• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Endless Eos

Hi

... just a bit of contrasts, no postproduction, filters etc ...



The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries define art as "something created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings". How do you reconcile this image with such definitions of art? Just wondering, cheers, Mike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries define art as "something created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings". How do you reconcile this image with such definitions of art? Just wondering, cheers, Mike.

I would offer a modification of this definition in that I consider:

Art is something imaginative and creative exported from the mind to a physical form. It evokes feelings or ideas that more than satisfy the expectations of the creator. In the best of times, it might attract attention of others who bring their own ideas to further invite imagination and testing of ideas.

So in this case, an "Exploratorium" is created in which the interested viewer, if sufficiently distracted can for some moments, let go of their anchors to reality and explore imaginary situations, worlds and circumstances or just simply relax.

I think that this picture, printed large could serve such a function.

Asher
 
Last edited:
To dilute a definition of art renders anything art and art a decomposing corpse from kindly intentions.

Just a thought. Cheers, Mike
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
This is absolutely beautiful in its simplicity! Striking an extreme sense of freedom albeit " breathing space" Bravo!!

Really Art is what your soul speaks it has no care whether anyone likes it or not and therefore who gives a damn about defining its name "Art " It is something so intangible in its breadth and scope that it whispers to "our own souls"

Charlotte-
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
To dilute a definition of art renders anything art and art a decomposing corpse from kindly intentions.

Just a thought. Cheers, Mike

... only if the origin definition is the one and only ...
As I think about it: Art is based on knowledge, skills and interaction - AND this on both sides: the artist and the consumer of art. Not very sophisticated, I know, just my 2c ...
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

You know that I am very cynical about attempts to define what is (and is not) "art".

That having been said, I find this:

Art is something imaginative and creative exported from the mind to a physical form. It evokes feelings or ideas that more than satisfy the expectations of the creator. In the best of times, it might attract attention of others who bring their own ideas to further invite imagination and testing of ideas.

very appealing.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
To dilute a definition of art renders anything art and art a decomposing corpse from kindly intentions.

Just a thought. Cheers, Mike

Mike,

The ideas I expressed are merely a restatement of, (how I have, over the past ten years, iteratively built and updated evolving and progressively more useful), my working definition of art for myself.

This is neither casual nor definitive but it is a very serious effort that has paid off for my needs and interface with creative work, both my own and that of others.

It so happens that my ideas overlayed in much part with yours. I am not changing anything, just getting my mind around a complex phenomenon of art from concept to appreciation.

Asher
 
Mike,

The ideas I expressed are merely a restatement of, (how I have, over the past ten years, iteratively built and updated evolving and progressively more useful), my working definition of art for myself.

This is neither casual nor definitive but it is a very serious effort that has paid off for my needs and interface with creative work, both my own and that of others.

It so happens that my ideas overlayed in much part with yours. I am not changing anything, just getting my mind around a complex phenomenon of art from concept to appreciation.

Asher

Asher, before reacting to your definition, let me say that this discussion began with a question to Wolfgang about how to reconcile his image with a definition of art as "something created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings." Whilst I gladly acknowledge the presence of imagination and skill, I don’t find his image beautiful (although others say they do) but did wonder whether Wolfgang meant to express (in symbolic form, maybe) ideas or feelings. By analogy, one of my favorite paintings, Magritte’s ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, expressed an idea beyond the content of the painting. To date, Wolfgang failed to provide an adequate answer to the query. Perhaps there’s a failure to communicate properly because of a language difference. I don't believe he thinks beauty, feelings and ideas are irrelevant to art.

To get back to definition, the purpose is to demarcate whether the ascribed content of an object falls inside or outside a described field. The ascribed content includes implicit or explicit evaluation of quality as shown by the following examples: ‘athletic activity’ implies physical activity levels beyond those of an early morning jog; a ‘poem’ means something more than a verse of gibberish scribbled in a notebook. Your definition of art doesn’t differ from a dictionary definition with regard to mode of creation but you are more specific about the quality issue: the object must (1) “... evoke feelings and ideas that more than satisfy the expectations of the creator” and (2) "In the best of times, it might attract attention of others who bring their own ideas to further invite imagination and testing of ideas". Clearly, you place self-appraisal by the ‘artist’ above that associated with third-party reactions to the content.

