• 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!

How welldo you hang?

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I've quite forgotten where I read it (and that's not so important unless I want to quote some prominent person to impress the members) but whoever it was is certainly significant to take note of. It was a big book.
He said a significant factor in determining the 'art'in a photo is what a photo is used for and where it 'hangs'. He cited Doisneau's 'The Kiss.' which most of us would be familiar with. We know it was a set up. I think Doisneau had a great sense of humour about his view of Paris and the photographic world. Maybe that's why he is my hero. Anyway, the photo was later used, without Doisneau's permission, for describing a free and easy way of life, a loose and lascivious way of life and even a decadent and drug infested one, all at different times and each in the appropriate context Now that it hangs in the galleries, it is considered a work of Art with different implications and interpretations.
Is it possible that any image that makes it to a wall in a gallery has made it as art and if so, is there hope for me yet?
I post this thread in the hope that someone will accept my challenge and hang this next to a Doisneau or similar and I can finally make claim to be an artist.
Otherwise it's back to the day job.



_D300873 by tom.dinning, on Flickr


Cheers
Tom
 
Is it possible that any image that makes it to a wall in a gallery has made it as art and if so, is there hope for me yet?
I post this thread in the hope that someone will accept my challenge and hang this next to a Doisneau or similar and I can finally make claim to be an artist.
Otherwise it's back to the day job.

Hi Tom,

For it to be successful, it should be printed using a special process, e.g. platinum print, and a good title also doesn't hurt. How about; Croaked. ;-)

Cheers,
Bart
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Hi Tom,

For it to be successful, it should be printed using a special process, e.g. platinum print, and a good title also doesn't hurt. How about; Croaked. ;-)

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks Bart. I was thinking along the lines of 'golf wars' for the title since this is the way most of the toads die; locals practicing their golf swing on them.
You may have been half serious with the platinum print idea so I'll go with that. By making this suggestion would you also admit to the contrary that the same photo printed on a T-shirt would not rank with the art lovers?
Cheers
Tom
 
Thanks Bart. I was thinking along the lines of 'golf wars' for the title since this is the way most of the toads die; locals practicing their golf swing on them.
You may have been half serious with the platinum print idea so I'll go with that. By making this suggestion would you also admit to the contrary that the same photo printed on a T-shirt would not rank with the art lovers?

Hi Tom,

The T-shirts usually come after the international breakthrough. You might find some clues on achieving that in this documentary. I don't know if this can be seen outside the Netherlands, but here is that documentary as it was broadcast on national TV.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Hi Tom,

The T-shirts usually come after the international breakthrough. You might find some clues on achieving that in this documentary. I don't know if this can be seen outside the Netherlands, but here is that documentary as it was broadcast on national TV.

Cheers,
Bart

I get the idea Bart. I was just wondering if it was possible to do it the other way around for once. I do a lot of my shots on T-shirts just to wear them around. I don't print them anywhere else. Can I call myself a roving gallery? If I hand the T-shirt in a gallery in St Kilda would it pass as art, washed or unwashed?
I have a one off of the following, washed but with a small hole in the front and a gravy stain if anyone is interested.


DSC_2420 by tom.dinning, on Flickr
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
I've quite forgotten where I read it (and that's not so important unless I want to quote some prominent person to impress the members) but whoever it was is certainly significant to take note of. It was a big book.
He said a significant factor in determining the 'art'in a photo is what a photo is used for and where it 'hangs'. He cited Doisneau's 'The Kiss.' which most of us would be familiar with. We know it was a set up. I think Doisneau had a great sense of humour about his view of Paris and the photographic world. Maybe that's why he is my hero. Anyway, the photo was later used, without Doisneau's permission, for describing a free and easy way of life, a loose and lascivious way of life and even a decadent and drug infested one, all at different times and each in the appropriate context Now that it hangs in the galleries, it is considered a work of Art with different implications and interpretations.
Is it possible that any image that makes it to a wall in a gallery has made it as art and if so, is there hope for me yet?I post this thread in the hope that someone will accept my challenge and hang this next to a Doisneau or similar and I can finally make claim to be an artist.
Otherwise it's back to the day job.



_D300873 by tom.dinning, on Flickr


Cheers
Tom

Get a " Life ".
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Is it possible that any image that makes it to a wall in a gallery has made it as art and if so, is there hope for me yet?

Yes. This is the definition used today: if it hangs in a museum or renowned gallery, it is "art". If it does not it is not art. Quite simple actually.

