Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Photography Discussions > Photography as Art

Photography as Art Original boundary-testing images. Open to comments without moderation. For works intended for clients and galleries submit to GALLERY ONE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 21st, 2013, 12:35 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
stick to my contention that one has to accept layers of art existing. That art starts with the export of an imagined set of feelings and esthetics into, (or onto), a new, (or existing physical form), designed to evoke a range of emotional feelings and or reflections by the visitor to it.
You're far too serious for this discussion. Let's see: how would you define art? My definition is quite simple: art is what is produced by an artist. You'll recognise it because it hangs in a museum or because the artist has silly clothes and a résumé written in gibberish. It is a definition that works for most practical purposes. What is yours?
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old April 21st, 2013, 12:47 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
You're far too serious for this discussion. Let's see: how would you define art? My definition is quite simple: art is what is produced by an artist. You'll recognise it because it hangs in a museum or because the artist has silly clothes and a résumé written in gibberish. It is a definition that works for most practical purposes. What is yours?

Jerome,

I'm a dreamer and a romantic, but also a scientist to boot! So I do at times tend to want to distill poetics to something logical.

Jerome, yours is a seriously great definition! My ideas of art, (as expressed repeatedly here) is as being nascent when the creator exports his/her ideas and feelings to a new or existing material form, so that it can be appreciated by others. When someone is moved by evoked emotions and implications of the work it begins its long and unlikely journey to acquisition by collectors or museums, just like the impossible journey of salmon swimming upstream, few actually arrive to spawn.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old April 21st, 2013, 01:26 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
My ideas of art, (as expressed repeatedly here) is as being nascent when the creator exports his/her ideas and feelings to a new or existing material form, so that it can be appreciated by others.
Any human creation is an idea exported from someone's brain, even the bricks building your house, the screws and gears in your car or the design of your house slippers. Yet people do not consider these to be "art". Your definition does not work.

Duchamp's bottle rack certainly started as an idea in someone's brain and is appreciated by others. My neighbor in France uses exactly the same rack (they are still built today) and appreciates it very much to let his wine bottles dry after cleaning them. Yet it is not art, unless put by Duchamp in a museum.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:00 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Any human creation is an idea exported from someone's brain, even the bricks building your house, the screws and gears in your car or the design of your house slippers. Yet people do not consider these to be "art". Your definition does not work.
Jerome,

But these objects, (bricks, screws and gears and the like), are made exclusively for their utility. Unlike art, they're not created to give us an emotional experience nor as expressions of esthetics to physical form. They are not engraved with triggers to evoke emotions and feelings and then to have an individual life in our societies as an object of imagination, appreciation and experience. They are not worth revisiting over and over again for new experiences and to renew our friendships! They are just what the are bricks, screws, gears the like, that and no more, unless, of course, a Dadaist finds them, LOL!

It's that arc of artistic intent that's built into works we call art, that begin their long journey to being valued as fine Art. But first someone has to be moved beyond the utility of the thing itself. Duchamp happened to be able to export his ideas successfully on to a mass-production urinal to be appreciated apart from and despite its original humble utility.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:39 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

I'm still not convinced, Asher. Objects made exclusively for their utility was the credo of the Bauhaus school, yet their works are generally considered to be "art". Conversely, when people take pictures of their young children, they use that medium as a vessel for their emotions, yet most of these pictures would be refused by a museum and mocked by critics.

Let me broaden a bit the subject: at which point in history was the idea born that artists are people rising above the rest of humanity for their unique ability to have a "vision", emotions or whatever?

You are missing the flip side of the coin in that game: for defining art and artist, you must also define what is not art and who is not an artist. You must take a whole collection of objects which may even be of value or be nice to look at and decide that the whole lot won't be accepted. You must take a crowd of people and decide that none of them are worth of the "artist" designation that this or that single other person chosen by critics enjoys.

