View Full Version : But is it art?
Now I know a few people aren't too keen on anything too arty…
Took a photo of someones bed who was sleeping rough in Castlefield in Manchester. Reminded me of Tracey Emin's unmade bed 'All The People I Have Ever Slept With'.
Next week I'm going to saw a sardine in half and suspend it in formalderhide.
Now I know a few people aren't too keen on anything too arty…
Took a photo of someones bed who was sleeping rough in Castlefield in Manchester. Reminded me of Tracey Emin's unmade bed 'All The People I Have Ever Slept With'.
Next week I'm going to saw a sardine in half and suspend it in formalderhide.
A double bed! What luxury...
Seriously, I find it quite disturbing, really. I don't know if it's art, but it's certainly though-provoking.
Ian
Well ..... if that's art I'm living in an exclusive Art Gallery and my ex-art teacher should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for kicking me out of her classes.
As for thought-provoking - concentrate on suggestions as to how much I should charge to allow peeps in to have a look at my efforts?
I look forward to seeing the spliced sardine. t-up
Pol
I've just been told that I was in fact thinking of Tracey Emin's tent. Her bed was called 'My Bed'.
I do (seriously) think Marcel Duchamp's urinal was one of the great icons of 20th Century art though.
Bearface
17-12-06, 10:43 PM
I've just been told that I was in fact thinking of Tracey Emin's tent. Her bed was called 'My Bed'.
I've spent several years trying to forget that Tracey Emin was lauded and embraced by our art "establishment" for works such as those you've described, only to have that horrific memory restored by what I'm sure was a well-intentioned, thought provoking posting on your part... :D
Personally, my own take on art was always that it was first and foremost an honest expression of emotion or experience, conveyed via any medium necessary but with degrees of skill, vision and originality. Obviously when pretentious and contrived nonsense such as Tracey Emin's bed and even simple piles of bricks became "art" in the eyes of the establishment, I felt it necessary to revise my views and simply learn to accept that literally anyone can be a "great artist" and that consequently today's "great art" was no longer something to celebrate or admire...:(
I do (seriously) think Marcel Duchamp's urinal was one of the great icons of 20th Century art though.
You can't avoid acknowledging the fact that Duchamp's "Fountain" was iconic, but I have always found it remarkably easy to avoid describing it as "great". He was simply being controversial (as were Emin and her contemporaries...) because his ability to shock was greater than his ability to amaze the world with his true creative genius. Diluting the value of true talent and creativity with controversy seemed to be de rigeur during the last century, but I'm hoping we'll see a return to serious, heavyweight art enjoying the recognition it deserves....... at some point.
BTW, the real jewel which shone through Duchamp's pretentiousness was his idea not only to challenge what art stood for by featuring a urinal, but also to turn it upside down and write on it.......................oh dear, how bold :eek:
Just my views of course. I'm probably completely wrong ;)
Blank Page
18-12-06, 11:45 PM
I'm posting this with the understanding that art is in the eye of the beholder and that not everything appeals to everyone, but this is my view...
We tend to lump everything that comes in an artistic medium such as photography as "art", but in my view, art is intended to appeal to the emotions, whereas strictly "making a statement" about something is an intellectual exercise that doesn't really belong in the realm of art.
An artful photograph produces an immediate emotional response in me without my having to stop and analyze it. I don't have to know why it affects me in order to for it to affect me. A unartful picture of an unmade bed, or a "sculpture" of a urinal, might be trying to make a valid statement, but if I don't respond to it emotionally, it's like a bad joke that has to be explained to get it. (That's also why I don't agree with experimental artists who say the interpretation of a work is up to me, that I can make anything I want of it. Art is about communication, and if it doesn't communicate anything to me, then it doesn't work for me.)
I don't dispute that there's a place and a purpose for making a statement. There are insightful historical examples, but they are just that: intelligent commentaries about art, not art itself.
I do (seriously) think Marcel Duchamp's urinal was one of the great icons of 20th Century art though.
I'd be interested to know your initial emotional response when you first saw it. Do you think it's a great icon because of that or because of what it said about the state of art?
