• 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!

what IS "art" in photography all about?

R

Rachel Foster

New member
Ok, it seems to me that Ray is on the right track in urging clarity and precise definitions of terms. Although the term "success" was withdrawn, I think it's still valid. How do we become successful photographers?

To answer that we must define our goals. Make money? Success means pleasing the greatest number of people possible. Please ourselves? That could be more difficult for some of us. I will never be entirely satisfied with the end product. However, the process of growth is immensely satisfying to me. In that respect, I personally am already successful. Once I stop growing, though, the success will turn to failure.

So...the first part: How do we become successful? The answer is relative (oh those darned Sophists!).

Now, "what is art?" Nicolas said "Let me think..." No! No! No! In my not-so-humble opinion art is NOT about thinking. It's about feeling. Here is where emotion must assume primacy over cognition.

I can opine more on this but think I'll see how this sits......


Ready..aim...fire! Gimme your best shot (hypothetically speaking in a battle of wits from which we all emerge victorious).
 
M

Michael_Stones

Member
Rachel Foster said:
In my not-so-humble opinion art is NOT about thinking. It's about feeling. Here is where emotion must assume primacy over cognition.
Click to expand...

Ah, but cognition always precedes emotion, doesn't it? The brain sizes up a situation and initiates an emotional response. Whether the sizing up process is instantaneous or slower, accompanied or unaccompanied by verbalized thought, there are comparisons of the perceived object/situation with stored memories and consequent messages to the emotive system on how to act. Particularly in the case of subtle emotions, such as appreciation of beauty, the comparisons with stored memories surely are more extensive and more likely mediated through knowledge and verbalized thought.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but the brain :)
Cheers, Mike
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Ah, in the 80s I once engaged in two hour debate with Marsha Linehan (my personality prof) over the cognition/emotion primacy debate. I was firmly on the cognition precedes emotion side. Then. Not so much now. If you define cognition as simple perception, then perhaps. If "cognition' requires more than sensory nerve stimulation, then I say....prove it!

Ha!
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Thanks! I am terribly out of date, I fear. Somehow in stead of picking up Psych Bull, lately I've gravitated to such things as "Photoshop for Dummies." Go figure.
 
Charlotte Thompson

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
For me art is truly a seduction each mind is individual in understanding its seductions- its reality in its idea of emotions life experience-


Charlotte
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Michael_Stones

Member
Rachel Foster said:
Thanks! I am terribly out of date, I fear. Somehow in stead of picking up Psych Bull, lately I've gravitated to such things as "Photoshop for Dummies." Go figure.
Click to expand...

"Photoshop for Dummies" is a more fun for me, too, Rachel. :)

I spent a bit of time last year reviewing literature on psychology & aesthetics with a focus on photography. There's little new on aesthetics that advances inverse-U arousal models from the '70s and less on photography except for the use of photographs in MRI work. Psychologists lost interest in aesthetics for some reason. Although there's stirrings of renewed interest in social psychology, it's hidden within attempts to support/refute more general theories.

A post on the previous page in this thread contains the essence of an attempt to model cognitive/emotive/appreciative reactions to photographs I gave at a departmental colloquium last spring. It's at an early stage of development - and because of other research priorities may never get much beyond that - but data collected to test it are nearly ready for analysis.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
If you're at the stage of sharing, I'd love a sneak preview.

Next time you're at UM, give me a holler! I'll drive down.

FWIW, I'm convinced it must evoke emotion to be "art." Further, I am thinking that art has survived because it serves an important function. I think maybe the emotional engagement prods us to process things we might otherwise keep repressed. In that way, it might serve a purpose similar to therapy.

Another thing I need to do a lit review over......so much to read, so much to shoot, so little time.
 
R

Ray West

New member
These discussions always go the same way. everyone stood too close to their own tree. So, for a change, why not talk about something different.

Let's choose another word.

What is 'sky'?

If you're talking about it, you aren't doing it.

Best wishes,

Ray
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Ray, I disagree. I think talking about it helps one understand the process of what one is trying to do. Analysis can help one find direction. If one understands what goes into making "art" one knows how to modify what one actually is "doing."
 
R

Ray West

New member
What I was getting at, is that Art is undefined, it covers too big an area. As a concept, it exists in different forms in many minds, how do you hope to encompass it in a single brain? - it is merely a word, used by folk who think that they know what it means. Then they meet folk who equally as knowledgeable, think that they know what it means in some other way, and so it goes on. The best you can do, is rummage around in other peoples minds, and decide for yourself what art is, your corner of it, if it is that important to you.

