Installation?

Not the photo so much but the 'installation'.
Is it art?

Tom dinning said:

Not the photo so much but the 'installation'.
Is it art?

_DSF9953 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr​

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your composition with the line of green and especially the lamp on the right is so balanced that we do not see the washing lines, except as parts of a single unified composition. That intervention of the lamp, in particular, locks the parts together.

You have to leave behind such innate compositional skills to allow us to appreciate the native rawness of the washing line, a form of solar laundry drying that is actually quite clever!

Asher

Hi, Tom,

Tom dinning said:

Not the photo so much but the 'installation'.
Is it art?

_DSF9953 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr​

Click to expand...

A wondrous shot, which well reflects your perceptive artist's eye.

I think that indeed the two "installations" are themselves art, albeit in a form not usually recognized as such.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi,

no, it is not art, it is the normality of everydays life.

Wolfgang Plattner said:

Hi,

no, it is not art, it is the normality of everydays life.

Click to expand...

Not in my life, Wolfgang, hence the photo.

So, here's the scenario.

Architect designs building to a functional and artistic brief.
Colour of the wall selected to an aesthetic brief.
Windows decorated to a personal preference.
Washing hung for functional reasons and to keep in balance with other washing hangers.
Clothes selected in an order set by owner.
Lamp placed for best lighting effect.
Plumbing and other utilities for function placed to provide lest interruption to visual effect.
Pathway for me to walk on so 'art' is displayed to best advantage.

What have I missed?

Tom dinning said:

Not in my life, Wolfgang, hence the photo.

So, here's the scenario.

Architect designs building to a functional and artistic brief.
Colour of the wall selected to an aesthetic brief.
Windows decorated to a personal preference.
Washing hung for functional reasons and to keep in balance with other washing hangers.
Clothes selected in an order set by owner.
Lamp placed for best lighting effect.
Plumbing and other utilities for function placed to provide lest interruption to visual effect.
Pathway for me to walk on so 'art' is displayed to best advantage.

What have I missed?

Click to expand...

There's no unity of purpose. These are separate things.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

There's no unity of purpose. These are separate things.

Asher

Click to expand...

You see them as separate things.

Each stage was considered in the light of the others and with their consideration in mind by the contributors. Each addition was placed with all other components in mind, maybe not by a single person all at once, but built on as a dynamic art work might where people add their own touch and allow the art to grow, evolve and flux.

The end product (and I don't believe there is one - washing comes and goes, paint fades, ambient light alters, windows open and close ..) is for us to see and interpret in our own way.

What is represented her?
Classical suburbia in Venice.
Community living.
The aesthetic arrangement.
The composition as a formal use of space.
Entrapment of modern society.
The isolation of individuals.
2000 years of history comes to this.
Where now?

It might very well be a theoretical statement of what art is; being that which we observe and interpret in our own way.

If this had been constructed by and 'artists' we would accept it as art. Instead, we deny it as art because it was produced by a group of people, each having their own unity of purpose.

Does not the final product then, have a unity, a collective-ness, a singularity of structure which serves a single purpose as well as a multiple of purposes. It's singularity is to provide a place of dwelling for many. The pieces are united in that.
Can such things be considered art?
I understand that they already are.

We know since Marcel Duchamp that mundane objects can be changed to art piece by taking them outside of their usual settings and displaying them in an exhibition. For Marcel Duchamp, it is the act of taking the object out of its context that makes it art. Isn't it what you are also doing here?

Isn't it still in context, Jerome? What's your opinion?

As a photograph, it's art.

If Duchamp announces it as art, then it would be too, but he had the power, influence and authority to do that!

Asher

I am reminded of the line from F Troup when the Sarg was getting instruction to the Indian camp.
"Turn right at the rock that looks like a bear, the left at the bear that looks like a rock".

Perhaps all is art until we say otherwise, or possibly none is art until named so.

The scene was out of context for me, but not necessarily to to locals, who, in their own way, had decorated their walls in many different ways.

I don't see the photograph of the wall as art; just a recording of what I deemed art.

In all respects, this wall met my criteria for art, not only in its content and construct but in its composition, impact on my senses, and the manner in which I emotionally connected with it.

Do we really need someone to tell us that this should happen? Isn't it enough that it it happens, even with one individual in a moment of connection beyond the physical context in which the object is placed and into the context we choose to place it; one that we fabricate in our own head?

When I first saw this place the word 'art' didn't rise to the surface. It was not until I had spent some time looking and wondering did I feel I was being transformed from reality.

Then someone stuck their head out of one of the windows and called:

"incazzare , pervertito , prima che chiami la polizia"

Such is the nature of reality.