I'm not sure what I thought about it the first time I saw it. I was probably quite young. It would be hard to imagine what it was like to see it when it was first exhibited. When I first saw it, it had been an icon for decades.
Blank Page
21-12-06, 04:06 AM
Sorry if I'm sounding heavy-handed about this (as I can at times :rolleyes: ), but it seems that it's considered iconic just because it was a urinal, not because it was in itself an artfully pleasing or otherwise telling subject that appealed to us on some emotional level. If it was, every men's room in the world would be an art museum.
I imagine it's status as an icon is because of its context.
As I understand it when it was exhibited in 1917, it was a shocking concept. And Duchamp meant it to be ironic rather than iconic. I think he was to some extent taking the p***. He was questioning what art is.
If we look at say the impressionists today, because we have 100+ years of art history we see their pictures in a different way than when they were first painted.
coupekid
21-12-06, 08:53 AM
Sorry if I'm sounding heavy-handed about this (as I can at times :rolleyes: ), but it seems that it's considered iconic just because it was a urinal, not because it was in itself an artfully pleasing or otherwise telling subject that appealed to us on some emotional level. If it was, every men's room in the world would be an art museum.
I totally agree! How can it possiby be art. I think most people on this forum know my views on this sort of rubbish! (in my opinion of course)
Archangel
21-12-06, 11:16 AM
I would say that this is just a photo, a scene. I don't see how this photo can be related to art, when there are no artistic elements involved or any kind of form of art.
Regards
George
Bearface
21-12-06, 06:28 PM
I would say that this is just a photo, a scene. I don't see how this photo can be related to art, when there are no artistic elements involved or any kind of form of art.
Regards
George
The OP made the link between the photo and the work of Tracy Emin, which then led to the subsequent discussion. It's interesting that you see nothing artistic in the actual photo though, so it might be a good time to express what art means to you personally, as well as how you define it? :D
Archangel
21-12-06, 10:57 PM
The OP made the link between the photo and the work of Tracy Emin, which then led to the subsequent discussion. It's interesting that you see nothing artistic in the actual photo though, so it might be a good time to express what art means to you personally, as well as how you define it? :D
I do not see anything artistic in that specific photo, because there is nothing included that is artistic.
A photograph in its original form (unaltered, untreated and uproccessed) remains just a photograph, even if it is a photograph of a painting. In order for an original photo to be considered artistic it needs to show imaginative skill in arrangement or execution and fulfill all or a partial number of criteria.
So this photo doesn't fulfill the main criteria that define the term "art" which are:
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. Conscious production or arrangement colors, forms, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, regardless of the theme it records/presents.
Additionally it doesn't involve any of the following (other subcategories of them exist):
1. Imagination
2. Aesthetics
3. Movement
4. Perspective
5. Emotions (those that the photo reflects and not what those the user understands)
5. Documentary/Historic
6. Lighting effects
7. Nature themes and phenomena
and most of all
8. Lacks the main theme (the human) it refers to. It can stand like that as a photo, but technically (apart from DTD's knowledge and the information supplied to us that it belongs to a human) it cannot be related to anything and considered artistic.
Regards
George
Bearface
22-12-06, 12:17 AM
I was merely encouraging you to elaborate on some points you'd made, but given that you dedicated some time to providing me with some third-party "definitions", I've taken the time to respond accordingly. These are my frank but nevertheless considered opinions and in asking for clarity on certain points, I'm merely trying to understand your position, rather than trying to challenge or antagonise you. Please respond with that in mind :D
I do not see anything artistic in that specific photo, because there is nothing included that is artistic.
That you do not see anything artistic in the photo does not automatically mean that it lacks artistic merit; far from it. Your own opinion is as valid as anyone else's of course, but you cannot state as fact something which is entirely subjective.
A photograph in its original form (unaltered, untreated and uproccessed) remains just a photograph, even if it is a photograph of a painting.
That is absolutely untrue. There are probably thousands of original, unaltered photographs which constitute art, or which are widely considered as art by those who are an authority on such things.
In order for an original photo to be considered artistic it needs to show imaginative skill in arrangement or execution and fulfill all or a partial number of criteria.
