sccrnsc01...

jjs wrote in message
...

"William Graham" wrote in message
. net...

You sound like J.S. Bach who complained about those who play at the
keyboard
instead of following mathematical or rigid metrics. That's perfectly

fine,
but the so-called 'modern' (avant garde) jazz was, and is, a

legitimate
and
powerful thing - those people are conversing in music you simply

don't
like
or don't understand.

In that case, they (or anyone) should be able to tell from that middle

ten
minutes, one song from another.....Wouldn't you say? [...]


No, I would not say that. A session in it's entirety has to be

considered.
These avant-gard jazz musicians speak not only to the piece at hand, but

a
previous piece, and possibly the next - the session as a thing unto

itself
speaking about their kind of music/art. There are similar

considerations
in
art and photography. In photography, for example, a person might set out

two
or more photographs to be considered together. One standing alone is not

the
statement. Often an 'image' or 'idea' arises between the frames, so to
speak. That's a legitimate artisitic statement. Call it 'series' if you
want to research such efforts.



We must agree to disagree on this....It there is no discernable difference
in the middle 10 minutes between two pieces, then they are wasting MY

time,
at least....They can call it anything they like.....




  #65  
Old October 2nd 03, 05:25 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?


"William Graham" wrote in message
news:WXJeb.648801$YN5.497886@sccrnsc01...

jjs wrote in message
...
[... snip ...]
No, I would not say that. A session in it's entirety has to be

considered.
These avant-gard jazz musicians speak not only to the piece at hand, but

a
previous piece, and possibly the next - the session as a thing unto

itself
speaking about their kind of music/art. There are similar

considerations
in
art and photography. In photography, for example, a person might set out

two
or more photographs to be considered together. One standing alone is not

the
statement. Often an 'image' or 'idea' arises between the frames, so to
speak. That's a legitimate artisitic statement. Call it 'series' if you
want to research such efforts.


We must agree to disagree on this....It there is no discernable difference
in the middle 10 minutes between two pieces, then they are wasting MY

time,
at least....They can call it anything they like.....


Your particular requsites are clear and your argument is cogent and
compelling, but yes, we disagree. Now, I must admit that I refer to such
music made a long time ago; the avant gard jazz I heard in England in
through Sixties, and Chicago up to '73, John Coltrane's Assension (both
versions) and others' work. I can only 'hear' such sessions in my memory
since I've lost a great deal of my hearing. Perhaps not having to experience
some of the most painful middle ten minutes (or any part of either
Assension) today makes my argument purely intellectual.

This was a heartening exhange. Thank you.




  #66  
Old October 2nd 03, 08:31 PM
NJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is photography art?


"William Graham" wrote in message
news:OpJeb.648557$YN5.497533@sccrnsc01...

NJH wrote in message
om...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:IG5eb.639734$uu5.102483@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:nhKdb.624579$uu5.100533@sccrnsc04...

NJH wrote in message
m...

"William Graham" wrote in message
news:Ocndb.600021$YN5.443639@sccrnsc01...
[ . . . ]

on a map) And there are many other examples of

projects/disciplines
that
take years and years of practice and study to learn. Can you
quantify
the
difficulty of the medium that is required before you are

willing
to
give
it
the distinction of, "a fine art"?

The fine arts as far as I'm concerned are pretty much limited to

the
traditional ones: painting, drawing, sculpture and related

procedures
as
far
as image-producing stuff is concerned.

Cinematography can surely be an art, and a very important one,

but
I
can't
see it as a fine art.

"Art photography" makes pretensions to being a fine art and to

some
degree
is accepted as such, which makes its categorization more

difficult.
But
Westons and Adamses will never be regarded as Rembrandts and
Michelangelos,
and will never even come close.

Other photos, including lovely images of sunsets, pretty

flowers,
etc.
that
are sometimes presented as "art" by the people who took them,

are
not
art,
fine or otherwise.

Neil

Well, then. at best, you have to admit that the definition is,
"fuzzy"......

There are several definitions for "art," as with most words in the

English
language. Some of them require that the definition be somewhat

"fuzzy."
That
does not mean that the definitions can be discarded.

In the field of politics for example, do you suppose "liberal" means
exactly
the same thing to all people? Or "conservative"? Those terms are

defined,
but what they mean EXACTLY, in detail, depends to some extent on

one's
political position and viewpoint.

Some words are less likely to be argued over. We discussed frying

eggs
before. It is unlikely we'd ever get into an argument over what

"frying
eggs" means. ;-)


As a mathematician (my degree) I tend to think in
absolutes....I don't like fuzzy definitions, although I have to

admit
that
they exist....But I always try to bring any discussion to its

obvious
extremes.....Sort of, (in mathematical terms) investigate the end
points,
or
inflections of the equation.....I instinctively reject the idea

that
there
are only five fine arts, for example......

Those five make up what are called "the fine arts." In this usage

"fine"
does not mean "better than any other kind of art" necessarily

(though
they
do generally have that sort of stature), it is just used to

distinguish
those five arts from all other kinds.


I think that the neurosurgeon that
you mentioned above, will sometimes create wonderful artistic work
inside
of
the heads of some of his patients.....

One hopes he does good work, but it isn't art. Millions of people do

very
good work that isn't art.


It's just a pity that we can't see it,
or know about it, because we weren't there to see it done, and/or
haven't
got the capacity to understand it if we were......I guess what I

am
trying
to say is that the world is too complex a place to be able to pin

the
definition of "fine art" on only 5 or 6 disciplines......

The definition is what it is. It may be expanded to include

something
else
at another time; who knows?

Neil


Again, I sense that the work of the neurosurgeon isn't art to you

because
it
has a useful purpose other than just the amusement of the observer.

You
believe that fine art can't have any practical value.


Again, art (any real art, or any of the fine arts) does "have . . .
practical value"--if it did not, no one would bother doing it. But

having
practical value does not make a thing art.

Neil


Well, now I don't understand your definition of, "practical

value".......How
does a painting have practical value?


Don't any paintings do anything for you?


It is only decoration.....


No. Drapes that don't really do anything are "only decoration." A painting
usually concentrates the mind on something.


The wall it
hangs on has all the practical value......


In galleries, some walls serve only to support the paintings. If the
paintings hung on it have no practical value, surely the wall does not.

Neil


 




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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photography books BlueDoze Digital Photography 2 June 29th 04 06:06 PM
New Digital Photography Community Forum Announcement George Digital Photography 1 June 24th 04 06:14 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Photo paper for pinhole photography. Jevin Sweval In The Darkroom 2 February 20th 04 06:50 PM
Night Photography Tom Phillips In The Darkroom 17 February 6th 04 01:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.


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.