Because we humans have all feelings emotions and we all imagine and create things and we all embed our feelings in inanimate objects. That simply is a feature of the human species and starts when we are small children.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:49 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

I found back a video that is appropriate to this discussion. We talked about Marcel Duchamp and who he was instrumental in changing the definition of art by his invention of the ready made. Here is an interview of him about the ready made. It is in French, but I don't think that understanding the language is necessary to get the message here. That man was simply incredibly clever and understood very well what he was doing. And it was never about feelings, emotional experience or esthetics. Just watch him.

http://www.ina.fr/video/CPD07011070
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old April 21st, 2013, 03:36 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I found back a video that is appropriate to this discussion. We talked about Marcel Duchamp and who he was instrumental in changing the definition of art by his invention of the ready made. Here is an interview of him about the ready made. It is in French, but I don't think that understanding the language is necessary to get the message here. That man was simply incredibly clever and understood very well what he was doing. And it was never about feelings, emotional experience or esthetics. Just watch him.

http://www.ina.fr/video/CPD07011070
Jerome,

This is interesting but still a little hard to understand fully as I have to listen several times and think about what he says. Can you explain the "retinal Effect" he refers to?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old April 21st, 2013, 03:45 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I'm still not convinced, Asher. Objects made exclusively for their utility was the credo of the Bauhaus school, yet their works are generally considered to be "art".
Bauhaus was practical movement for using modern materials and creation techniques for architecture, printing and more. Some were indeed just utilitarian whiles others were no doubt art from the outset. Bauhaus certainly used esthetics in its approaches. Some bauhaus buildings are indeed intended as works of art. ...... but not all. Collecting examples of such works often is done to document important movements as in saving antique furniture of Louis XIV period, or ancient printing presses. They are collected as they are rare and important to the collective memories of our culture, primarily, and not for their artistic value. They are collected in museums and one can muse on them, but they are not art merely for that unique fact of inclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Conversely, when people take pictures of their young children, they use that medium as a vessel for their emotions, yet most of these pictures would be refused by a museum and mocked by critics.
Not so, Jerome,

Family mementos do not infringe my concept of exporting ideas to a physical form for the purpose of creating experience in vistors and recruiting attention so as to be accepted as Art. Mementos for family reflection do of course contain emotions, but are not designed to elicit such feelings for society at large and there's no attempt or intention to bring the pictures to the public arena to compete for a place as art. So mementos, like crime pictures and insurance photographs, are not born as Art although any modern day Duchamp could dissolve previous meaning and attempt to repurpose them as such, LOL

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 05:21 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,045
Default

I believe that once we have determined what "art" is, we should devote our collective intellect to a quest to define "fassiture".

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 08:22 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

While folks are trying to meet and engineering definition of "fassiture", let me disclose that the largest cut of the pie of spending by the wealthy is for fine art, above private aircraft. If one does express one's ideas in art and is ambitious, there's a lot of money available for your work. Is it hard to get "in" to the very top rung of "Artists", yes, but not greater then getting a position at Harvard, Yale or Princeton. One just has to be talented, labor hard and be exceptional in talent and good luck. Just recently a street artist from Los Angeles entered that select group and he's now selling each painting for a princely sum. Large photographs fit well in large homes and prestigious buildings.

There are many people, not wealthy, but comfortable, that want to beautify their walls ans so the demand for such photography has increased. That art is purchased from an Art Gallery. This and the more choice photographic works in museums are the "Fine Art" I refer to.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 09:21 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

Isn't fassiture a kind of turgey vorpal? In any case, it is a manxome word.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 09:26 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,947
Default

Only if the vorpalist declares his intention that his turgey is indeed fassiture.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 12:37 PM
Michael Nagel Michael Nagel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich/Germany
Posts: 2,214
Default

Vogon poetry anyone?
__________________
I do not call myself an artist, I just try to capture what I see.
If you need many words to describe what your picture means, it doesn't speak enough for itself.
my photos on flickr - here is the portion posted in OPF.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 12:44 PM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,947
Default

Great, I love Vogon poetry. Just let me take the Babel fish out of my ear first. Now where was my towel again?
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 01:22 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

I ask folk to return to post # 30 which deals with the dismissal of "Fine Art" going beyond Will Thompson's opening salvo, albeit with valid complaints about use of terms like, "Fine Art" to charge more for high end papers.

My own interest here is to offer that Fine Art is a practical term that applies to a part of highly rewarding photography, considered by galleries, museums and collectors to be exceptional in their class. So "Fine Art Photography" is a really valuable and clear concept and if we visit galleries and museums in any modern city, we can will discover firsthand the range of the kind of work against which we'd need to compete.