Even if this was true (and it isn't) in the context of this photo (or any other), you'd still need to convince me that it measurably lacked imaginative skill in arrangement or execution. So far you've merely expressed a point of view.
So this photo doesn't fulfill the main criteria that define the term "art" which are:
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
By virtue of the fact that it's a deliberately targeted, composed and processed photograph, it already meets this criteria completely.
2. Conscious production or arrangement colors, forms, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, regardless of the theme it records/presents.
Yup, this is also a conscious production / arrangment of colours, forms and other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, regardless of the theme it records/presents...
Additionally it doesn't involve any of the following (other subcategories of them exist):
1. Imagination
2. Aesthetics
3. Movement
4. Perspective
5. Emotions (those that the photo reflects and not what those the user understands)
5. Documentary/Historic
6. Lighting effects
7. Nature themes and phenomena
Imagination? Check.......
Aesthetics? Check.......although I'd appreciate your personal definition of this category.
Movement? You're surely not trying to tell me that a work of art requires "movement"? What about still life work..?
Perspective? Check.....
Emotions? Check......This image conjures up plenty of emotions for anyone who has seen and understood the plight of the homeless or poverty-stricken...
Documentary/Historic? Check......This is specifically a documentary photo! Historic..? Is all art historic? Does it need to be..?
Lighting effects? Check.......It's beautifully lit!
Nature themes and phenomena? Works of art don't need to feature either!
and most of all
8. Lacks the main theme (the human) it refers to. It can stand like that as a photo, but technically (apart from DTD's knowledge and the information supplied to us that it belongs to a human) it cannot be related to anything and considered artistic.
George, the OP was being ironic - both in posting this image and in respect of the image itself and it's title. The Tracy Emin installation that was referred to was essentially an unmade bed (hence the reference in the original post) and therefore the lack of a human presence in the photo is irrelevant, as it is not fundamental to understanding the image.
As for "it cannot be related to anything and considered artistic"......well, I'm afraid it can! Firstly, in it's literal guise, the image is clearly representative of street living, or homelessness. Secondly, it is quite transparently an unmade bed in a street - DTD absolutely did not have to inform us that it was put there by human being; it is clearly not the work of a wild animal :D
I'm sorry, but I feel that you've relied too much on conjecture and then become dogmatic about it. Art can be good, bad or indifferent (and it often is...), but no single individual is qualified to determine what constitutes art and what does not. Art is in the eye of the beholder, rather like beauty...*inlove
I'd genuinely like to read about what moves you artistically, rather than having to plough through lists of irrelevant or inappropriate definitions. Here I've been questioning your statements, not your beliefs - I hope you can see that?
Archangel
22-12-06, 02:23 AM
I don't see any conversation as challenge, debate or antagonism.
My writings reflect my thoughts after reading from time to time about specific definitions of what is art and how art is or can be expressed.
I do not see any artistic merit in the photo according to the 8 criteria I provided before. I base my opinion on well known facts and criteria and not on personal thinking of what it might be artistic or not.
Yes, there are thousands of unaltered original photos that constitute art, but they have by origin embedded artistic elements/criteria.
It is you Tim that you need to convince me that this photo has imaginative skill in arrangement/execution. To me it looks like a plain snap of a scene, without any special angle or positioning or any other.
Because "By virtue of the fact that it's a deliberately targeted, composed and processed photograph, it already meets this criteria completely" as you wrote, that makes a photo artistic?
If this is the case, then all photographs of beds can be considered artistic photos?
This photo doesn't have anything special in terms of colors or formation and doesn't really give a sense of beauty, regardless of the theme which records/represents. I don't think that anybody likes to see this situation the photograph shows. I will not mention anything about provocative. I would just say that this situation is terribly sad to see.
Imagination: I don't see any imagination put in that photo. I only see a snap of a street scene.
Aesthetics: It is a Greek word and I know very well what it means like "photography" is too.
Movement: Art can also include movement. A photo of a dancing ballerine can be artistic and also includes movement.
