| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Will Anyone Like This ?
Asked by richard
(K=120) on 2/8/1999
|
I found the responses from the AIPAD show interesting- Thank you
It is interesting how these discussions bring out memories that we have already incorporated into our "shooting" conscience. Tom was reminded of how a print from a so called "master" made him angry, and he used that anger as his inspiration.( I saw a few of those at the show !) I was reminded of a time ago I tried to "copy" an image. Even though I could complete the task technically, somehow I was not able physically or emotional, or creatively to complete the "copy" in every detail. The image somehow had to be "mine". The intent at that time was to copy, but it wound up being an inspiration.
At the AIPAD show I found myself making comparisons to my own work. I would go to an image that looks similar in subject matter and or technique and somehow use that as confirmation to: "okay- maybe I am on the right track" This is of course human nature. We all want to be accepted in one way or another.I want to know that if I go to the effort to produce work; that it will be accepted. Is this wrong? Should my art only be about "me" and to Hell with those who do not "get it".
In a past thread there was the analogy of the tree falling in the woods. Let me put a different spin on that.
If a tree falls in the woods - does it make a sound? If a photographer takes a photograph, and no one sees it. Is it a photograph? Was a photograph taken? The answer to the first was "no it does not make a sound because no one was there to hear it. The answer to the second is Yes- because the photographer saw it, printed it and hopefully had some satisfaction by the process. If no one else ever sees that image, is it art? I say no. It was recreation. The photographer did it to make themselves happy; I call that recreation. The photg in this case may call it art, but I question that. If I call myself an artist, and no one ever sees my work- am I an artist? ( these are statements in question form, the real question I am asking is my last sentence) If I feel that my art must be accepted to the "buying " public; Am I an artist? or just a commercial photographer using a different venue.What is the reach of commercialization in our art ? What happens to your art when you think "Will anyone like this ????" RW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
I don't believe that the process of making a photograph is really complete until someone else has seen it, but acceptance by the buying public has no bearing on whether or not your photograph is art. Van Gogh did not sell a single painting in his whole life.
|
|
|
|
Doug, Distinctive Images
(K=165) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
Many years ago, I knew a lady who was a natural aritist; with no training whatsoever, she produced some of the most awe inspiring and dramatic water colors and pastels I had ever seen. painting was her method of self therapy, relaxation and a way of clearing her mind of the days problems and dificulties. Over the years she had been painting, she had never tried to sell a single piece and rarely showed them to anyone. In fact, if you visited her apartment, unless you entered her 'studio' room or her bedrom, you would have no idea she painted, but in those two rooms, there were hundreds of paintings stacked floor to ceiling.
Was she an artist and was the work she produced art? She didn't think so; in fact she often painted over her older work to avoid spending money on materials. After prevailing on her to show some of the work to a local gallery, she finally relented. She was immediately offered a show and it almost sold out! She ended up leaving her retail sales job and has now been working as a pro artist for several years.
The same is true with some photography. It is almost impossible for one to evaluate and rate ones own work. The work may be of artistic merit, but until it is seen and accepted (or rejected) by others, it isn't true art. Art is intended to be shared. That sharing of the work is a form of communication between the maker and the viewer. Without that communication, it cannot be considered art.
In addition, one can consider oneself to be an artist, but I question the validity of any self awarded title. One can be artistic or can work in an artistic style, but the title of artist must be awarded by others. For example, for many years I thought my work was artistic and had merit, but knew I was not the one to make that judgement. I began to consider myself an artist only after my work began to appear in art galleries; to be purchased and after working artists of various types accepted me as a peer.
So to be art, the work must be seen by others.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
The above definitions ("must be seen by others") are absurd. They have nothing to do with the words as they are currently defined. If you want to make up a new word to mean "art seen by others," feel free and submit it to Merriam-Webster.