I understand your reasoning. As moderator of Photography as Art, negative third-party evaluation might discourage thin-skinned people from posting. Much safer to grin and bear it and let 'artists' evaluate themselves. The creator will naturally ‘like’ an object that satisfies his/her expectations. The end result, however, is circularity: “This object I created is art because I like it” leads to “I'm an artist because I like what I create". Whoa!!! Stop right there. Circularity creates problems that should be obvious to anyone. Those associated with third-party evaluation pale by comparison. So there's no need for me to write anything more. Cheers, Mike.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I think this bears slightly on some of the concepts presented above.

The current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, was recently asked by a TV journalist how he can repeatedly say that there were millions of persons who voted "illegally" in the recent US presidential election when he had advanced absolutely no proof of any such thing.

He said (and I paraphrase) that he was entitled to say that because there were a lot of people that agreed with him on that.

In any case, as I have said several times in the past, I hope that if this august body can come to some consensus as to "what is art" we will know what to do with that answer.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mike,

You are correct to point out that I hijacked your question! That was s
An error! An answer to your great question is still needed!

Still, allow me to continue my transgression about by own view of what "art"
might include. Again, this description of mine is merely a guide that works for my own creative endeavors and for my private consideration of art that others produce. When the art is just a self-feeding personal circle, as you fear, it likely as not won't amount to much beyond the satisfaction of the "artist". So you are exactly correct.

However, when art that we create has some magnetic attraction beyond this self indulgant closed loop of satisfaction, it has the chance of competing for broader societal attention as art that we think is worthy of preserving and perhaps owning. Such work calls attention to itself so that observers return with their friends to admire the work.

Still, the beginnings of most work must be that personal pleasure and reward to its creator for managing to bring to fruition in a physical form some abstraction and fancy from their mind.

What reaches a gallery, museum or collector as "Art" is a matter of subjective opinions, fashion, prejudice, favoritism and chance, a kind of Darwinian "survival of the fittest". However, this is not some perfect or approaching perfect selection system. Far from it! Not only are the rules imperfect and harsh but, unlike competing life forms, those that win out may not be able to stand the test of time and the passing of transient quirks of fashion.

Asher
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
Art is its own creation. It creates itself through and above its creator. This seems like a definition however I find it as a concept. Don't try to over think what it is. It is. If you like or dislike it It {art} does not care} The creator of art is the art. Plain and simple. The artist wants you to enjoy or not.
I love this quote- “To create one’s own world takes courage.” Georgia O’Keeffe
Charlotte-
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
Hi
The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries define art as "something created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings". How do you reconcile this image with such definitions of art? Just wondering, cheers, Mike.

In Winter 2014 I stumbled across some sheds at Vienna's Museumsquartier, build of coroplastmaterial. At Christmastime these sheds will house bars, little restaurants and take-a-aways for the public.
I was fascinated by the subtle transparency of the material, its structured rhythm of those twin-wall-sheets in combination with the color and form of objects inside the sheds.
So I took a series of photos to catch that impressive and fascinating sceneries and put them into my sensor"bag" for working them over at home.
This is one of them, I found here the impression of infinite, the infinite blush in the sky during that short little moment at the seaside before sunrise, which the old greeks called "Eos".
Hope that helps.
 
Hi


In Winter 2014 I stumbled across some sheds at Vienna's Museumsquartier, build of coroplastmaterial. At Christmastime these sheds will house bars, little restaurants and take-a-aways for the public.
I was fascinated by the subtle transparency of the material, its structured rhythm of those twin-wall-sheets in combination with the color and form of objects inside the sheds.
So I took a series of photos to catch that impressive and fascinating sceneries and put them into my sensor"bag" for working them over at home.
This is one of them, I found here the impression of infinite, the infinite blush in the sky during that short little moment at the seaside before sunrise, which the old greeks called "Eos".
Hope that helps.

Thanks Wolfgang. I use a different concept of infinity grounded in mathematics (i.e., an unknown quantity beyond the limits of a designated range). The reason for my query was to find out whether I'd missed something that might help reconcile it with your image. Cheers, Mike.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Reminder: Much after the following was written, the O.P. renamed name his photograph "Endless Eos" from the title "Infinity"

Thanks Wolfgang. I use a different concept of infinity grounded in mathematics (i.e., an unknown quantity beyond the limits of a designated range). The reason for my query was to find out whether I'd missed something that might help reconcile it with your image. Cheers, Mike.

Michael,

Your definition of "infinity", including as it does the concept of being "beyond" some kind of conceived "boundary wall" is novel to me. ?
My own idea of infinity is that it occurs when a boundary wall itself would have to have some finite end and so is dismissed as being superfluous. For me then, infinite does not go beyond a limit as it is itself, without reference to boundaries, limitless.

