When does Photography become Art?

Aaron wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

The Aeron chair sat in the Guggenheim (may still be there) for some
time as part of a show of ergonomics and design; you question the
judgment of the Guggenheim?

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com


Hello, Aaron:

Damned right, I question the judgment (such as it is), of "Crazy"
Guggenheim! He was a drunken comedian, who used to appear on "The
Jackie Gleason Show," during the 1960's. G

Seriously, he was really a goofy, fictional character, played by
Frank Fontaine (1920-1978).


Cordially,
John Turco

Neil Harrington wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

Reminds me I need to get "Blow Up" for my DVD collection, though.

Neil


Hello, Neil:

Why? I saw "Blow Up" (1967), on the "CBS Late Show," back in the 1970's,
and found it incredibly boring and pretentious.

The lack of commercial interuptions/cuts, on the DVD version, still
won't make this alleged "movie" any more enjoyable, in my estimation.


Cordially,
John Turco

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Aaron wrote:

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Neil Harrington wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity


I agree with you, though, that truly great art is only created through
complete control over the process, even if part of that process is
giving up control on purpose (think Jackson Pollock).

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com


Hello, Aaron:

Well, certainly, it's possible for a photograph to become a piece of
art. It simply isn't an automatic process, in my mind.

Changing the subject, slightly, consider cinema. Does raw footage,
alone, constitute an actual movie?

Of course, not! It's the laborious post-production work, which
transforms that mere celluloid into something of any value. Cutting,
splicing, editing, dubbing the voices, adding the sound track, etc.,
all require great skill and effort.

How successfully those things are accomplished, determines whether a
film is artistic, or just another "hack job."


Cordially,
John Turco

Hello John Turco:

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that art can be made
"automatically," although software such as "Aaron" (named aptly, I
should add) pushes the boundaries of that belief.

Nevertheless, there can be a certain artistic property to creations
made with a purposeful neglect for the process. Take, for example, The
Blair Witch Project. I didn't like that film, but apparently enough
people liked it to give it a fairly broad release. I wouldn't say that
it is a masterpiece of cinema, or that it represents a timeless
achievement in film, but it has a certain quality to it owing to how
little post-production was done, which was a conscious decision on the
part of the filmmakers.

Thus, I can see how a lack of post-processing can also contribute
something to a piece of art, provided that the lack of post-processing
was a conscious decision; that decision represents the artist's hand
guiding the work toward his/her goals.

My conclusion is that art cannot be "required" to have any of these
specific properties, but the two things that all pieces of art have in
common are these: an artist and an audience.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Aaron wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

The Aeron chair sat in the Guggenheim (may still be there) for some
time as part of a show of ergonomics and design; you question the
judgment of the Guggenheim?

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com


Hello, Aaron:

Damned right, I question the judgment (such as it is), of "Crazy"
Guggenheim! He was a drunken comedian, who used to appear on "The
Jackie Gleason Show," during the 1960's. G

Seriously, he was really a goofy, fictional character, played by
Frank Fontaine (1920-1978).


Cordially,
John Turco

Greetings John Turco:

Of course I was talking about the Solomon R. Guggenheim museum of
modern art in New York, NY (not the Guggeinheim Museum Bilbao, in
Bilbao, Spain), which actually has little to do, operationally, with
anyone from any Guggenheim family at this point.

Still, your humorous aside adds a certain levity to an otherwise
somewhat tense conversation.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

Aaron wrote:

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

edited, for brevity

Well, certainly, it's possible for a photograph to become a piece of
art. It simply isn't an automatic process, in my mind.

Changing the subject, slightly, consider cinema. Does raw footage,
alone, constitute an actual movie?

Of course, not! It's the laborious post-production work, which
transforms that mere celluloid into something of any value. Cutting,
splicing, editing, dubbing the voices, adding the sound track, etc.,
all require great skill and effort.

How successfully those things are accomplished, determines whether a
film is artistic, or just another "hack job."


Cordially,
John Turco

Hello John Turco:

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that art can be made
"automatically," although software such as "Aaron" (named aptly, I
should add) pushes the boundaries of that belief.

Hello, Aaron:

Somebody named a program, after you? :-)

Nevertheless, there can be a certain artistic property to creations
made with a purposeful neglect for the process. Take, for example, The
Blair Witch Project. I didn't like that film, but apparently enough
people liked it to give it a fairly broad release. I wouldn't say that
it is a masterpiece of cinema, or that it represents a timeless
achievement in film, but it has a certain quality to it owing to how
little post-production was done, which was a conscious decision on the
part of the filmmakers.

So, do you think that the infamously horrid Hollywood director, Ed Wood,
ever created anything artistic?

Thus, I can see how a lack of post-processing can also contribute
something to a piece of art, provided that the lack of post-processing
was a conscious decision; that decision represents the artist's hand
guiding the work toward his/her goals.

My conclusion is that art cannot be "required" to have any of these
specific properties, but the two things that all pieces of art have in
common are these: an artist and an audience.

