• 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!

But is it art and so what?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Probably, I take the blame here for us over-worrying as whether or not something is "Art". We take pictures for so many reasons, hardly any for art out of bilions made each year. Photography is part of our life to document where we've been, who we meet, what we want to buy or where we'd like to go. It's embedded into almost all social exchange now and almost never gets to be printed.

Here we'd expect to have the majority of work being good representations of images that please us: form, color, balance and content all being sufficient enough to wake us up, engage us and make a good start of an exchange.

After all, one can be successful news reporter, forensic photographer, work on product, insurance and science projects, earn a good living and be happy with what we do. Yes, some like Nicolas Claris ,(and his also super-talented cinematographer son, Romain,) might shoot from a chase boat, scaffolding or tethered from a helicopter. But all in all, these accomplished folk are not doing art, unless they say so!

I'd wager that, the work done in all the occupations I've mentioned, include some of the most creative photography ever made.

Not art, mostly because they don't present and propel their work as such.

So let's not worry about photography "as Art" unless that's the declared intent of the photographer or we're moved to blurt it out! Then, that's totally wonderful!

Still, there's so much to do before we declare the word "Art"! Lets focus instead on more basic skill sets of image acquisition. We need pictures that do the job declared for them. But if we don't say anything about our pictures, (assuming it's all art), then we might be stuck with two obvious problems:


  1. First pictures get a free ride for technical errors, as we retreat defensively behind the reply, "But it's my Art!"

  2. Next we get to dismiss most pictures as they might not move us as art, but be excellent photographs doing their intended job.


Mea culpa! :)


Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
But all in all, these accomplished folk are not doing art, unless they say so!
Well Asher, as I agree with what you wrote here (I hope I understood all! ; ) I have to weigh this (quoted) sentence.
My job is 90% commercial, Romain's is 70%. For the rest of it, we just cannot say/decide if it is art.
Only the viewer can. We are always assuming our published works, however we stay modest and humble. The verdict is not ours. The verdict may change a lot while time goes…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well Asher, as I agree with what you wrote here (I hope I understood all! ; ) I have to weigh this (quoted) sentence.
My job is 90% commercial, Romain's is 70%. For the rest of it, we just cannot say/decide if it is art.
Only the viewer can. We are always assuming our published works, however we stay modest and humble. The verdict is not ours. The verdict may change a lot while time goes…



Nicolas,

I have to repeat my qualifying statements about the presence of "Art" in commercial work.

"I'd wager that, the work done in all the occupations I've mentioned, include some of the most creative photography ever made.

Not art, mostly because they don't present and propel their work as such.

So let's not worry about photography "as Art" unless that's the declared intent of the photographer or we're moved to blurt it out! Then, that's totally wonderful!"


Your work, any of it, can be called art, if someone wants to put it in that arena. The photographs, and BTW, Romain's videos too), all are already well informed by meticulous technique, polished esthetics and charm! It's just a matter of putting the energy and full faith of one's being to place then in the public arena of art. Even if the gladiator is killed, he's still a gladiator, likewise, if one puts their work in the arena of art, (art galleries, art dealers and the like) and it's the quality you consistently deliver, then of course it's all art, whether or not it sells as fast as you like.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I can't offer anything to this conversation because I don't understand it.
But I know a Monty Python line when I see it.
The gladiator is dead, deceased, demised, no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, its a late gladiator, a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace.
He's an EX- gladiator.
Not so for art.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
It is only those that have an unwarranted high opinion of themselves that consider their work/s to be ' Art '

Similarly those who aspire to or indulge in proclaiming someone's work to be ' Art '.

Visit a cemetery. Many 'artists' to be found all over the world there...and the waiting que is getting long!!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
It is only those that have an unwarranted high opinion of themselves that consider their work/s to be ' Art '

Similarly those who aspire to or indulge in proclaiming someone's work to be ' Art '.

Visit a cemetery. Many 'artists' to be found all over the world there...and the waiting que is getting long!!

Fahim,

You're conflating, fusing or mixing up the word "Artist" (or "Art") with skilled, talented, visionary people worthy of respect and admiration, (or their body of "oeuvres" or body of work worthy of securing, conserving).

In a perfect world, we'd objectively discover, recognize and publicly appreciate all talented and accomplished creators of works that give wonderful experiences to people: music, poetry, paintings, sculpture, photography and so much more we call "Art". But we have no objective means to discover the "worthy Art" from the pretentious and superficial pieces asserted by someone or other to be significant. So Art in a museum or gallery is the closest we have to the best of such works ever made.

Art simply represents innumerable stages in implausible, (worthy and unjust) journeys for recognition, beginning from someone trying to create unique physical things that can be experienced, (with evoked feelings and ideas) to the very rare end-result of people competing to acquire the work and museums preserving a select few for us to enjoy.

It has nothing to do with fairness, recognition of equally, (or even more talented people), but rather with acclaimed work that is propelled to the public awareness. It can be mass produced or a rare commodity, but it's recognized!

The other talented folk did not make it or survive in the public arens that matter: the art galleries and museums and collectors. If someone does not risk their own dedicated work and name by putting their work in an Art Exhibit for sale, then the work is very unlikely to be ever recognized as Art. Putting one's work in play is a contribution to society that most folk are too self-conscious, or unsure of themselves to risk doing or else do not care to be involved. Of course, some paintings or photographs discovered after a person passed are recognized as outstanding art and then sold and collected as treasures; but that is very rare.

So for sure, their are graveyards full of people who could have been celebrated as artists, but didn't succeed or didn't get the help they need or just plain didn't enter the arena!