But now I will look up the word and see what definitions are circulating! ...... I did and was humbled by all I do not know! Look here.

From this, I would guess that Wolfgang's use if the word infinity likely means "limitless" in a romantic sort of way, if that is possible! ?

Asher
 
Last edited:
Mike,

You are correct to point out that I hijacked your question! That was s
An error! An answer to your great question is still needed!

Still, allow me to continue my transgression about by own view of what "art"
might include. Again, this description of mine is merely a guide that works for my own creative endeavors and for my private consideration of art that others produce. When the art is just a self-feeding personal circle, as you fear, it likely as not won't amount to much beyond the satisfaction of the "artist". So you are exactly correct.

However, when art that we create has some magnetic attraction beyond this self indulgant closed loop of satisfaction, it has the chance of competing for broader societal attention as art that we think is worthy of preserving and perhaps owning. Such work calls attention to itself so that observers return with their friends to admire the work.

Still, the beginnings of most work must be that personal pleasure and reward to its creator for managing to bring to fruition in a physical form some abstraction and fancy from their mind.

What reaches a gallery, museum or collector as "Art" is a matter of subjective opinions, fashion, prejudice, favoritism and chance, a kind of Darwinian "survival of the fittest". However, this is not some perfect or approaching perfect selection system. Far from it! Not only are the rules imperfect and harsh but, unlike competing life forms, those that win out may not be able to stand the test of time and the passing of transient quirks of fashion.

Asher

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here, Asher, but I'll add a couple of minor qualifications.

1. The personal pleasure aspect of reward might be muted rather than strong. Research by Ericsson and colleagues informs us that expertise develops through continued 'deliberate practice', which is often or always miserable, hard, bloody work. Ericsson's work included expertise in the arts (e.g., pianists), but I'll illustrate with personal experience in track & field athletics.

I was a reasonable middle-distance runner at school, got thrown into a couple of race walks by my athletic club because they had no designated walker, wobbled well in a couple of races, but never pursued it further because of other priorities. When aged about 30 years, I decided to take it up again, mainly for fitness but also to see whether I had any talent. Despite bumps along the way, I realized I had. A major bump, though, was a 50 minute for 10 kilometre barrier, a personally symbolic time that was about 5 minutes longer than times for medal winners in national championships at that time. I tried and tried to beat 50 minutes in racing and training but always missed out by 30 seconds or so. Then one day in training, I beat the barrier by 15 seconds. I guess some combination of style, fitness and tactics pushed my performance to higher plateau. However, my reaction wasn't satisfaction or joy, but a grim determination to push my body even harder so as never to fall back to 10 km times greater than 50 minutes. After I retired from international competition some years later, I made a point not to compete in 10km races, so I never again race walked 10 km. in over 50 minutes.

I suspect the pianists and other experts studied by Ericsson and colleagues experienced phasic development to higher performance plateaus in similar ways: it's not pleasure that motivates as much as a cognitive reappraisal toward higher performance potential. I know that's true of me for scientific work more so than for photography, for which my motives have more to do with having fun than development of expertise.

2. You're right that selection procedures for excellence are about survival of the fittest at a given time and in a given context. When competing a race walker, my motto was 'you're only as good as your last race'. It's for that reason I call myself a retired athlete, and for similar reasons call myself a former poet. However, I'll continue to call myself a scientist for a long as my work satisfies the prevailing selection criteria.

Cheers, Mike.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here, Asher, but I'll add a couple of minor qualifications.

1. The personal pleasure aspect of reward might be muted rather than strong. Research by Ericsson and colleagues informs us that expertise develops through continued 'deliberate practice', which is often or always miserable, hard, bloody work. Ericsson's work included expertise in the arts (e.g., pianists), but I'll illustrate with personal experience in track & field athletics.

I was a reasonable middle-distance runner at school, got thrown into a couple of race walks by my athletic club because they had no designated walker, wobbled well in a couple of races, but never pursued it further because of other priorities. When aged about 30 years, I decided to take it up again, mainly for fitness but also to see whether I had any talent. Despite bumps along the way, I realized I had. A major bump, though, was a 50 minute for 10 kilometre barrier, a personally symbolic time that was about 5 minutes longer than times for medal winners in national championships at that time. I tried and tried to beat 50 minutes in racing and training but always missed out by 30 seconds or so. Then one day in training, I beat the barrier by 15 seconds. I guess some combination of style, fitness and tactics pushed my performance to higher plateau. However, my reaction wasn't satisfaction or joy, but a grim determination to push my body even harder so as never to fall back to 10 km times greater than 50 minutes. After I retired from international competition some years later, I made a point not to compete in 10km races, so I never again race walked 10 km. in over 50 minutes.