Perspective: Don't see any perspective view that could be considered artistic in this specific photo.
Emotions: Assumptions reflected here in this photo, not emotions. Straight emotions are reflected only by face/body expressions. I wrote specifically here before (not what the viewer thinks, but what the photo reflects) because I new that it would be misunderstood.
Documentary/Historic: This is not a documentary photo. It doesn't document anything. There is no information provided/documented by the photo of who is the person sleeping in this type of bed, where the bed is located, if it is a real or an artificial setup just for snapping. Documentary photos or artistic documentary photos are not abstract snaps.
Lighting Effects: Because the photo is lit, that can make it artistic?
I'm talking about different lighting effects, not just a well lit street photo.
Nature themes and phenomena: Works of art feature these too.
Anyway, for a photo to be artistic needs to have all, or some, or one of all the above things embedded in the photo. If none of the above is included then it cannot be considered artistic, but just a normal photo.
"As for "it cannot be related to anything and considered artistic"......well, I'm afraid it can! Firstly, in it's literal guise, the image is clearly representative of street living, or homelessness. Secondly, it is quite transparently an unmade bed in a street - DTD absolutely did not have to inform us that it was put there by human being; it is clearly not the work of a wild animal"
Yes, but these are not conditions/criteria that artistic judgements can be based on. Besides that you are also expressing personal subjective opinion here since you do not provide specific artistic criteria.
There is a lot of confusion of what it is art and what it is not. Personally I prefer to go by books and definitions and not to conclude my own.
Besides my personal knowledge, study and interpretation of what is art and where are the limits of art lat east in photography that I'm involved with, there are indeed some interesting third party definitions about art, found in "The American Heritage Dictionary" and "Britannica Encyclopedia"
My golden fingers got tired from typing and need to go to rest :):D*inlove
Goodnight Tim.
George
Bearface
22-12-06, 11:11 AM
:confused: I don't see any conversation as challenge, debate or antagonism.
My writings reflect my thoughts after reading from time to time about specific definitions of what is art and how art is or can be expressed.
Well conversations can most certainly become debates, feature challenges and transgress into antagonism, hence the reason for my clarification. Conversations also feature the concept of listening (in addition to speaking...), so the jury might still be out on that one :D
George, art comes from creativity and by virtue of this fact, it absolutely cannot be pigeonholed in the way you're attempting to do it. That someone - in their infinite wisdom - has decided to try and apply definitions to something which is as ambiguous and elusive as the meaning of life itself, does not mean that if you copy and paste those "criteria" into a forum post, your point will be made; it won't and it hasn't. Firstly these are not specifically your points, and secondly I get the distinct feeling that you'd defend them blindly rather than concede an inch. That is of course your perogative.
I do not see any artistic merit in the photo according to the 8 criteria I provided before. I base my opinion on well known facts and criteria and not on personal thinking of what it might be artistic or not.
The photo easily met about 80% of the criteria you yourself put forward as definitive. The fact that you personally don't agree is one thing (and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing), but my feeling is that you wouldn't concede this even if you knew you were wrong. I'm up against your pride in that context and no amount of reasoning on my part will change that :(
Yes, there are thousands of unaltered original photos that constitute art, but they have by origin embedded artistic elements/criteria.
This totally contradicts your previous claim, so I'll assume you've reconsidered this one. Nearly every photo has by origin artistic elements / criteria, and it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.
It is you Tim that you need to convince me that this photo has imaginative skill in arrangement/execution. To me it looks like a plain snap of a scene, without any special angle or positioning or any other.
George, I have not made any dogmatic or contentious statements about art and it's definitions; you have. It is therefore your responsibility to substantiate and give measured reasonings for your claims, and not vice-versa. I'm saying that you cannot put art into a box and label it, and I'm asking you to use your own words to justify the previously-posted statements.
In response to your other comments, I can only reiterate that art is subjective and not a measurable, objective thing like a set of financial accounts or anything which has clearly-set, tangible criteria. This is a widely-held view (and one most certainly held by the highest authorities on such things) and requires no proof. Dictionaries and enclyclopedias offer definitions on "life" do they not? Does this mean we have the answers to the very meaning of life, George..? Art is no different...