"
"

Tom dinning said:

...................Then someone stuck their head out of one of the windows and called:

"incazzare , pervertito , prima che chiami la polizia"

Click to expand...

Well then, that raises my respect for these citizens. They recognize a fellow that keeps coming back, staring up into their underwear!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

As a photograph, it's art.

Click to expand...

I am not disputing that.

I think we loose the sight. How can one define art ? I see art in everything. Life is art! Any way you turn East South, North, West...up, down right, left is Art! For me it is what I can relate too and evert person relates differently. I do not ever let another person define "what art is for me" It is very personal as is this Photo. I like this. I like the geometry and composition- shadow and lines and color. It is a neatly wrapped package.

Charlotte-

charlotte thompson said:

I think we loose the sight. How can one define art ? I see art in everything. Life is art! Any way you turn East South, North, West...up, down right, left is Art! For me it is what I can relate too and evert person relates differently. I do not ever let another person define "what art is for me" It is very personal as is this Photo. I like this. I like the geometry and composition- shadow and lines and color. It is a neatly wrapped package.

Charlotte-

Click to expand...

...........and thus the essence of my argument. "Art" in our society is a term designating some modification or reassignment of materials under the will of the artist who has taken authority over them for expressing his/her esthetic creative sense. Here, however, like coming across a view of a sunset or a duck with her ducklings, we cannot claim any creative authority over what we see, so there is no "Art" other than the art of nature itself.

Until an artist exerts impressive authority over some material, it does not rise to be "Art". This could be achieved by Prince arriving at the scene and waving his arm at the facade of the building or a graffiti artist drawing a huge circle around it. But in some way, an act of authority or personal influence by the artist is needed. Just passing by and taking a photograph creates a photograph, without affecting a recognized alteration in the identity of the building. So the latter, however decorated and beautiful is not yet art.

However if people, (perhaps under the influence of Tom's photograph, or otherwise), came to see it just to appreciate it, (and not merely to steal the laundry), then it has already become art, as it has an identity that breathes and demands our attention.

If we do not make such distinctions, then "Art" as an entity no longer exists apart from the beauty of so much that surrounds us.




In similar fashion, this photograph does not show an "installation" as there is no esthetic overriding authority and influence over it that has, as yet, been installed!

Still, you, Tom Dinning, (the talented photographer with aptitude for recognizing sets of things that are worthy of recording in a unique fashion), can name your photograph: "Building with Laundry", "Rhubarb", "All in the family" or "Installation?" as your whim or interlect advises!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

...........and thus the essence of my argument. "Art" in our society is a term designating some modification or reassignment of materials under the will of the artist who has taken authority over them for expressing his/her esthetic creative sense. Here, however, like coming across a view of a sunset or a duck with her ducklings, we cannot claim any creative authority over what we see, so there is no "Art" other than the art of nature itself.

Until an artist exerts impressive authority over some material, it does not rise to be "Art". This could be achieved by Prince arriving at the scene and waving his arm at the facade of the building or a graffiti artist drawing a huge circle around it. But in some way, an act of authority or personal influence by the artist is needed. Just passing by and taking a photograph creates a photograph, without affecting a recognized alteration in the identity of the building. So the latter, however decorated and beautiful is not yet art.

However if people, (perhaps under the influence of Tom's photograph, or otherwise), came to see it just to appreciate it, (and not merely to steal the laundry), then it has already become art, as it has an identity that breathes and demands our attention.

If we do not make such distinctions, then "Art" as an entity no longer exists apart from the beauty of so much that surrounds us.

_DSF9953 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr​

In similar fashion, this photograph does not show an "installation" as there is no esthetic overriding authority and influence over it that has, as yet, been installed!

Still, you, Tom Dinning, (the talented photographer with aptitude for recognizing sets of things that are worthy of recording in a unique fashion), can name your photograph: "Building with Laundry", "Rhubarb", "All in the family" or "Installation?" as your whim or interlect advises!

Click to expand...

Well said (meaning, "I mostly agree").

Best regards,

Doug

My early morning thoughts run to cynicism, as usual.
Charlottes uses the word 'art' as a metaphor for life. People often do. That's as good a usage as any and is generally accepted as appropriate usage.

Asher, you use 'art', the concept, as if it belongs to a fixed set of objects or ideas. Is that because it sells better?

I'm suggesting that we can see 'art' in many things. Instead of just being a creative process (and there is no doubt this scene has been 'created') creativity might also be with the beholder; i.e. Art might, in this case, in the eyes of the beholder.

So, all you old fogies who like their art hanging on a gallery wall and viewed while sipping Chardonnay and considering the price tag, I suggest you get out more.