I suspect the pianists and other experts studied by Ericsson and colleagues experienced phasic development to higher performance plateaus in similar ways: it's not pleasure that motivates as much as a cognitive reappraisal toward higher performance potential. I know that's true of me for scientific work more so than for photography, for which my motives have more to do with having fun than development of expertise.

2. You're right that selection procedures for excellence are about survival of the fittest at a given time and in a given context. When competing a race walker, my motto was 'you're only as good as your last race'. It's for that reason I call myself a retired athlete, and for similar reasons call myself a former poet. However, I'll continue to call myself a scientist for a long as my work satisfies the prevailing selection criteria.

Cheers, Mike.

Mike,

I think your personal story for athletics is what I learned as the "plateau theory", where no matter how one tried and trains, one does not seem to be able to rise above a certain level, until some, as yet, unexplained "maturation" occurs. Then, one day, one breaks through those limits.

In my art, it too is a huge struggle as some ideas are not realistic enough to render as a physical entity. There are so many reasons for this difficulty: practicality, mismatch in motif or incompletely imagined esthetic dependencies. But I do think, that in the process of art being formed, at some point, the work seems to acquire its own identity and appears to insist on taking part in decisions! So there commences an iterative struggle, as if between a parent with a dream and a child fighting for independence.

Until these arguments are sorted out, the work struggles and may even have to be put aside for a while.

This is where perhaps art is different than training for athletics.....or is it?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi

... just a bit of contrasts, no postproduction, filters etc ...




Infinite by Wolfgang Plattner, on Flickr




Wolfgang,

Coming back to your picture that started this deep discussion, I wonder how the slight curve in the "horizon" works with the concept of infinity. (I have always seen such pictures with perfectly straight parallel lines). I am not sure of why the curves are significant, except that I feel some discomfort. Perhaps because parallel lines meet at infinity.

In any case, I hope you continue to labor with this motif, perhaps starting with the word, "infinity" not with a picture. Then photograph something to illustrate that word. Just a thought.

Thanks for putting up work here that challenges us to think critically and for your forbearance when we drift so far off topic!

Asher

.
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
Thanks Wolfgang. I use a different concept of infinity grounded in mathematics (i.e., an unknown quantity beyond the limits of a designated range). The reason for my query was to find out whether I'd missed something that might help reconcile it with your image. Cheers, Mike.

So why did you ask for "Art"?
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
Hi
what a mess with those non-native languages :)))
I don't care about straight lines when I'm reminded of an endless horizon (which to me may be one of the interpretations of infinity ... and be honest: the horizon isn't straight ;-)
But as I wrote already, "infinity" was caused by the rosè "sky" ... so the picture should be called "endless Eos" (and I would appreciate it to be corrected) or can "infinite" be right in this context?


Wolfgang,

Coming back to your picture that started this deep discussion, I wonder how the slight curve in the "horizon" works with the concept of infinity. (I have always seen such pictures with perfectly straight parallel lines). I am not sure of why the curves are significant, except that I feel some discomfort. Perhaps because parallel lines meet at infinity.

In any case, I hope you continue to labor with this motif, perhaps starting with the word, "infinity" not with a picture. Then photograph something to illustrate that word. Just a thought.

Thanks for putting up work here that challenges us to think critically and for your forbearance when we drift so far off topic!

Asher

.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi
what a mess with those non-native languages :)))
I don't care about straight lines when I'm reminded of an endless horizon (which to me may be one of the interpretations of infinity ... and be honest: the horizon isn't straight ;-)
But as I wrote already, "infinity" was caused by the rosè "sky" ... so the picture should be called "endless Eos" (and I would appreciate it to be corrected) or can "infinite" be right in this context?

As the artist, you are always right. After all it's your concept and your invention and present to us! Still it great that folk here are brave enough to critique from their hearts and minds and not blindly praise everything we share!

Thanks

?

Asher
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
As the artist, you are always right. After all it's your concept and your invention and present to us! Still it great that folk here are brave enough to critique from their hearts and minds and not blindly praise everything we share!

Thanks

?