There is a lot of confusion of what it is art and what it is not. Personally I prefer to go by books and definitions and not to conclude my own.
Of course there is confusion; art is not a quantifiable thing! ;)
When I don't understand something which can be learnt, I use books and other resources to learn and educate myself. Art cannot be learnt, it can only be experienced........ and if the extent of your experience is a series of definitions by which you measure people's works in a cold, objective manner, then you are welcome to continue in that direction.
Just don't complain that I didn't try to change your mind :D
Great debate - thanks. Please don't be offended, but I think I've said all I possibly can on the matter - the last word is yours to savour ;)
Archangel
22-12-06, 02:59 PM
Hi Tim,
In response to your last post, here are some of my comments:
""George, art comes from creativity and by virtue of this fact, it absolutely cannot be pigeonholed in the way you're attempting to do it. That someone - in their infinite wisdom - has decided to try and apply definitions to something which is as ambiguous and elusive as the meaning of life itself, does not mean that if you copy and paste those "criteria" into a forum post, your point will be made; it won't and it hasn't. Firstly these are not specifically your points, and secondly I get the distinct feeling that you'd defend them blindly rather than concede an inch. That is of course your perogative.""
Art is not so easy term and is not so free and abstract either. There are specific criteria that classify what is art. There are specific conditions need to be met in order for a work to be considered as art.
These criteria establish "Art" as a science and distinguish sciences between each other.
There are certain borderlines that distinguish art from hobby or other type of work.
If they didn't exist all of us would be or called ourselves artists.
Especially with the term "Art" someone must be very carefull of what he thinks or interprets to be Art.
Can a photo of a child being abused or molested be art? Can a photo of pornographic material can be considered art? What makes someone say that a photo is pure pornography and not art?
There are established baselines that confine what "Art" is and distinguish it from other types of work or sciences
Tim, I'm not pigeonhole anything, but they are specific quides/rules that state what is art and what is not.
While art a free minded and spiritual it falls under specific quidelines of what are its limits, where it becomes art and where it stops being art.
One more thing. I didn't copy paste any criteria. Please don't insist on that.
""The photo easily met about 80% of the criteria you yourself put forward as definitive. The fact that you personally don't agree is one thing (and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing), but my feeling is that you wouldn't concede this even if you knew you were wrong. I'm up against your pride in that context and no amount of reasoning on my part will change that""
The photo meets 80% of the criteria according to your opinion Tim, not according to my opinion and based on the criteria I provided.
""This totally contradicts your previous claim, so I'll assume you've reconsidered this one. Nearly every photo has by origin artistic elements / criteria, and it is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.""
I didn't make an assumption nowhere in any of my posts that an unaltered original photo cannot constitute art. I said: A photograph in its original form (unaltered, untreated and unprocessed) remains just a photograph, even if it is a photograph of a painting. In order for an original photo to be considered artistic it needs to show imaginative skill in arrangement or execution and fulfill all or a partial number of criteria.
So I haven't reconsidered anything, maybe you misunderstood me or conclude different yourself.
Not nearly all photos have by origin artistic elements as you imply. In the contrary, very few do.
""George, I have not made any dogmatic or contentious statements about art and it's definitions; you have. It is therefore your responsibility to substantiate and give measured reasonings for your claims, and not vice-versa. I'm saying that you cannot put art into a box and label it, and I'm asking you to use your own words to justify the previously-posted statements.
In response to your other comments, I can only reiterate that art is subjective and not a measurable, objective thing like a set of financial accounts or anything which has clearly-set, tangible criteria. This is a widely-held view (and one most certainly held by the highest authorities on such things) and requires no proof. Dictionaries and enclyclopedias offer definitions on "life" do they not? Does this mean we have the answers to the very meaning of life, George..? Art is no different...""
Tim, I gave my reasonings and criteria on which I base my decision why this photo cannot constitute art or considered artistic, while you didn't provide any criteria or reasoning why you dispute that and claim that this photograph is 80% artistic criteria filled.
