h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A lot of this debate so far seems to have mistaken my question to be is Photography good Art?

Let's face it, there are plenty of awful paintings in the world, with almost no quality or merit to them at all, they're still art though, just bad art. It seems that photography isn't aforded this alowance though.

I think it comes down to whether you think photography is a creative process at all.


BTW The Monparasse photo is now in the Agence Roger Viollet collection.

The creative process then...

In photography much thought and effort can be put into setting, costume, lighting, filters, composition ..a great amount of meticulous work and forethought / or you can just keep snapping off reels of film (a la National Geographic) and get one 'lucky shot' (as they always do).

In painting, the same labourious and painstaking detail can go into an image - such as the pixel-dot method of George (****?). Or as some artists did back in the fifties and sixties, you can just throw paint at the canvas (even roll it on with naked bodies as brushes) or using photgraphic projections just paint over the projected image on the screen as 'nature' painters do today.

But again I assert that only the 'fame','reputation' or 'popularity' of true works of art elevates them to capital "A" Art. The amount of work, effort or consideration that goes into it, by mechanical, electronic or physical means, is merely 'artisan workmanship' and is measured in time, dollars and material costs like any craft.

Craftmanship does not necessarily make art. Chance does not necessarily make art. Only public reaction over time can bestow the distinction.

peace
~jwf~ (TV is never art! It's an assault on the mind and soul for profit only.)

To answer an earlier point: Stieglitz wasn't necessarily heralding (or celebrating for that matter) the death of the traditional oil-on-canvas, sculpture, or watercolor medium. The point of the show was to demonstrate photography should and will take its place among other established artistic mediums. It was part and parcel of the Photo-Secession. And yes, it came out of 291.

Yes, if I take a picture of a friend while on vacation that photo isn't necessarily art, but then who says all watercolor or all sculpture is? By that narrow definition, the artist and the viewer are limiting themselves. I certainly do not think anything by Thomas Kincaid or Jeff Koons is art. Yet they use traditional mediums, those that some researchers would have us think ultimately (and only could be) is Art. Art is not what you use, but why and how. Creativity and talent do not originate in the medium. They do not come from having a degree or being profiled in a trendy magazine. Art is the relationship between the artist, the subject, and the viewer. And if that magic lies in photgraphy who's to argue it isn't art?

Pile of bricks in everyday land = building materials
Pile of bricks in Tate Gallery = Art

Is it the location; is it what the 'experts' tell us; is it what the market dictates?

I believe photography can be art, but usually is not; am able to look at something and decide which I think it should be, but could not explain why.

Ho hum

You of course all know the sentence of "My 6 year old son could have done that". Well here in Denmark a guy entered his 5 year old sons paintings to an art exhibit in his own name. They won the exhibit, and afterwards one of the judges admitted that had he known it had been done by a kid, he would probably not have voted for it. Very saying about art I think.

I wouldn´t classify NG work as art though, isn´t that more science since it is usually not trying to put any form of interpretation into it but merely convey reality.

Art is probably not a matter of what you use. It is of what you do with that tool. The reason why all canvas paintings are considered art is probably because that´s the only thing we use it for now we have photography. A few hundred years back where people often had portraits done on request, it was probably not seen as being simply an art. But today paintings are useless, except as an artform. One day encyclopedias, field guides and all other "practical" uses of books might be gone. They will be done using for example virtual reality instead. So if books are only used for writing novels and short-stories books will probably achieve the same status as canvas painting. If it´s in a book it´s art. But even today where books can be seen as art, comics are still considered trashy.

Saying TV is a science is also wrong I think. Doing commercials or documentaries is probably so. But when Gene Roddenberry made Star Trek is was probably because he wanted to show us something, in the same way as when Dali painted a painting. Simply another tool he used for his expression.

*Phew*

That was a perfect example of the subjectivity of art. To me, Star Trek is nothing more than campy television. And not even "good campy" for that matter. In America, commericals have their version of the Oscars (not that an Oscar award denotes Art, mind you), the Clio Awards. Supposedly they reward originality and artistic vision--probably also success in selling the product--in a field normally known for shady used car salesmen or prime-time sanitary napkins. Can a commerical be Art? Madison Avenue would like to think so.