I suppose you know about Marcel Duchamp's fountain, don't you?
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
As a clarification, to avoid misunderstanding, Mr. Doisneau was commisioned by " Life " magazine
to do few pictures on Paris...

Unfortunately nowadays it seems that one needs powerful marketing, backers and/or exposure in
" Galleries " to have one's work accepted as " Art ".
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Unfortunately nowadays it seems that one needs powerful marketing, backers and/or exposure in " Galleries " to have one's work accepted as " Art ".

But this has always been the case. The most commonly accepted definition of art implies that the work in question is recognized as "art" by the society. It is a social construct. It has always been so: even in prehistoric times, paintings of game on the walls of a cavern was given a special meaning by a consensus amongst members of the tribe. Whatever the hunters drew on their weapons for their private use was not preserved and went forgotten.

Your wording itself implies that art is a social construct: you wrote "accepted as art". Accepted by whom if not the society?

The idea that "art" or "beauty" exists in a vacuum, in some kind of parallel universe beyond the judgement of humans is modern and, in my opinion, impossible to use as a definition. In any case, I never found anyone able to use it as a definition...

"Art is what hangs in a museum", on the contrary, works very well as a definition.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
But this has always been the case. The most commonly accepted definition of art implies that the work in question is recognized as "art" by the society. It is a social construct. It has always been so: even in prehistoric times, paintings of game on the walls of a cavern was given a special meaning by a consensus amongst members of the tribe. Whatever the hunters drew on their weapons for their private use was not preserved and went forgotten.

Your wording itself implies that art is a social construct: you wrote "accepted as art". Accepted by whom if not the society?

The idea that "art" or "beauty" exists in a vacuum, in some kind of parallel universe beyond the judgement of humans is modern and, in my opinion, impossible to use as a definition. In any case, I never found anyone able to use it as a definition...

"Art is what hangs in a museum", on the contrary, works very well as a definition.

And your point is ?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But this has always been the case. The most commonly accepted definition of art implies that the work in question is recognized as "art" by the society. It is a social construct. It has always been so: even in prehistoric times, paintings of game on the walls of a cavern was given a special meaning by a consensus amongst members of the tribe. Whatever the hunters drew on their weapons for their private use was not preserved and went forgotten.

Your wording itself implies that art is a social construct: you wrote "accepted as art". Accepted by whom if not the society?

The idea that "art" or "beauty" exists in a vacuum, in some kind of parallel universe beyond the judgement of humans is modern and, in my opinion, impossible to use as a definition. In any case, I never found anyone able to use it as a definition...

"Art is what hangs in a museum", on the contrary, works very well as a definition.

And your point is ?

Fahim,

Jerome has written a pretty reasonable approach to what ART is in our Western cultures.

Asher
 
Last edited:

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Asher, Jerome...

I was quoted. Then followed Jerome's writing.

I asked ' and your point is '? To seek further information re: me being quoted

Jerome has subsequently clarified what his point was.

But Asher, what is the point of your objection to me raising a question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I was wondering if it hung in a church or town hall or soeone's home if that counts?
Or if its graffiti on my fence, or a tattoo on someone's body (see below) or a building or a public statue, a piece of jewellery, finely crafted furniture, that thing the Japanese do with flowers (I can't be bothered Googling it). I know there's a fine line between 'definition' and 'common usage' but is it possible for the line to shift a bit so I can sell my T-shirt?


_D3S9439-(1) by tom.dinning, on Flickr
 

Mark Hampton

New member
I was wondering if it hung in a church or town hall or soeone's home if that counts?
Or if its graffiti on my fence, or a tattoo on someone's body (see below) or a building or a public statue, a piece of jewellery, finely crafted furniture, that thing the Japanese do with flowers (I can't be bothered Googling it). I know there's a fine line between 'definition' and 'common usage' but is it possible for the line to shift a bit so I can sell my T-shirt?


_D3S9439-(1) by tom.dinning, on Flickr

I'll swap you a tee shirt for a tee shirt. Document it and it will become a flickbook.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I'll swap you a tee shirt for a tee shirt. Document it and it will become a flickbook.