This sounds harsh, but it's true. The English language does have some specific usages, and the ones referenced above are completely contradictory with established definitions.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
An artist creates because it is imperative for him to do so, there is no other reason. (Great) artists like Van Gogh do not create for the reason of showing it to a public or for earning a living. They create because it's their primary need/drive. Mozart did not compose for a public, he composed because he had to write down what he heard in his head. What you wrote Richard, seems an application of a modern philosophy of science, which stresses the interaction between the observer and the observed. I propose a different definiton of art: "Art is the unprejudiced exploration of matter" (Rudy Kousbroek, a Dutch author and art-critic). Whether someone likes your explorations is an experiment, not a guideline. Maybe you become famous in the year 2056, who knows. Some artists are succesfull while they are still living , others only when they are dead. There is no relation of this circumstance with the work being art or not.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
Doug, I think you are a little confused. You clearly stated your opinion (which you have every right to do) but you stated it as a Universal Truth...while your view of what constitutes or is defined as art may be valid for you...acceptance, success, the approval of peers, and critical validation do not constitute a definition of art for many of us. Art is about artists...art exsists because artists create it. Critics, collectors, purchasers, etc. are the least qualified among us to define art, and while acceptance and approval are important to all of us (maybe to artists more than others) they are not valid reasons for creating art.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
What is all that stuff in boxes and pushpinned to my darkroom walls then?
|
|
|
|
Doug, Distinctive Images
(K=165) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
I may be lots of things, but "confused" isn't one of them. The original question referred to the philosophical tree falling in the forest and sound. Now the word "art" is in itself vague and nebulous. Are the drawings found in in prehistoric caves art? What about the drawings of a five year old child? or the oil paintings done many years ago by a chimpanzie? (They were certainly shown in galleries as a 'one monkey show'). Or the first badly done water color perpetrated by a student?
In my response above, I was not refering to a pretty vase which is artistic in nature, or a snapshot of a sunset, I was discussing serious art made by skilled artisans and artists. Certainly there may be little to no "message" in a pretty ceramic pot, but I make a distinction between something being pretty and it being serious, meaningful art. We may like a piece of "art", or we may dislike it; the critics may rave about it or pan it; it may be a masterpiece or it may be junk. Whether its good or bad isn't what I mean.
To be considered "art", as a working 'artist' I believe real art must communicate. It must communicate a thought, an emotion, an idea or concept, a feeling or anything else from the vision of the artist to the viewer; it must stimulate. Perhaps the viewer is a spouse or a friend; that doesn't matter. Without this communication, the piece is simply a pretty object. Maybe the piece stimulates a concept of love or hate, social awareness, a political idea or pure propaganda (ie Soviet art, photos and paintings of tractors and workers with raised fists). In my own work, I attempt to transmit or communicate a view of the female side of humanity; the softness and strengths of "Womanhood'.
It doesn't really matter what the content of the communication is or how its communicated, even whether its communicatede well or badly. But art simply must convey some idea, concept, feeling or emotion! Otherwise its just a pretty picture, or statue, or painting, or whatever the form might be. In order to communicate, it must be seen by someone. The message may be accepted or rejected, appreciated or not, but it must be there.
True, the 'old masters' did not create their work for a mass audience, but they certainly had patrons, supporters who paid the bills and received and showed the work.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
No, the word "art" is NOT vague and nebulous. The word "art" is quite well-defined; check any dictionary (www.m-w.com is a good one) and you will see that "art" is well-defined. What is not well- defined is what meets the criterion of the definition. I will say it again - the word "art" is not about communication. The English language is quite concise on this point.
What is contentious is what qualifies as "art" but art is in no sense unique in this. Similar words such as "literature" are similar, as is "politics" or "war" or even on occasion "male" or "female." But "art" is an extremely well-defined word.