Now, if you want to, let's talk about something similar, 'sky'. Whoever you are - a pilot, a weather man, a gardener, a painter, a shepherd, you view of what 'sky' is will be different, your definitions will be different, since you are looking at it from a different viewpoint. However, if you introduce the idea of subcategories - blue sky, cloudy sky, then further, cold air, stratosphere, nitrogen, oxygen, pollution, etc. you may get somewhere. A complete waste of effort trying to define 'sky'.

But sky is a reality.

Art, is a human invention. It can be defined anyway it needs to be. I will let it include or exclude whatever I like. I see no point at all in discussing it, even thinking about it, because tomorrow it will change.

Why do humans want to put things into tidy little boxes?
 
M

Michael_Stones

Member
Joe Hardesty said:
So let me see if I've got this straight;

Talking about art is BAD.

Talking about not talking is GOOD.

Hmmm.
Click to expand...

Well said, Joe! There is no incompatibility between discussing and creating art. If someone doesn't want to discuss - maybe to gain knowledge or clarify ideas - don't read what's written: it's as simple as that. Go create instead. It's not as though the internet hasn't enough space for both. All contributors to this thread have done both.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Ray, thank you for expanding. That actually made a lot of sense and gives room for continued dialog.

Art is a human creation, just as "justice" and "beauty" are. And art evolves, the same as do justice and beauty. Socrates spent a lot of time trying to explore such concepts. He was a pretty smart guy, from all reports.

So, back on point: What if art does change tomorrow? That doesn't render today's understanding obsolete, does it? Even so, I think "art" goes deeper than that. I agree that current popular forms of artistic expression will change rapidly. So, perhaps what is needed is a deeper analysis.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
It's ironic. I have to leave in a few minutes to attend a memorial service. We are temporary. Maybe "art" is simply our attempts to leave traces of ourselves behind when we are no more. Art is that which transcends in some way.
 
J

Joe Hardesty

New member
Ray West said:
... I see no point at all in discussing it, even thinking about it...
Click to expand...

Then why are you in this thread? This forum is going to be one heck of a mess if everyone needs to announce which topics do not interest them.

Ray West said:
Now, if you want to, let's talk about something similar, 'sky'.
Click to expand...

I think that should be a new thread.

Ray West said:
Art, is a human invention.
Click to expand...

So is photography, digital imaging, and macaroni and cheese. Does that mean they can't be discussed.
 
M

Michael_Stones

Member
Ray West said:
Art, is a human invention. It can be defined anyway it needs to be. I will let it include or exclude whatever I like. I see no point at all in discussing it, even thinking about it, because tomorrow it will change.
Click to expand...

The same is true of science, Ray; it's a human invention, too. What scientists think and do today will be different tomorrow. We respect Isaac Newton for what he did, but a rocket scientist wouldn't dream of using his ideas or methods now. But that's no reason not to try to figure out commonalities in all of science and where they might lead us next. Is art any different?

Ray West said:
Why do humans want to put things into tidy little boxes?
Click to expand...

Because we are human! It's part of what we are. :)
Cheers, Mike
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Ray West said:
If you're talking about it, you aren't doing it.

Ray
Click to expand...

That is true. But sometimes a discussion about it will give some inspiration for the next time that you are doing it. Sometimes we learn from discussion. I can tell you that I have learned more from listening in to the discussion of others on the topic then when I am busy chatting away about it too. Communication is not only the art of discussion but the art of listening.,
 
R

Ray West

New member
Hi Joe,

I'm in this thread, because I can be, I suppose. wrt the sky. it was a sort of analogy, maybe not a good one, but it often helps, to step back, to try and get some sort of agreement in principles. Not easy to talk about specifics, if folk are talking generalities. The OP's original question was answered, or maybe remained unanswered some time ago. We seemed not to get any agreement on what facet of art was being discussed.

I think Macoroni and cheese would possibly exist without humans being around - cheese most definitely. On a large scale, I guess photography similar, some plants preferring shade to light, etc.