What the **** is a flickbook, Mark?
In case you are interested, the bloke with the tat has sold his skin to a gallery owner for a heap of money and he exhibits it a couple of days a week at the museum/gallery (MONA). If you look closely you can see his ear plugs. I wonder what he listens to all day?
I keep thinking of all these ploaces where art is exhibited in strange places. Was it Chrisitie who wrapped things? I know he photographed them but was the original called art?
And what about Banksy (is that how you spell it)? Love his stuff.
Cheers
Tom
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Fahim,

Jerome has written a pretty reasonable approach to what ART is in our Western cultures.

Asher

Indeed he has Asher. Jerome is a very intelligent person and he has my utmost respect. While he has the capability to express himself in a few well written sentences, I have to take much longer to express myself..and then too, not adequately enough.

Jerome: “The idea that "art" or "beauty" exists in a vacuum, in some kind of parallel universe beyond the judgement of humans is modern and, in my opinion, impossible to use as a definition. In any case, I never found anyone able to use it as a definition...”

Did I say this? Have I even defined ‘ art ‘ anywhere in this thread so far.

Jerome: “ Your wording itself implies that art is a social construct: you wrote "accepted as art". Accepted by whom if not the society? “

Where have I said otherwise in this thread?

Jerome: "Art is what hangs in a museum", on the contrary, works very well as a definition.”


Now, that definition of art can be argued. It is good though.

During 1937, Nazi officials purged thousands of works of art from the museums. Works by Chagall, Max Ernst, Paul Klee and many many more were ‘ unhung ‘ from museums: did they suddenly cease to be art? They should be according to your unqualified definition of art as quoted above.
More for those interested if you look up “ Entartete Kunst “ for other artists suddenly ' un-arted '.

From art to un-art to art again!! So something is not quite ‘ complete ‘ in your definition of art.


Music, literature, architecture are some examples of art that immediately spring to mind and that do not generally hang in museums. Would you not consider some of these as works of art. What about the Opera that Asher has said he is currently documenting. Open air, as I understand.

Go out, have a look at a beautiful sunset over the sea, for example. Does one have to paint, photograph etc. and hang in a museum to consider it art?
Is it not art when you just look at it in the open? Or would it suddenly cease to be a work of art if only I looked at it and considered it as such and everyone else thought it was not art?

Jerome: “The most commonly accepted definition of art implies that the work in question is recognized as "art" by the society.”

Not necessarily. “ Segments of Society “ could be one of the words missing in your definition. Which segment of society is also crucial in this regard. Certain segments of a society might accept something as art; but not necessarily all of it. Johannes Vermeer comes readily to mind. As does Monet. I could continue to give examples, but shall let the interested readers do their own research.

Let me offer another example. From a long time past ( since you referenced the prehistoric times ). The Pharaohs and their Tombs. They did not want anyone to see their tombs!! They had them sealed initially, and later started burying them to hide them from robbers. Imagine the artisans and craftsmen of that day toiling and have their work sealed and later buried. Keep in mind that it was work that was considered ‘ art ‘ of the highest order even in those times. In this instance, however, the ‘ art ‘ was to serve a different purpose. It was only for Osiris and ( the Ka ) at that time. And much much later for tourist Dollars, Euros, Shekels or whatever.

George Dickie defines:
“ ..a work of art as any artifact upon which a qualified person or institution has conferred "the status of candidate for appreciation’. “ Numerous definitions abound.

Attempts to define art has been addressed as follows by one gentleman:
“ If this thought-machine had any purpose other than to create a world with less art, I could cut it some slack. But it doesn’t. It’s entire purpose is to rarify art, controlling expression thereby. The aperture must be cinched, and quickly, before someone creates a cultural product without elite imprimatur. Its effete and its fu**ing disgusting.” Maybe. Maybe not.

I shall not go into ‘social constructs’ of art and religion.
Suffice to say they are intricately linked. The Vatican.
Might be a museum to some but a Chapel to others: Sistine.
Wonder what Sandro and Michelangelo would make of it? Not being ‘ hung ‘ in a museum.