What a fascinating thread.As an Art teacher I'm really enjoying this so please keep it up.I've been given a lot to think about.
I personally have a lot of trouble thinking of a cow in formaldahyde as art basically because the artist did not actually manufacture the cow and then present it as art.Too many artists just take ready packaged materials produced by others and present them as their own work.If Tracy Emin had actually made the bed,woven the sheets,and physically produced the elements of her work perhaps it might be possible for me to accept her work as 'art' but to take what others have designed and made and place it in ones own work makes me wonder is it art.At least photographers can claim to be producing their own work.
A pile of bricks in situ in a building site is just bricks,yes.That is,until an art critic becomes involved in the process then it becomes art.8)

That raises an interesting question: Is it Art until Robert Hughes says so?

Photography is art, but its a very fuzzy area. Not all art is art though!

On the subject of 'What is Art?', we used to have a series in the UK, hosted by Jeremy Beadle who would play jokes. On one program he took a group of ordinary people with no artistic pretensions and let them loose with some paint and canvas. When they had finished, he showed the end results to some 'art experts', who enthused over the paintings and spoke a load of absolute tosh. Any respect I might have had for the 'art world' evaporated on the spot.

One of the worst examples of 'art' I have ever seen was in a gallery in Arnhem. It's a 1 metre square canvas painted solid apple green. I don't know what it's meant to represent (I don't speak Dutch), but if that's art, I'm in the wrong job.

>>I personally have a lot of trouble thinking of a cow in formaldahyde as art basically because the artist did not actually manufacture the cow and then present it as art<<

So what sphere do you work in? I assume either paining or sculpture, traditional fine arts. So do you make your own paints, mix the pigments, bind them with solvents and substrates to create the tools for your job? Do you make your own canvases and brushes? In doesn't stop you being an artist because you don't make your own tools from raw materials. And a bed, etc art Tracy Emin's tools. Whether or not the art produced is any good is debatable, and depends on whether you like it, whether it works for you, and that's subjective, but it is surely art.


>>When they had finished, he showed the end results to some 'art experts', who enthused over the paintings and spoke a load of absolute tosh<<

The problem with art critics is they aren't really allowed to say, "I like this painting, i think it's smart, and no academic theory is needed to back that up, it doesn't matter if it was painted by an old master or a four year old, i like it, so it's good." I think they'd be out of a job if they said that, but it's true. If someone likes it, it's good art, even if it's only the artist.

In fact, if people really don't like it it's good too, because it has prompted thought and interaction, raised points and emotions. Probibly.


>>a 1 metre square canvas painted solid apple green. I don't know what it's meant to represent <<

Surley it was meant to represent green!

Art is something that is pleasing to the eye !!

Regarding dead cows, etc, I'd argue that the contribution of the alleged artist to the artwork must come in to consideration. If the future generations wished to create a piece equal to a Hirst animal carcass, all they'd need to know is :

'Take cow, cut in half, stick in oversized fishtank of formaldehyde'

(or even 'Go to nearest medical school, grab random anatomical specimen, call it art')

That is the *entire* intellectual information content of the supposed artwork, and could easily be written on the back of a small postage stamp. The same cannot be said about even a vaguely competent sketch, sculpture or painting.

If a bed and a few pairs of dirty pants are Emin's tools, I'm at a loss to see what actual *skills* of hers are evident in the end result, (apart from a talent for bullshit, public drunkenness and self-publicity.)

Let me offer:
Two cliches and a rant:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"
"If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."
Uhm sorry ..I've forgotten what the rant was, now. Pondering cliches always does that to me.
(That's why they have become cliches I guess. No dog like an old dog, eh, Trixie!)