The bottom line is that to see "Art", go to an art museum. Most of it will be very good. Some pieces may not stand the test of time, but it's an imperfect world. That's the way it's done with mere individual humans selecting for their existing collections from what is available and affordable. So each museum will obtain what suits their character and many worthy orignal and even precious works will be left for smaller commercial galleries that form another but massive layer of selected works of Art, all of different character, academic recognition and mass popularity.

So what has this to do with talented "artists" who have not entered these arenas for art that's commercially viable? Nothing!

As I implied, all art is in a continuum of obscurity to fame and wealth. Who gets what is a matter of market forces and good fortune, not according to some useful formula of objective worth. Those in their grave got or missed their turn, but that's just one of the myriad of tragedies of life. Ask the gulls trapped in oil, the forgotten orphans or the young still breathing deer, ripped apart by a pack of wolves.

So get over self-proclaiming one's art work is "Art"! It's a personal choice, and you may be right! One can also claim to be a gladiator! Just enter the dusty stadium, before the crowds in the stands, and we'll find out, in due course, in practical terms, whether or not that's a claim you can live and raise a family with.

So let someone claim whatever they like and don't denigrate their choice, mock or dismiss them. How do you know their art is unworthy and pretentious? Time will tell whether they are an artist as to whether people return to the works, spread the word and give up money to acquire it. That's the final arbiter of what "Art" might be.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Forget "Art" as some filter! It's the interesting photograph we want!

For those who like succinct!

It's your photograph that commands interest, we want! Art? Here, that presumption is entirely optional!

We're interested in all photography made for any reason where you, yourself have satisfaction, (or else just want to share for any good or casual reason). We know you will show work that has meaning to you and your own goals. I intend not to denigrate "photography as art", (as that is a very practical and potentially viable, commercial end goal), but I do not want that goal to dominate all our discussions to the exclusion of so much more, that the photograph represents to us.

If we think of some of our photography as "art", (that, BTW, is my own interest), so be it and good luck to us all! :). However, we're much more interested in the wider view of photography: the well-made or impressive photograph, whatever your values and purpose!

When you share often enough, (so we know where you're coming from), the discussion will be of enjoyable for us all.

Asher
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
If someone does not risk their own dedicated work and name by putting their work in an Art Exhibit for sale, then the work is very unlikely to be ever recognized as Art.

Asher,

maybe Economically successful Artist during his/her lifetime would be a better matching title of what you wrote.

There are many examples of artists only recognized after their death while not being economically successful with their art as well as artists who were economically successful during their lifetime but are now (almost) forgotten...

A few examples of these who were not successful with their art during their lifetime (all Wikipedia links as it is a good starting point for further exploration of the subject). Some tried to publish but for example Vivian Maier did not even bother (as others a more through search would yield):

Henry Darger
Emily Dickinson
Franz Kafka
Vincent van Gogh
Vivian Maier

The opposite is more frequent in music - economical success can be very short-lived and only few make a long-lasting imprint:

The group Asia is a prominent example.
Think of good selling artists no longer in the news...

So I do agree with Fahim on self-proclaimed artists.

Being commercially successful in art requires being good in PR and Networking beyond the dedicaton to the work itself. Shortcomings in the latter can be compensated by the former...

The art from influential and iconic artists is worth being preserved (my opinion). What is influential art can only be determined later in history. The art to be preserved is quite often from artists who were not that successful economically as their work was not aimed at the art market of their time, but openend the path for new forms of expression.

Economic success in art is a nice thing, but it shall not blind us...

Best regards,
Michael
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The gladiator is dead, deceased, demised, no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, its a late gladiator, a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace.
He's an EX- gladiator.
Not so for art.
Tom,

A dead gladiator cannot rest in peace! That's an oxymoron!

However, a gladiator pretending to be dead, might rest in peace................... this time around! :)

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I think that the problem in the discussion arises from the fact that you and the whole art industry uses the same word for very different things.

There is a concept called "art" or "fine art", which is a concept used for marketing Veblen goods. The goods do not need to have any particular intrinsic characteristic, as aptly demonstrated by Marcel Duchamp and his "ready made". I believe that this is the most generally accepted use of the word and the least problematic. Hence my personal definition: "art is what hangs in a museum". ;)

There is an old-fashioned concept of things which were very difficult to manufacture and needed makers experienced in their craft. That is the old sense of the latin word: ars (gen: artis), from which the present word "art" is derived. Photography and the birth of mass production were instrumental in changing this concept for ever.

There are products of the human spirit which produce incredible emotions on the recipient. The first time I heard Mozart's Requiem opening, I was so much out of myself that I could not think properly. The first time I saw Edward Weston's "Shell" (I know you like that picture), I had the feeling that there was more to photography than I thought possible.
Interestingly, only part of these products are generally considered "art". Mathematicians will also get a mystic emotion at a well demonstrated theorem or engineers at the well designed machine. Yet these categories are generally not considered to belong to "art", since they are rarely perceived as such by the general public. I am obviously adding that paragraph for our engineer members (hint, Doug...), but there is a lesson to that: the public is part of the process.

In truth, these are completely different concepts under a single and this is the reason why the discussion is confusing. Obviously, the users of the first concept ("marketing") use that confusion to their benefits.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Fahim,

You're conflating, fusing or mixing up the word "Artist" (or "Art") with skilled, talented, visionary people worthy of respect and admiration, (or their body of "oeuvres" or body of work worthy of securing, conserving).

.....
So let someone claim whatever they like and don't denigrate their choice, mock or dismiss them. How do you know their art is unworthy and pretentious? Time will tell whether they are an artist as to whether people return to the works, spread the word and give up money to acquire it. That's the final arbiter of what "Art" might be.

Asher

How do you know their work is worthy? Just because people like you say so!!

Don't be pretentious Asher. Others too can appreciate and differentiate between good and bad...not only those that belong to a certain segment of society.
 
Top