Art is subjective and judgmental. Here is one artist’s impression of judges of art, in itself a work of art!!

p457100238-3.jpg

"Judges of art"by Gabriel Cornelius von Max​

My apologies to Tom and every other viewer for posting this here.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Wow, Fahim. All that and all I want to do is to flog an old T-shirt.
I've soaked all that in and give it some serious thought over lunch.
I'm beginning to think, though, that this art stuff is a lot of highbrow mumbo jumbo.
It seems at the moment that anyone with the capacity to form an opinion on the matter and vocalizes it is the winner - until someone comes along with a louder voice and bigger words.
See you soon.
Tom
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
That was a nice lunch by the seaside. Prawn and green papaya salad.
'how is it,' I asked the pleasant young girl behind the counter.
'a work of art' called the chef from the kitchen.
'can I hang it in a gallery?' I enquired.
'you can do what you like with it, mate, as long as you pay for it'

That sort of sums it up, really. While you have it in you hot little hands you can call it what you like and do with it what you will.
I think there's someone out there who would buy my T-shirt and call it art. In there eyes that's what it is. Hang on! That's me!
Thanks, guys. You have been a big help.
Cheers
Tom
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
To put things in a nutshell, Tom and Fahim have disputed my definition by challenging the definition of "museum":

-can it be a church?
-what happens when a work is taken off the museums?
-does it need to be displayed?
-what about music, which cannot be hung?
-etc.

One can argue about what is art and what is not for a long time and I won't do it. It should be sufficient to say that I also explained what I meant by "hang in a museum" when I wrote that art is a social construct. The museum is just a tangible representation of the agreement of many people.

It is art when people decide so. The more people agree, the strongest the construct. And no, I won't discuss what is the minimum number of people and if it can be one. Neither shall I discuss whether it is better art when more people agree, I wrote that the construct is stronger, not that it is better art.

The point of my posting is not to define art in a definitive manner but to show the logical problem with the accepted definition of art and the idea that art is absolute. You and I cannot define art because the decision is not ours. People have free will, if one million of them decides that something is art and we don't agree to find it worthy of our appreciation, it is still art for them. It is the same when someone puts a urinal in a museum: we can disagree that this is art as long as we wish, but we cannot have it removed from the museum unless we convince the director.

Or course, we can define what is art for ourselves. Who knows? If we can convince a sufficient number of people, we might as well find a place on a museum wall, which then convinces even more people. If we manage that, we could even sell T-shirts. Or dead frogs.
 
I think that what hangs in galleries is not necessarily art. There’s lots of turgid detritus from the nineteenth century, for example, that just perpetuates a tired florid cliché.

I don’t have a problem with Art evading definition. Perhaps art is a form of communication that transcends the mundane appearance of things and may induce something like a meditational state of appreciation. That’s just a fragment of an explanation. It may be that some who are refugees from “normal” reality find art everywhere and some who are imprisoned in their conventionality seldom see art especially when a label tells them “This must be art”.

I think art is a cultural construct as much as a social construct which is why I think something can be art even if no-one sees it or if no-one consciously identifies it as art. Also, something which was originally made as a purely utilitarian object can become art in a different cultural context.

Tom’s previous post could well be a work of art but may not work so well on a T-shirt – perhaps with fragments of the words split up over multiple T-shirts, so that when all the people line up in the right way it still may or may not make any sense.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
To put things in a nutshell, Tom and Fahim have disputed my definition by challenging the definition of "museum":

-can it be a church?
-what happens when a work is taken off the museums?
-does it need to be displayed?
-what about music, which cannot be hung?
-etc.

One can argue about what is art and what is not for a long time and I won't do it. It should be sufficient to say that I also explained what I meant by "hang in a museum" when I wrote that art is a social construct. The museum is just a tangible representation of the agreement of many people.

It is art when people decide so. The more people agree, the strongest the construct. And no, I won't discuss what is the minimum number of people and if it can be one. Neither shall I discuss whether it is better art when more people agree, I wrote that the construct is stronger, not that it is better art.

The point of my posting is not to define art in a definitive manner but to show the logical problem with the accepted definition of art and the idea that art is absolute. You and I cannot define art because the decision is not ours. People have free will, if one million of them decides that something is art and we don't agree to find it worthy of our appreciation, it is still art for them. It is the same when someone puts a urinal in a museum: we can disagree that this is art as long as we wish, but we cannot have it removed from the museum unless we convince the director.

Or course, we can define what is art for ourselves. Who knows? If we can convince a sufficient number of people, we might as well find a place on a museum wall, which then convinces even more people. If we manage that, we could even sell T-shirts. Or dead frogs.