Oh wait I remember ..sorta. A painting is just a painting, a sculpture is a sculpture, a photo is a photo, a poem is a poem, a flower arrangement is just a flower arrangement... but the word ART can apply to any or all of these, only if an audience agrees.
Art is when any of these creations transcends its simpler definition, when it satifies or touches a higher aesthetic or sends a message to the soul and not just the brain. If it fails to reach out and be seen, heard, felt ..then it's just another painting, just another photo, just another vase full of flowers - pleasing no doubt to the owner/creator - but Art involves a communication to 'others'.
Like the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear any sound it might make, even a DaVinci or a Rodin or a Bach will not 'make a noise' if it never sees the light of day.

peace
jwf (metaphor mixer and TV messagist)

I agree, which is why I have trouble with the green canvas as art. It doesn't do anything for me, personally. Mind you, a lot of 'old masters' don't leave me cold. I might, with some tuition, be able to appreciate the brushwork, use of colour, or whatever it is you're supposed to appreciate, but the picture itself would still leave me cold. Other works I like for no reason that I can define - they just move me in some way. On example is my current 'wallpaper' - "The Tower of Babel" by Pieter Brueghels the Elder, a 15th Century (I think) Flemish painter. Don't ask me why I like it, I just do. Ditto *some* works by Salvador Dali, Da Vinci's engineering drawings (but not necessarily his paintings) and some works by Albrecht Durer (apologies for the lack of umlaut).

Oops! I started to write 'a lot of old masters don't do anything for me', then changed it to '... leave me cold' and left the don't in. The third sentence should read 'a lot of old masters leave me cold'. I guess I should check before I post, but I probably still wouldn't spot it!

<*aside to Cheerful Dragon:>
Yeah I got that bit. I was having trouble with 'tuition'. Did you mean 'intuition' or are you really trying to raise money for artschool? Save your money for gallery and museum tours. You will learn more and spend less.
*

~jwf~

Someone on here said art is what looks good. I can say that there are only about a handful of painters in this world whose pictures I would pay money for. I don´t think Van Gogh´s paintings look nice, but I still consider them art.

Then someone said art is what evokes emotions in you. If indifference is an emotion, then everything is art isn´t it?

Going back to Denmark, a guy put in his excrements in cans and sealed them. Then sold them as art. One Danish museum bought some. While they were in the basement because of too high temperatures, one of them burst. So the artists of course demanded several thousand of them for having ruined his artwork. I don´t think he got it which was good, they needed all the money to clean the basement.

Here in Denmark we also have awards for commercials, but it seems rather daft. It is the artistic thing they give for, instead of what the purpose of commercials is for. So the commercials that have made people across the country laugh, been talked about alot and has raised profits 200% are ignored. Instead the awards are given to commercials that never sold anything, and that people zapped away from because they were too weird.

So if a canvas is painted on in the forest and no critics see it, is it art?

I guess the last comment gets to the heart of the matter - in some eyes, if a art critic can bulls**t about it, it's art.

However, that only pushes the problem to another level. If absolutely *anything* can be art, but only art critics can tell, what makes an art critic different from any other member of the human race?. If there isn't anything specific (it certainly isn't talent) and/or anyone can say 'This is art', the term does rather seem to lose any real meaning.

Considering art and critics, I see some parallels with the world of fashion - a huge amount of haute couture seems to be an exercise in publicity, with a few elements of shock thrown in for good measure, and with little or no relevance to the real world of clothing, but if any of the fashion correspondents stood up and said 'Hang on, most of this is a load of b*****ks', they wouldn't get invited to the next round of parties.
The incestuous world of conceptual artists, galleries, collectors and critics seems rather similar.

Yes, I meant tuition, and when I said 'might', I meant 'If I was fool enough to part with money for an "Art Appreciation" course and sad enough to complete it'. I hardly ever go to art galleries. When I do, I spend most of the time looking at works that appeal to *me*, regardless what other 'great works' are around. If I want to know more about a work, I'll look up the information somehow. I guess the truth is that I don't *want* to be told about what is art and why, even on a gallery tour. I'd rather judge for myself, even if people call me a Philistine because I think the Mona Lisa is over-rated.