Opinions vary. g


Cordially,
John Turco

Aaron wrote:

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Aaron wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

The Aeron chair sat in the Guggenheim (may still be there) for some
time as part of a show of ergonomics and design; you question the
judgment of the Guggenheim?

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com


Hello, Aaron:

Damned right, I question the judgment (such as it is), of "Crazy"
Guggenheim! He was a drunken comedian, who used to appear on "The
Jackie Gleason Show," during the 1960's. G

Seriously, he was really a goofy, fictional character, played by
Frank Fontaine (1920-1978).


Cordially,
John Turco

Greetings John Turco:

Of course I was talking about the Solomon R. Guggenheim museum of
modern art in New York, NY (not the Guggeinheim Museum Bilbao, in
Bilbao, Spain), which actually has little to do, operationally, with
anyone from any Guggenheim family at this point.

Still, your humorous aside adds a certain levity to an otherwise
somewhat tense conversation.


Hello, Aaron:

"Bilbao" sounds more Portuguese, than Spanish. ("Guggenheim" bears no
resemblance to either one, naturally. g)


Cordially,
John Turco

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
....
"Bilbao" sounds more Portuguese, than Spanish.

Catalan.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

Reminds me I need to get "Blow Up" for my DVD collection, though.

Neil


Hello, Neil:

Why? I saw "Blow Up" (1967), on the "CBS Late Show," back in the 1970's,
and found it incredibly boring and pretentious.

The lack of commercial interuptions/cuts, on the DVD version, still
won't make this alleged "movie" any more enjoyable, in my estimation.

You may very well be right. It's decades since I've seen it too, and my
recollection of it is vague. I don't recall being hugely impressed by it
when I did see it. The *theme* is certainly intriguing though.

I'll check my local library instead. When I looked at "Blow Up" prices since
posting that it cooled my interest somewhat. There are a lot of really good
movies you can get awfully cheap nowadays.

Neil

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

It takes intent on the part of the artist. Art is an artificial game
played
by humans for humans, and as such it takes intent to play the game on the
part of the artist, and acceptance of the performance in the playing of
that
game by the audience. (That some rich folks also play with art as an
investment is a sideshow, and a very freaky one at that.)

edited

Hello, David:

Huh? If, somehow, Seung-Hui Cho thought the Virginia Tech massacre was
a form of "art," did that make it such? Adolf Hitler was convinced of
his own merits as an "artist," so perhaps, he decided to prove it, by
starting World War II and orchestrating unspeakable crimes against
humanity?

(Okay, I know; he was a house painter, before becoming a ruthless
dictator.)

I don't know if he was a house painter. He did watercolors, and had some
aspirations toward architecture I think.

I doubt his watercolors had anything to do with his politics, or starting
World War II. I believe his art work came before World War I, and his
politics came after that war, in large part as a reaction to the communists
who had taken over much of Germany in 1919-20.

Neil

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Aaron wrote:

And lo, John Turco emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

edited, for brevity

Well, certainly, it's possible for a photograph to become a piece of
art. It simply isn't an automatic process, in my mind.

Changing the subject, slightly, consider cinema. Does raw footage,
alone, constitute an actual movie?

Of course, not! It's the laborious post-production work, which
transforms that mere celluloid into something of any value. Cutting,
splicing, editing, dubbing the voices, adding the sound track, etc.,
all require great skill and effort.

How successfully those things are accomplished, determines whether a
film is artistic, or just another "hack job."


Cordially,
John Turco

Hello John Turco:

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that art can be made
"automatically," although software such as "Aaron" (named aptly, I
should add) pushes the boundaries of that belief.

Hello, Aaron:

Somebody named a program, after you? :-)

Salutations, John:

No, regrettably, it was created when I was but a youngster still
vandalizing my parents' walls with crayons.


Nevertheless, there can be a certain artistic property to creations
made with a purposeful neglect for the process. Take, for example, The
Blair Witch Project. I didn't like that film, but apparently enough
people liked it to give it a fairly broad release. I wouldn't say that
it is a masterpiece of cinema, or that it represents a timeless
achievement in film, but it has a certain quality to it owing to how
little post-production was done, which was a conscious decision on the
part of the filmmakers.

So, do you think that the infamously horrid Hollywood director, Ed Wood,
ever created anything artistic?

As I say, art is in the eye of the beholder. Surely Ed Wood's
spectacularly horrid creations were unearthed in the '80s for a
certain "camp" value that might, to some, be seen as artistic. That
certainly doesn't make it good.

At least Ed Wood himself satisfied two of the major prerequisites to
artistic stardom: he died penniless and in obscurity...


Thus, I can see how a lack of post-processing can also contribute
something to a piece of art, provided that the lack of post-processing
was a conscious decision; that decision represents the artist's hand
guiding the work toward his/her goals.

My conclusion is that art cannot be "required" to have any of these
specific properties, but the two things that all pieces of art have in
common are these: an artist and an audience.

Opinions vary. g


Cordially,
John Turco


--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com