• 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!

On the meaning of meaning

Fine Art is a contention and aspiration, not a an objective parameter.
Asher

Well put, Asher, as Doug said. It's also a reason that underlies this most enjoyable contention. The source seems to be a distinction between cognitive/emotive processes and objective parameters. I'm an avid and unrepentant empiricist who believes that aspirations, feelings, desires, etc. can translate into objective measurable parameters. The behavioural science and neuroscience literatures are brimful of examples. If an objective measurable is also elegant and pleasing (i.e., subjective terms that are easily made objective), maybe a bit of artistry went into the design, too. Maybe, too, there's special rooms in heaven and hell for folk who think as I do (and maybe pigs can fly). :)

Because I'm writing here in my office, with a view of the Music and Fine Arts Building across the parking lot, I'd better get back to things they pay me for. Adios for now, Mike.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

In this note, I will underline "code phrases", terms that we intend to have some specific (even if not readily quantified) meaning in the context of interest to us.​

Most commonly, members who post pictures here have an aesthetic intent to their work (perhaps in combination with some "informative" intent).

In pursuit of that, they may attend to composition, and timing, and lighting, and exposure, and then in postprocessing deal with cropping, and with color balance, and tonal scale mapping, perhaps in a very sophisticated way, possibly involving layer operations and other such tools.

And other members may offer suggestions as to how that work might be "improved" (understandably based on the individual commenter's own "preferences").

Now, as our members do this, are they invariably seeking to create "fine art"? And, while we of course recognize that the binary property of fine-art-ness cannot be quantified or even precisely characterized, are there recognizable qualitative properties by which the knowledgeable ones among us can say, in a broad way, "ah, yes, he has indeed created a piece of fine art there" or, in the alternative, "that is a beautiful photograph, and very skillfullydone, but it is not fine art?
(And in this regard, recall that it has been asserted here that the "quality" of the result is not what determines its fine-art-ness, in the same way that a really bad "knock-knock" joke may still be a bona fide "knock-knock".)​

Or sometimes do our members, earnestly seeking to produce a really top-notch photograph, nevertheless not at all consciously seek to make a piece of fine art, but just a really top-notch photograph.

And how might what they do not trying to make a piece of fine art differ from what they might do in trying to make a piece of fine art? Is it the same way that a runner seeking to qualify for a spot on the Olympic team differs in the intensity of his work from a runner just preparing to run in the local Fourth of July relays?

I have the horrifying feeling from what I read here that the difference may be that if the real objective of the photographer is to make an image that will be purchased by a "fine art" gallery, he will be seeking to make a piece of fine art (and of course, presumably, a really excellent piece of fine art), whereas if his aspiration is to sell the image to a wedding client, he "just" seeks to make a photograph (and of course, hopefully a really excellent photograph).

Best regards,

Doug
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
I really wonder why these discussions end up so passionate.

Perhaps because of this?

duty_calls.png

http://xkcd.com/386/
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
In case anybody is intersted, here is a repository of similar, art related discussions in OPF prior to 2009. It makes excellent reading imo.
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
This image below was taken by on of my students on our last 'outing' together to photograph during the evening. All she had was a simple p&s which she put on 'night mode'. She found her composition and then played with it till she got this image, I know that cause I saw the rejects. Is it art? does it have meaning? I would say yes, there was intent and a vision, I also know I've asked her for a print of it I like it so much...

fleig.jpg
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This image below was taken by on of my students on our last 'outing' together to photograph during the evening. All she had was a simple p&s which she put on 'night mode'. She found her composition and then played with it till she got this image, I know that cause I saw the rejects. Is it art? does it have meaning? I would say yes, I know I've asked her for a print of it I like it so much...


fleig.jpg

Ben,

Obviously it has a wonderful appearance. For sure it makes sense to be called art. But will it travel further and when is it "Art" to be sought after? Well for you, it already is Art as you value it enough to want to own it. That "wanting" helps to propel art from the ordinary to the extraordinary. Someone has to like the picture enough and appreciate it's sense of specialness to begin the journey from something nice to something that can rise it's head above the crowd and get ardent followers. For me, the picture is too even and consistant and shows no evidence of ranking of any elements or particular style. Now if there were siblings, I might then get captivated as I discover other qualities that distinguish it from "nice". So it could be a divine work to be treasured, but so far, to me at least, it's merely "nice".