It's a toad, actually, but I won't quibble.
And I thought museums were buildings. I must look closer.
So, what's this '..even sell T-shirts'? Are you telling me there is no hope, Jerome? All is lost? Should I find a better medium for my photos? What if I got a better body. You know, a 'temple of the mind' Greek God sort of thing. Buildings and religion all rolled into one. My wife would be pleased, no end.
Now if you think I'm taking the piss out of you, you are spot on.you are also dead right when you said '...I won't do it'. No wiser words have been spoken.
Arguing about what is art is like sword fighting at 20 paces; pointless in the extreme. Yet over and over we do it. It's as though we have nothing better to do. This forum and most others raise the subject at least once a week somewhere. Some days I wonder why we ever came up with the word. Maybe it went like this:
'ugh! Look what I did. I blew mud at my hand and it left an imprint on the cave wall'
'cool. What do you call it?
'Aaaaaaaaaah ......'
'too long. Just call it art'.
'you do it. See! You can do art as well. Hey guys, come over here. We've invented art and anyone can do it.'

One eon later.

'have you seen the mess this last lot of savages made in this cave. Bloody hand prints everywhere.'
' it won't come off either. What will we do with it?'
' paint over it with a few boats and faces, maybe a space ship as well. That should scare off the neighbours'.

You probably can guess how the story went from here.

You've got to laugh, though. Sometimes the whole discussion of art is all a bit pretentious. It's no wonder people get fed up with it all.
I live in hope though, when some day we will find a way of discussing art or whatever it is at a level where everyone can understand.
Meanwhile, I'll wash the T-shirt once again and live in hope for a quick sale to a gullible passer by.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tom,

The value really depends on where and how it's being used. I have my own mind focused on where I want my work to have a context of art. How it works for anyone else is up to them!

Somehow, a person in the Hebrides Library, (recently taken over by Tom Dinnings mercenaries hired from Congo), might be able to unite all our perspectives in one sentence, but until then, Jerome's definition, "art is what is found in museums", come closest to the sense of what art is, at least in the Western world for the past millennium. A lion in the jungle defines to us what it's about lions that make them so interesting to us. A prostitute outside a brothel has the same inner character she had inside that house of great repute and the same holds true for art waiting at a airport shipping terminal. Once we define it in it's most obvious environment, that sense of values goes with it wherever else one finds it.


Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
'There’s lots of turgid detritus from the nineteenth century, for example, that just perpetuates a tired florid cliché'
Wow, Murray. I'm impressed. Did you make that up or was it something you read somewhere? If you came up with it all by yourself, you must know something i don't. Here I was thinking the 19C artists were a sincere and resourceful bunch. I guess you're right though. Its a bit like 60's music. It seemed alright at the time but looking back it was a bit turgid as well.
So basically you're telling us the galleries don't know what they're talking about 'cause you don't like the stuff. Is that it?
I'm sorry it didn't make any sense for you (I think thats what you said - almost). I'll try and use some bigger words for you next time. The tryptic idea is a good one. Different combinations of the same words. See how it pans out.

To be quite honest, Murray, if you had been standing next to me in the pub I'd have probably thrown a beer at you by now. I know Asher would object so I'll drink it instead. I don'y think any of this makes sense. I just want to see how convoluted the conversation can get before disappear into the vacuum in which art seems to exist - or was it NOT exist. Buggered if I can work it out any more.

Do I have a point? Probably. Every working day for 45 years I have tried to reach out to kids and adults alike to value what they have and what they can do. Most are shy and reserved about their potential.
You know what scares them the most? This stuff. This intellectual tail chasing that people do for the sake of so called ART. What I am always happy to call the Arty Farty lot. The ordinary bloke on the street doesn't understand nor wants to understand what you are saying. The truck driver delivering my concrete or the check out chick pricing my tomatoes has never been and may never go down such paths. And here's the funny thing: there are more of them than you. So who is the art for? Is it for those who can 'understand' it as is discussed in this forum or is it the grandmother who brought her grandkids to have a look at the pretty flowers in the painting on the gallery wall.
By the very fact that we catagorise art into any of the suggested genres is detrimental to what art can do. It can enlighten the mind of those who stand before it. At what level or to what extent will depend on who it is that looks but what they gain should not be diminished by the undertones of superiority pronounced by those who speak of art as if it belongs to them and them alon; to the gallery owners and museums, the collectors, the artisans.
Art is for people. It should be accessible to everyone. We should encourage people to understand at whatever level they choose, be it the wearing of Mona Lisa on a T-shirt or some grafitti on the toilet wall.
Don't define art as something obscure and incomprehensible. For photography its a photograph, pure and simple regardless of where it hangs. And if it is reserved for the galleries and museums then it needs to be absolutely accessible to everyone. Galleries scare people. Ask the gallery owners why they are spending so much time and effort to improve their public image - at least the ones that matter.
Get your art on a T-shirt. Post it on a telegraph pole, put it on a post card and send it to your friends, give people something to fill their computer screen, give it away, do anything you can which will enable people to know and appreciate your art. Don't wait for it to be 'recognised' or 'hung' or 'commissioned'. That may never happen.
If nothing else, can you please think about what we have done to art. We have given it exclusivity. What a waste. 'Fine' art; fooey!! Even the term says 'you can't do it or afford it, you working class sod'.