Art is a free minded, spiritual and creativity process. While art cannot be restricted in terms of imagination and creativity, it needs to comply with certain rules and ethics of what is considered art and what not. Art as a science is also protected by law. Law protects certain defined things and not abstracts or personal human assumptions of what they think art might be. Yes, dictionaries and encyclopedias offer definitions on life. They were not written though by one person. They were written, revised and updated to reflect reality by scientists, philosophers, humanists, e.t.c through centuries.
I think that you have confused what is Art in general and what is Artistic Photography.
They are two different things and not similar at all.
While photography captures reality, art is imitating or manipulating reality and artistic photography is not to be confused with art.
Artistic photography adds flavor of art to a realistic photo, while art is recreation/reproduction of reality/imagination and does not necessary reflects reality and when it does it produces a work, close (or not) to the original scene or theme but not an identical of the original one.
""Of course there is confusion; art is not a quantifiable thing!
When I don't understand something which can be learnt, I use books and other resources to learn and educate myself. Art cannot be learnt, it can only be experienced........ and if the extent of your experience is a series of definitions by which you measure people's works in a cold, objective manner, then you are welcome to continue in that direction.
Just don't complain that I didn't try to change your mind.""
Yes, there is a confusion just because people try to interpret things on their own without reading and following basic guidelines of what is art, where art starts and where it stops.
Art or artistic talent is not aquired only by experience as you imply. It is also taught and there are Universitities since ancient times taking the responsibility of teaching fines arts and they exist until today.
I measure people's work by basic established criteria listed, accepted and adopted by authorities, of what is art/artistic and what is not and not from the top of my head. The "Copyright Violation Laws" is a good example/indication that art is measurable and not an abstract term and that it complies/conforms to specific rules and does not rely on each individual's thought or interpretation of what the meaning of the word art might be.
I don't complain for not trying to change my mind. In the contrary...I would if you had.
I'm not offended either. I never was, anyway.
Tim,
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
Now that I'm gonna be away for the Christmas holidays, I will have time to think of a nice theme for the next debate.
Regards
George
Blimey! I don't think I will pickle that sardine after all…
Now where did I put my pipe that's not a pipe?
Bearface
22-12-06, 04:08 PM
Priceless... :D
Stephen
22-12-06, 04:24 PM
Blimey! I don't think I will pickle that sardine after all…
Now where did I put my pipe that's not a pipe?
Ehyup David, you have been keeping a low profile ;) and you haven't to laugh either, this is serious stuff *bauble*reindeer*crazyxmas
Blimey! I don't think I will pickle that sardine after all…
Awwww ........... I was running a sweep on whether you'd pickle the head or the tail. *crazyxmas
Oh well - My Gert would've lost anyway so he owes me a fiver, innit. :D
Pol
Ehyup David, you have been keeping a low profile ;) and you haven't to laugh either, this is serious stuff *bauble*reindeer*crazyxmas
David has been very busy and is doing a little project for DPNow that will be revealed in the new year :)
He's also managed to get a picture into his local rag - the number of times he's been published this year is mighty impressive *xmashat01
Ian
Blank Page
02-01-07, 07:35 AM
I imagine it's status as an icon is because of its context.
As I understand it when it was exhibited in 1917, it was a shocking concept. And Duchamp meant it to be ironic rather than iconic. I think he was to some extent taking the p***. He was questioning what art is.
If we look at say the impressionists today, because we have 100+ years of art history we see their pictures in a different way than when they were first painted.
(Pardon the late reply, but 'twas the season.)
I agree about context. Take the impressionists' paintings and Duchamp's urinal out of context, as we see them today, and what have you got? Paintings that still excite us on some emotional level, as they were designed to do, and a urinal. Duchamp's "work" depends totally on the context in which he presented it.
In Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29), there is a quote (which dadaist Hans Richter says he wrote in a letter to Duchamp in 1961) that disparages those who see the urinal as art: "You threw a bottle rack and urinal in their faces as a challenge and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty." Duchamp supposedly wrote in the margin of the letter, "That's fine."
From the same page: "This was not to create an aesthetic experience but to make a conceptual statement."