Often, it takes persistence and consistency by the photographer, so their work is recognized. Your pictures of the Old city in Jerusalem have earned these qualities. But it still needs a special boost of enthusiasm to get the picture to be preserved for posterity with the resources of collectors, galleries and museums.

It might be that timing and opportunity is of paramount importance. There's often a market for all art. It might be just on the wall of a friend, sold by the thousand to a hotel chain, or purchased anonymously on the internet. Someone somewhere would likely appreciate my pictures too. However, unless it reaches a community prepped for it's arrival, there will be no adulation and competition to acquire it for the public and future generations to enjoy.

Doubtless, much, (or perhaps most), of the finest art never is discovered by the public!

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

fleig.jpg

Obviously it has a wonderful appearance. For sure it makes sense to be called art. But will it travel further and when is it "Art" to be sought after? Well for you, it already is Art as you value it enough to want to own it. That "wanting" helps to propel art from the ordinary to the extraordinary. Someone has to like the picture enough and appreciate it's sense of specialness to begin the journey from something nice to something that can rise it's head above the crowd and get ardent followers. For me, the picture is too even and consistant and shows no evidence of ranking of any elements or particular style. Now if there were siblings, I might then get captivated as I discover other qualities that distinguish it from "nice". So it could be a divine work to be treasured, but so far, to me at least, it's merely "nice".

Often, it takes persistence and consistency by the photographer, so their work is recognized. Your pictures of the Old city in Jerusalem have earned these qualities. But it still needs a special boost of enthusiasm to get the picture to be preserved for posterity with the resources of collectors, galleries and museums.

It might be that timing and opportunity is of paramount importance. There's often a market for all art. It might be just on the wall of a friend, sold by the thousand to a hotel chain, or purchased anonymously on the internet. Someone somewhere would likely appreciate my pictures too. However, unless it reaches a community prepped for it's arrival, there will be no adulation and competition to acquire it for the public and future generations to enjoy.

Doubtless, much, (or perhaps most), of the finest art never is discovered by the public!

So the guy says to a girl he met in a bar, "I'd like you to become my companion. I'll rent you an apartment in a fashionable neighborhood near my office and give you a $5000.00 per month drawing account."

She says, "Gee, that sounds swell. Let's do that."

He says, "Well, sadly, I've had some problems lately with my investments, and I actually can't really afford that. But for now, would you sleep with me tonight for $100.00?"

She says, "What do you think I am, a prostitute?"

He says. "We've already established that, honey - we're just arguing about the spot price".

I do not mean by my comments along this and parallel threads to in the slightest demean your very insightful comments on the "commercial value" of art - what makes certain art sought after by the (affluent) buying public, or by dealers and others in that chain. This is all of great importance to those who in fact may seek to earn revenue from their photographic endeavors. I applaud you clear illumination of this layer of the photographic sphere. And I wish you the best of success in your own aspirations along that line. Your work is superb, and you deserve to become wealthy from it. Cem, Fahim, and many others as well.

But I remain concerned by the not very subtle running subtext that perhaps we should not consider as actual "real" art works that have not met the test of marketability, or that to some person's a priori opinion would not meet that test if offered. We need to keep amply visible the various, simultaneously-extant, meanings of the "value" of some work.

"A drawing of a soup can? Really, now Bill!"

"A drawing of a soup can? Brilliant, Andy!"

Best regards,

Doug
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
If art is a form of expression then I would say that it would be valid for expression to only be recognised as such if it is being expressed, i.e. there is a second party.
 

Bob Rogers

New member
To me, it seems like "fine art" has a certain implied learning behind it, sort of like "classical music."

Sure you can have art without training, just as you can have music without training, but there is no classical music without training, practice, and discipline, and indeed instruction from someone who has previously mastered it. I would like to think that there is similarly visual art that requires training, practice, and discipline to be successful.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Bob,

To me, it seems like "fine art" has a certain implied learning behind it, sort of like "classical music."

Sure you can have art without training, just as you can have music without training, but there is no classical music without training, practice, and discipline, and indeed instruction from someone who has previously mastered it. I would like to think that there is similarly visual art that requires training, practice, and discipline to be successful.

Would you be so kind as to give us the definition of "classical music" within which your outlook works.