Surely its time to stop thinking within the constraints of the past.

Whew!

I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Cheers
Tom
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Gang,

As I asked in another thread some moths ago:

If we had an "agreed" definition of what "art" is, what could we do with that?

Would it for example allow us to know into which division of the State Fair to enter a photograph we had made, or how to register an item we had with the insurance company?​

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Is Tom's original caption intended to be evocative of that greeting of a few decades back, "How's it hanging"?

Best regards,

Doug
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Every working day for 45 years I have tried to reach out to kids and adults alike to value what they have and what they can do. Most are shy and reserved about their potential.
You know what scares them the most? This stuff. This intellectual tail chasing that people do for the sake of so called ART. What I am always happy to call the Arty Farty lot. The ordinary bloke on the street doesn't understand nor wants to understand what you are saying.

So, this is what it was about?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Every working day for 45 years I have tried to reach out to kids and adults alike to value what they have and what they can do. Most are shy and reserved about their potential.

Commendable!

You know what scares them the most? This stuff. This intellectual tail chasing that people do for the sake of so called ART. What I am always happy to call the Arty Farty lot.

(Is "tail-chasing" something that should be explained by Berlusconi or by some professor of felinology)

A person who drives a truck does not need to know about the physical properties of oil at high temperature and the chemical stability of the coatings of the pistons.

Still, society does well to invest in study of art, (for it's own sake and effects on out society), in universities, colleges and meetings. It may sound good for Aussie humor to denigrate, belittle and generally mock esthetic analysis attempts, but art too is an important part of our cultures. Understanding it leads to greater interest and support, without which art education, including paying for salaries of teaching photography, would cease.

I don't expect your fellow delivering cement for your driveway to have any knowledge of Kant or the concept of "Art for art's sake" or anything else that discusses art as an academic subject worthy of our interest. Mocking "fine art", " higher critique" and the like is really great when heard with a genuine outback twang, it sounds earthy, unpretentious and even healthy. However it's actually short-sighted and even self-destrcutive.

You need a whack on the arse and more beer than I could handle, a dunk in a river under any pretense, (witchcraft, baptism or just to shock you into some submission for a moment so you can be reflective. What you have little insight to is the value of your own work. It's not just like your tomatoes or one of the classes you give. Your photography in your PDF book, is worthy of being in a national gallery with people greater than I am. You are so full of this "workingman's cynicism that you miss that you may even already part of the effete snobbish delusional upper class, the "Artsy Farty". Unless you burn all your photographs, fire your students and remain perpetually stone drunk or get electroconvulsive therapy q.h.s., you are likley inescapably already in the very class you feel you must despise.

That fact that you are aware enough of the silliness and conceits demonstrates you have arrived! So don't sweat it! Just continue being critical, but drop the delusion that your are an intellectual virgin.

Art is for people. It should be accessible to everyone. We should encourage people to understand at whatever level they choose, be it the wearing of Mona Lisa on a T-shirt or some grafitti on the toilet wall.

Of course. There we agree!

Don't define art as something obscure and incomprehensible.

There's no attempt here to define art at the lowest of the curators for each exhibit they devise, plan and put on. It might be a catchy title like, "Treasures of Ancient Babylon" or "Love in the French Countryside" and for that collection, the hook is sufficient to draw people in by the thousands. That's what curators are for. We, however are just photographers with a passion. If we discuss values in art here, we're on a level that interests us at this moment. No big deal to underwear in a knot!


Get your art on a T-shirt. Post it on a telegraph pole, put it on a post card and send it to your friends, give people something to fill their computer screen, give it away,

Why not? That's what to teach and the best example to set. That's what I do and that's what you've done with your excellent free PDF book.

A professor of art and esthetics could write a thesis on that, but then the men with the yellow truck may then take you away in a white canvas jacket with straps done up at the back because they's analyze your motives and what your really meant and that would drive you the rest of the way to screaming and convulsing insanity.

Asher
 
Top