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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Is photography art?
"William Graham" wrote in message news:WXJeb.648801$YN5.497886@sccrnsc01... jjs wrote in message ... [... snip ...] No, I would not say that. A session in it's entirety has to be considered. These avant-gard jazz musicians speak not only to the piece at hand, but a previous piece, and possibly the next - the session as a thing unto itself speaking about their kind of music/art. There are similar considerations in art and photography. In photography, for example, a person might set out two or more photographs to be considered together. One standing alone is not the statement. Often an 'image' or 'idea' arises between the frames, so to speak. That's a legitimate artisitic statement. Call it 'series' if you want to research such efforts. We must agree to disagree on this....It there is no discernable difference in the middle 10 minutes between two pieces, then they are wasting MY time, at least....They can call it anything they like..... Your particular requsites are clear and your argument is cogent and compelling, but yes, we disagree. Now, I must admit that I refer to such music made a long time ago; the avant gard jazz I heard in England in through Sixties, and Chicago up to '73, John Coltrane's Assension (both versions) and others' work. I can only 'hear' such sessions in my memory since I've lost a great deal of my hearing. Perhaps not having to experience some of the most painful middle ten minutes (or any part of either Assension) today makes my argument purely intellectual. This was a heartening exhange. Thank you. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Is photography art?
"William Graham" wrote in message news:OpJeb.648557$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 | |
|
|
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 05:50 PM |
Night Photography | Tom Phillips | In The Darkroom | 17 | February 6th 04 12:47 AM |