Again, let me point out the potential rewards for the very few who might succeed in selling in this market. More discretionary wealth is spent on art than any other category. Photography, (from small classic well-known favorites to newer and much larger wall pieces), are in ever increasing demand. So while it might sound easy fun being dismissive to the term "Fine Art" as being pretentious, vague, self-designated and even false, in practical terms, what's sold as the best photographic art is indeed unusually admirable and rare often in craft, style, vision or all three. One can belong to a chuckling self-reinforcing society of Aristotelian logicians, mocking the term to dismiss "Fine Art" as hypocritical nonsense. Then one is ignoring one of the most massively voracious new markets for skilled photographers with a personal conviction of their own vision and the rare fortune to be successful.

I know more than a few here who could compete in this rare field under the right circumstances. If you can make the equivalent in a photographic print 1/10 of the power and uniqueness of Scythian Gold, then you will succeed in selling your photography in the finest of galleries. Anything in that class is Photographic Fine Art!

In short, Will Thompson is in error! The term "Fine Art Photography" is neither a misnomer nor hypocritical. Doug in being careful logical and therefore, dismissive is also mistaken on this very rare occasion.

Rather, the relevance, meaning, value and provenance of "Fine Art" is apparent only in the successful end result of a long and arduous but focussed journey. It's one started with an imagination and compelling idea. This then is photographically transformed, the real and the imagined, to a print, something physical, that has to breathe and find its place and compete. It must be appreciated by others, providing such a unique experience, that the picture compels being revisited and drawing admirers. The ultimate success in its arrival in a prestigious art gallery or museum requires nothing more than hard work, devotion, originality, persistance, talent, self-worth, community support and also good fortune. All these characteristics, even the last one, "good fortune", are within reach of photographers, potentially no different than more than a few photographers here.

My object in replying at such length, and in such stubborn seriousness, is that I believe in the talent and capabilities of a number of posters here. Yes, it's beyond most of us, but let's not be dismissive of the entire process as hypocritical just because it's hard, inexact, unfair or lacks transparency.

Of course, there's risk in investing so much effort in making photography to sell as Fine Art. The grower of corn can always sell although the price may fluctuate according to demand. This doesn't hold with art as it has no utilitarian function other than working on people's psyche. Unfortunately some of the finest photography can be ignored if fashion, taste, access and timing are not lined up with the stars!

In short, if getting into a major gallery is your goal, then if we can help add a little light in your path, we'll do it, but most of it is up to you.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old April 22nd, 2013, 10:54 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,359
Default

What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.

I don't really have the time to develop the subject know, I'll come back to it in the evening. But I already gave the key: fine art is marketed as Veblen goods. It must be kept rare to sell. The more people are excluded from the party, the rarer it is and the better it will sell.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old April 23rd, 2013, 01:03 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 31,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.
Thanks Jerome for the encouragement. I was feeling alone for a while!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I don't really have the time to develop the subject know, I'll come back to it in the evening. But I already gave the key: fine art is marketed as Veblen goods. It must be kept rare to sell. The more people are excluded from the party, the rarer it is and the better it will sell.

So right about rarity. There's one fellow here who's work measures with the greats, in my opinion, but he offers his work on the internet for hundreds of dollars. No one buys, I told him, so why not jack up the price to $3,000 or more and then it's worth wall space for someone to represent you. Who could ever consider to invest wall space in you, if you give a way work and destroy your own marketability.

Now Leo Castelli was a master of keeping things rare. "Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, Frank Stella, Robert Rauschenberg, and many other seminal artists." were enriched by his promotion management and controlled exposure. You were privileged to even get access to his rostrum of artists. That's how he could demand fortunes for their work. Read the brilliant work by Annie Cohen Solal in her 2010 book on Castelli, "Leo and His Circle". The book should be available in her native French and in English. $25 would be a bargain but too many were printed, I guess and prices can be as low as under $6:00. That after all is rather ironic!

Still, there's nothing hypocritical about any of that. If something is not rare, then how much can it be worth?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old April 23rd, 2013, 07:06 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,045
Default

Hi, Jerome,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
What you write about fine art is true, Asher, but you are forgetting one important aspect: aggression, conflict, violence, social status. This is the reason why e.g. engineers and technical people profess in jest that they are not artists (while there are precious few professions that are as creative as being an engineer). Joking is a way to dispel aggression.
Merci bcp!

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mitch Alland's "An Approach To Street Photography" Article Sean Reid Still Photo: Approaching Fine Photography 63 November 29th, 2008 01:29 AM
TIF, The Truth in Photography" movement, how far does it influence you? Asher Kelman Layback Cafe 54 June 6th, 2008 12:09 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2014 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!