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