YOU seem to have a problem with the dictionary definition of art and I suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster and American Heritage before you tell anyone else that it means something it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
I create because I have to. And I am not always understood. But I will Make this observation. I hear many people, and read in this forum, talk about what is and isn't art. Websters says yada, yada, yada about what is art. The real answer lies not in what we artists say it is or isn't but what the washed and unwashed masses say it is or isn't. Art needn't be seen to be art but if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it is it art. 30,000 years ago some people went into caves and drew upon the walls. A short time ago some other people crawled in and saw these drawings. Was it art for 30,000 years or was it just smudges on a wall? If you create something and call it artand everyone else who sees it doesn't think so, is it art or are you delusional? The impressionists of the turn of the century "di" seek out their fellow artists approval. They may not have made any money at it but the fact remains that they indeed sought out others input. If not then why were so many of them "impressionists"? James
|
|
|
|
JLee
(K=150) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
Maybe I'm not to good at this philosophy stuff. To me (and I do believe everyone has their own definition) art is the product of a creative mind. Anytime that right side of the brain kicks in, we are creating a work of art. This computer I'm sitting at, that phone beside me- to a large extent both are the product of someone's creativity and thus "art." IMHO "art" is not a thing or an object but the Result (any result) of creative thinking.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 2/11/1999
|
When I make an image, the first question in my mind is "Do I like this?" If I don't, it doesn't even get made (except in those rare circumstances when it is for someone else).
The question: "Will anyone else like this?" is much further down the list. If I were a commercial photographer, perhaps it would be top of the list.
I have had the experience of people looking a portfolio of fifty pictures, and choosing to pay for a copy of my least-favourite picture. This has taught me that people's tastes vary enormously, and I am not a good judge of what people will like.
People who write pop songs, or make films, have similar experiences: they cannot judge what people will really like until they vote with their wallets.
As for the wretched A*t word, I personally don't think about it at all. Years ago, a renowned painter helped me learn how to paint, and he taught me not to think in binary terms "Is is or is it not art", but as a continuum "What is the artistic value or merit of this work?" And then you break down the question, you can look at the elements of the work, such as how the figures in the painting/photograph relate to each other, and to the camera, and to the viewer, and so on.
To answer Richard's specific question, 'What happens to your art when you think "Will anyone like this ????"', my reply is that the work goes downhill fast, it is a big trap for me to attempt to second- guess the opinions of other people. As I say, I'm not a commercial photographer. Perhaps I would make a very poor commercial photographer, because I cannot successfully answer "Will anyone like this ????".
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/12/1999
|
The question forms itself in my mind slightly differently:
Will this photo convey my perception of this subject accurately? Not just it's physical attributes, but cause the veiwer to wonder (as I do) about its' intangible attributes, it's history and it's future. The forces that caused it to be as it is, and those forces that may influence it's future.
Because I don't create art for arts sake... there's already enough junk in the world. I do it to interact with my own thought processess, and to engage others in growth, for myself and them.
In fact, that's why I'm here, doing this, right now...t
|
|
|
|
Steve Bingham
(K=384) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
Richard,
Read Lot's answer carefully. It's simple and complete.
Do you wish to be a great artist or a commercial success? They don't necessarily go together. You decide. Don't be afraid to raise the bar.
Are you an artist if no one ever sees your work. Absolutely. Are you an artist because you call your work art. No.
Lastly, the buying public has absolutely nothing to do with art. Think about it. I have sold a lot of crap because I like money.
Can you be a happy photographer and not an artist. Of course. Most of us are.
Steve
|
|
|
|
stefan
(K=437) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
"Am I an artist? or just a commercial photographer using a different venue.What is the reach of commercialization in our art ?"
I'm afraid I don't see the lines as clearly drawn between the so called true non-commercial artists and the ones who used their skills to earn a living. If you think to get a gallery show in a space that will actually sell some of your work you don't have to hustle and glad hand people and be a persistant and effective salesman, then you are being more than just a little naive. If the artists you admire are in galleries and museums, chances are they had to do a little marketing of themselves in one form or another. Maybe artists are commercial photographers "using a different venue."
If the artists you admire have all their lifeswork stashed in a closet in Peoria, I don't think it makes them less of an artist, it just means that the rest of us are completely unaware of their work and their work can be said to have had no effect upon us.
If we look at the role of arist, as it exists in history, we discover that for the most part the artist has not been a sensitive soul painting ignored in a garret somewhere(there are a few exceptions like Van Gogh). That view of the artist and creativity is a 19th century romantic fantasy. It does not, however, have much to do with how most of us who consider ourselves artists live our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