I need a coffee.

Tom dinning said:

So, all you old fogies who like their art hanging on a gallery wall and viewed while sipping Chardonnay and considering the price tag

Click to expand...

Well... that seems like a pleasant way to entertain oneself. Besides, in these galleries, you don't only have Chardonnay and art but usually also young attractive women. I know worse things an old foggy can do with his evenings.

Tom dinning said:

My early morning thoughts run to cynicism, as usual.
Charlottes uses the word 'art' as a metaphor for life. People often do. That's as good a usage as any and is generally accepted as appropriate usage.

Asher, you use 'art', the concept, as if it belongs to a fixed sfet of objects or ideas. Is that because it sells better?

I'm suggesting that we can see 'art' in many things. Instead of just being a creative process (and there is no doubt this scene has been 'created') creativity might also be with the beholder; i.e. Art might, in this case, in the eyes of the beholder.

So, all you old fogies who like their art hanging on a gallery wall and viewed while sipping Chardonnay and considering the price tag, I suggest you get out more.

I need a coffee.

Click to expand...

Tom,

We are all happy with concepts like "Art is in the eye of the beholder".......and certainly the artist when it meets his or her expectations to a sufficient extent. Yes all this is a kind of art, but not necessarily the art that is shown in galleries and or saved for our culture's future generations after a considerable degree of selection to try to choose only from amongst the most original and worthy of taking up precious gallery or museum space.

You can't, even with your current state of fame, assign the status of "Art Installation" to a wall with washing you happen to like and deem esthetically remarkable. You'd need to be Duchamp himself, Elvis or Madonna to have at least a chance of pulling it off. But then they'd have to kill you to stop you making similar declarations of discovered, "installations" from your train window as you travelled from one city to another, as you'd dilute the signicance of the concept of "Art Installation" in one or two train journeys, LOL!

It means that, in this case, notwithstanding your wit and sense of outback humor, not even you can simply hijack a word connected with mainstream major gallery "Art", under the specific dilettante term of "installation" and pretend it's usage gets the same casual meaning as the so-called art that I might make this weekend with my grandkids or that a store for tourists con folks to buy on their vacation on a bridge in Paris or Budapest - all nice mementos but all in a different category than so-called "Art" in a major city or national gallery or prized and renowned collection. This does not exclude the possibility that some works found in one place better belongs in another, but overall the distinctions are understood, notwithstanding your allusion to the qualification of champagne or Chardonnay flowing too for "fancy"art.

Suffice to say, the word "installation" associated with the word art, only seriously belongs to art in museums, galleries and art schools or such similar venues.

If you wish to use the term "installation", you cannot complain if your shot from a car window of a farm or chemical factory, does not make the location into a believable "Art Installation" no more than going past these structures allows you to donate them to your favorite charity or put them up for sale on eBay!

Asher

Don't get your knickers in a knot, Ash, it was just a thought.
You can have your word back. I just borrowed it for a while. It's not damaged or soiled by my 'outback' hands.
I know I can't change the world from my couch, here in working class suburbia, but from time to time I like to see who I can jab with a sharp stick. It's a trait I'm passing on to my great grand daughter.

Yesterday she was struggling with her seat belt. I butted in and showed her how to do it.
"You're such a hero, Poppa Tom" she smerked.
She said it in such a way that I could clearly get the innuendo without her having to say "f-ucking hero"

So, it's clear you have given me a thorough going over with my suggestion to the appropriation of the word 'art'. You seem well established in your conviction.
Thanks for the chat.
Now where's that sharp stick?
Xx

Tom dinning said:

Not the photo so much but the 'installation'.
Is it art?

Click to expand...

Hello Tom,

Now we understand that your picture serves at least two purposes.

First you bring us a composition made up of the various elements seen associated with an apartment house wall. There are washing lines with drying laundry. A planter with some apparently living plants, some various other fixtures set on a salmon covered stucco wall background and to the right, what appears to be a single street lamp.

Secondly you present us with a conundrum, a challenge as to whether or not this image can be a photograph of a happening, in fact a particular kind of happening, "an art installation".

This mundane, (but poke-in-the-face), challenge is akin to the statement, "Ce nest pas uno pipe!", by Magritte.



When obviously it was a picture which perfectly illustrates the form of a pipe, but itself is just paint and canvas, not by any means the thing we'd imagine it to be.

So, perhaps we need to get the Chardonnay and Champers delivered, old chap, as it appears you might have created a like challenge for us to obsess upon a while. I doubt that it will cause perturbations like those of the pipe, but your statement is equally confrontational and worth pondering on for a short while, at least.

Asher