I know about the science thing, sort of, Mike. I think Art is different. Early science strived after defining elements, etc. Built it up from simple beginnings, had to keep rethinking, redefining, etc. I think something fairly fundamental, say, a pd of 1 volt, has been redefined about 3 times in my lifetime, and although a volt existed many thousands of years ago, nobody knew much about it (and they still don't). Generally science builds on what goes before, occasionally an apparently weird breakthrough occurs. In some ways, that is similar to art, except in the art discussions we have from time to time, we start from the viewpoint of this great 'art' definition, or if not we soon get there. Generally, in science, the topic seems to be more defined, it is a more focussed discussion.

Art is different. Artists tend to be different creatures compared to scientists. They are wired differently, generally speaking. There is no authority of note, (wired differently), so can't refer to proceedings of the ieee, or whatever, no standards institute, nothing like that. seems to be just a bunch of folk saying this is good, or this is bad.

One thing, I think you can patent a scientific discovery type of thing, but not art, as such.

There are serious problems in the human mind wanting to categorise things, wrt thought processes. The real problems slip around the edges of the boxes, so to speak.

Anyway, enough of not discussing for now. I have a load of other things I'm not going to do, too;-)

Best wishes,

Ray
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
There is one aspect to analyzing and discussion such questions, though, that's not yet been addressed. It's fun. Isn't that enough reason to do it?
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Please discuss the topic raised by Karl Esser, "What IS "art" in photography all about?".

No poems, no discussing why you would discuss something else! No not even you! Yes, you, you know who you are!

"Off topic" blurb gets get's deleted or if coherent and worthwhile moved elsewhere!

I think Karl assumes that photographic Art is some sort of expression but may be limited in success by the society in which it is first shown.

This is, I believe what Karl would like us to explore.

Taking a CD out of it's jacket and putting it in a player, does not make the music coming out of the speakers, my performance, my art. The music will, within some variations in quality of the speakers always give a reasonably satisfying performance.

Using a camera, with everything automatic, is then what? Art? Since we can point it where we want and that is our special, informed, unique and artistic choice? Surely not!

So what could we possibly do that really justifies out work in photography being art? So as Karl asks,


What IS "art" in photography all about?


Asher
 
R

Ray West

New member
Hi asher,

I think Karl assumes that photographic Art is some sort of expression but may be limited in success by the society in which it is first shown.
Click to expand...
I am stuck on the 'assume' word. It implies that Karl may be wrong, or he has made a decision of some sort, but that aside, thanks for kicking (or leading us) back to the point.

So, breaking it further.

a) how do we measure 'success'
b) what is 'photographic Art'
c) how 'broad?' is the society
d) limited by who, society or the artist (e.g. does the artist give up too easily?)
e) is there a difference between 'Art', and 'art'

Maybe it is nit picking, but it is a house of straw we are building, and somehow we have to decide on which straw to use. And then be prepared to decide it's not possible after all, if you want to keep the wolf from the door. (mix your own metaphors)

But, as Rachel says, it can be fun. In fact it has to be, since there is no way it is serious, unless (or other possibilities) you intend investing your life sayings based on anything said here.

So, it is likely to be a lot of 'ifs and buts'.

Maybe someone else would care to formalise some rules?

Best wishes,

Ray
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Rather than rules, perhaps take a Socratic approach? What do all instances of art have in common?

I will suggest all instances of are evoke emotion.
 
J

Joe Hardesty

New member
Rachel Foster said:
I will suggest all instances of are evoke emotion.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

This is one case where I really like the dictionary definition: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
 
R

Ray West

New member
But, my dictionary says something different -
1 human creative skill or its application
2 work exhibiting this
or (plural - arts) the various branches of creative activity concerned with the production of imaginative designs, sounds or ideas e.g. painting, music, writing, considered collectively
or anyone of these branches.
3 creative activity, esp. painting and drawing, resulting in visual representation (e.g. interested in music, not art
4 human skill or workmanship as opposed to to the work of nature
5 a skill, aptitude, or knack
6 (plural) those branches of learning (esp languages, history and literature) associated with creative skill as opposed to scientific, technical or vocational skills

and more.

I expect, depending on the producer of the dictionary, there will be a number of variation's in the description. The version quoted above, does not mention beauty or emotion. It seems to mention workmanship.

This was from the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1991

I am not implying it is right or wrong, just trying to point out the difficulty of discussing this topic, unless it is confined in some way. It was originally rather a specific point that Klaus raised, I'm guessing it was more skewed towards the commercial art side of things.

Best wishes,

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top