Asher
Hmm ... I do not think, that the artist is always right ... just shown here :)))
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hmm ... I do not think, that the artist is always right ... just shown here :)))

In my, (albeit limited), view, art is born when

  • a creative form is exported from the your mind to something physical
  • you experience your work: a tune, sculpture or a picture, for example
  • it seems to have a rather complete identity, so changing it would be wrong
  • it more than satisfies you, so you are thrilled in some way.

Whether or not it can "jump the gap", so to speak, and spark interest in others is secondary. We cannot, a priori, define art as being absolutely dependant on others also being moved by the work, as they may not be nearby or even born yet or all have died.

Of course, allowing the artist to declare a work,"art" may seem preposterous, as Mike Stones implied above, but art, in collections and that the folk treasure is also subject to personal and group arrogance and deception too.

So we are left with personal art which is appreciated by a tiny circle and "Art" which others talk about, get mad and excited about, adore and are willing to pay increasing sums of money for. But, for art to start this ridiculously hard journey, it must as the least move you to value it and attempt to seduce others to love it too!

Asher
 
Originally Posted by Michael_Stones View Post
Thanks Wolfgang. I use a different concept of infinity grounded in mathematics (i.e., an unknown quantity beyond the limits of a designated range). The reason for my query was to find out whether I'd missed something that might help reconcile it with your image. Cheers, Mike.


So why did you ask for "Art"?

1. Because posting in Photography as Art declared that you considered the image art.
2. Infinity is an idea with art a concept that includes portrayal of ideas.
3. Questions with a more inclusive frame of reference often elicit more extensive and revealing responses than those with a specific frame.

Cheers, Mike
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
1. Because posting in Photography as Art declared that you considered the image art.
2. Infinity is an idea with art a concept that includes portrayal of ideas.
3. Questions with a more inclusive frame of reference often elicit more extensive and revealing responses than those with a specific frame.

Cheers, Mike

So I guess you didn't understand the image, you didn't "get connection" to it.
How does this artwork work for you with the new title?
 
So I guess you didn't understand the image, you didn't "get connection" to it.
How does this artwork work for you with the new title?

The title and image go together well. Had that been the title at the outset, I'd have made the connection, nodded my head, and probably smiled. Dawn emerging over water is how I conceive it now. What I learned from this exchange is that the title for an abstract image can confuse or clarify the meaning of an image. What I wonder is whether I'd have made the current connection had the image been untitled. Cheers, Mike
 
Of course, allowing the artist to declare a work,"art" may seem preposterous, as Mike Stones implied above, but art, in collections and that the folk treasure is also subject to personal and group arrogance and deception too.

So we are left with personal art which is appreciated by a tiny circle and "Art" which others talk about, get mad and excited about, adore and are willing to pay increasing sums of money for. But, for art to start this ridiculously hard journey, it must as the least move you to value it and attempt to seduce others to love it too!

Asher

Why is it that science doesn't have major problems differentiating what (in oversimplified terms) constitutes "good" versus "bad" science, whereas artists can't agree on what constitutes "good" versus "bad" art?

One reason is peer review in science, whereby scientists evaluate each other's work. The system is elitist given that only those with proven expertise occupy 'gatekeeper' positions that determine what articles get published, what projects get funded, who gets what award, etc. Yes, there are problems, no system is perfect, but no scientist I know advocates an overthrow of peer review. In art, the gatekeepers are critics, curators, gallery owners, most or all of whom have vested interest in reputation or money making. Yes, juried selection for exhibitions occurs, but to my knowledge without standardized criteria for the selection of jurors. Compared to science, the gatekeeper function seems haphazard indeed.

A second reason is that nearly all scientists are qualified professionals whereas artists run a gamut from overpaid celebrities to weekend dabblers. The variation in ability levels is therefore much narrower in science than art. Moreover, even the least talented weekend dabbler might get enough 'likes' on whichever Internet site to think those photographs a match for anything by David Bailey. Enough said about that.

Now I'm not sure about the reality of this third reason in the arts arena, but I'll include it anyway. It's that science is more communal but art more individual. Even a scientist who works alone builds on earlier studies and expects others to build on current findings. Moreover, peer review keeps that scientist humble and thick skinned because reviewers invariably find something to criticize. In contrast, artists aim to develop a unique style; they work individually or with assistants; and they have less reason than scientists to collaborate to earn a living. It's unsurprising, therefore, that a lack of collaboration might contribute to disagreements.

So based on the preceding, photographers will probably continue to disagree about criteria for "good" art because of a relative absence of genuine peer review; too many people that consider themselves artists; too wide a range of abilities; too many easily obtained plaudits; and too little collaboration on artistic endeavours.

Cheers, Mike.
 
Top