Most of the definitions I have seen would embrace music of a certain "style" even if done by a wholly incompetent, untrained, and undisciplined composer (just as there are really bad haiku that nevertheless fit the definition of that "form").

Then there is art that is exquisitely executed, by an artist of great skill, experience, insight, and diligence (perhaps a fabulous three-dimensional rendering of an aircraft frame by Oleg Antonov) that we do not choose to call "fine art" (perhaps since its motivation was "pragmatic").

But then if an art gallery takes it in on consignment, then perhaps it becomes "fine art" (or so it seem from recent discussions here).

But perhaps if a auction house dealing with rate with technical artifacts takes it in, it perhaps does not become "fine art".

"We" continue to search for a question to which we believe we have an answer.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Bob Rogers

New member
Hi, Bob,



Would you be so kind as to give us the definition of "classical music" within which your outlook works.

Hi Doug,

I was thinking from the musician's standpoint. My wife plays violin. There are no violinists in any orchestra that do not have substantial training; it's just not something (playing violin, that is) that one can learn on one's own.

I think one issue that is causing us trouble in this discussion is that we only have one word for the output of a camera.

Contrast that with a musical instrument. It's not always music that comes out of it. My wife might just make random noises. Or it could be non-musical structured noise (playing a continuous tone, perhaps). Or she might play rock music, or folk music. But sometimes she plays classical music. Intention is one aspect of it, of course (she won't accidentally play classical music) but it's not the only factor (someone with no training cannot pick up a violin and play classical music). With cameras we don't have words to distinguish like that.

I suspect that trying to define classical music is like trying to define porn. Or maybe like trying to define fine art. You can work around the edges and give examples, but there are no definitions that won't fail. I'm disappointed when I go to a gallery and I see photographs that aren't better than what I can do, and I'm really disappointed when I see photographs that I could have done better.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi, Bob,


Then there is art that is exquisitely executed, by an artist of great skill, experience, insight, and diligence (perhaps a fabulous three-dimensional rendering of an aircraft frame by Oleg Antonov) that we do not choose to call "fine art" (perhaps since its motivation was "pragmatic").

But, my engineering friend, we can use the "entropy" of engineering! We could have a known sculptural artist take hundreds of diverse parts of planes and build them to a 3D hotchpotch assembly to be exhibited outside the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles.



Rubins.jpg


MOCA: Nancy Rubins: Nancy Rubin's Chas' Stainless Steel, Mark Thompson's Airplane Parts, About 1000 Pounds of Stainless Steel Wire, Gagosian's Beverly Hills Space

Sculpture, 25ft high 54 ft wide, on the Sculpture Plaza of MOCA. "The heavy airplane parts are held in place by a web of twisted wire. She did not use welding
or glue! This sculpture is an incredible example of balance and counterbalance. The weight is perfectly distributed so that the sculpture doesn’t topple over."



But then if an art gallery takes it in on consignment, then perhaps it becomes "fine art" (or so it seem from recent discussions here).
unlikely, but not impossible, LOL!

But perhaps if a auction house dealing with rate with technical artifacts takes it in, it perhaps does not become "fine art".
Why would it be designated art at all, there'd be no point! They don't have authority and they don't sell "Fine Art"

"We" continue to search for a question to which we believe we have an answer.

You don't have to search, just turn on the faucet and you'll find some water and go to an art gallery and you''ll find art. :)

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
In order that the work of my colleagues here not be confounded by any uncertainty as to whether there is any uncertainty in this matter, I will concede as follows:

All things can be divided into one of three classes:

• Not art
• Art but not fine art
• Fine art​

Please, get back to work.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In order that the work of my colleagues here not be confounded by any uncertainty as to whether there is any uncertainty in this matter, I will concede as follows:

All things can be divided into one of three classes:

• Not art
• Art but not fine art
• Fine art​

Please, get back to work.

Best regards,

Doug

But only as exactly as

  • bone dry,
  • wet
  • drinking water

as almost all all bone dry things have some water attached, wet is hardly an exact term and drinking water can contain plastics, pesticides, tiny parasites, chlorine and even arsenic and still be certified as safe for drinking.

As I said before, turn on a faucet, one will find water, go to an art museum and one finds art, and if there's a Durer, Van Gogh or Rembrandt, it will be coveted as "Fine Art".

That does not cast an aspersions of the artistry of artisans or the art of medicine, but these are in different bubbles of understandings.

Asher
 
Top