Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your Art!

Rate this topic


brikufa

Recommended Posts

If there was ever a one-way ticket to frustration, it's this: trying to turn photography into an art form!

I spent a big chunk of 35 years trying to accomplish this - and it did certainly improve my 'eye' and my technique- but (speaking for me) I definitely believe that it can never be. Why should it?

A camera is a recording instrument. Whatever one puts in front of it, it honestly copies. The 'artfulness', pre-visualisation, craft, and of course, creativity, that one employs, can and will emphasise, strengthen, add impact to what you the photographer desires to communicate.

In this sense, photography is reportage. For instance I have always had an attraction to man-made structures; let's say I appreciate the form of a particular bridge. To photograph the bridge I select the lighting first (ie time of day), I decide on a few angles of camera position,and perspective, then the other tools at my disposal - lens, filtration etc. Now I pre-visualise the picture according to what I want to say - which has its roots in my 'sense of life'. Do I want to add another element to the shot?

A human being in the distance to indicate the scale and grandeur of the structure, perhaps. A passing ox- wagon, to contrast modern and primitive. The bridge's designer, in the foreground, in a heroic light. And so on.

When the photograph is taken, I have a picture - an attractive one - of a bridge. Every thing that I added [or subtracted], every decision made has concretised my personal view of that bridge. That's what a viewer will see: A fine re-creation of a fine creation.

I also have utilised double and mutiple exposure, 'sandwiching' slides, extreme colour and gel effects, and found them effective for magazine covers - but this is illustration, using photography.

And how much can one manipulate an image, with Photo Shop for instance, before it is no longer a photograph?

At its most basic, photography might just be 'a slice of life', almost 'objet trouve'; at its best [ and I don't say this lightly, as I have appreciated the work of many photographers from Man Ray onwards] it has a purity and individuality all of its own. It lies somewhere imo,- to a varying degree - between craft, and naturalistic art.

So, as I said earlier, why should we want it to be art, anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi whYNOT,

Will you post samples of your multiple-exposure experimental photography? I'd be especially interested in seeing any images which were created using orthographic and in-camera masking, if you have any (you mentioned that you've "sandwiched slides" and used color gels, etc., where I've been talking about methods significantly more advanced than that, so I'd be interested in seeing if you've created anything at the level that I've been talking about).

You say that, at its best, photography lies somewhere between craft and naturalistic art. I'm wondering if you've looked at the second image that I posted a link to in my post # 13 on this thread. Here's the link again:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/96847642_9f52d710d1_o.jpg

I don't see how anyone could call the image "naturalistic."

If a person were to build a set, hire actors and pose as them in a scene similar to the one where Dagny and the guys rescued John Galt, would you say that the resulting photograph would necessarily be "naturalistic"?

You asked how much can one manipulate an image with Photoshop before it is no longer a photograph. That's a good point. Photoshopped images are probably best called something like "digital art" or "digital hybrids." But your question wouldn't apply to the pre-digital techniques that I mentioned in post # 13 since they involve the manipulation of an image on a light-sensitive surface. Such techniques have always been a part of photography. A photograph doesn't cease being a photograph just because people discover that the photographer used techniques that they were previously unaware of.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jon No. I don't consider the monochrome picture "naturalistic". I don't consider it romanticist either. I don't, if that is your intention, consider it any kind of art. I think it lies somewhere on that continuum between craft and naturalist art.

It is an impact-ful, 'artful', ingenious, well-designed and pre-visualised, quite haunting, photograph. It is also, like many combination photos, just a touch too 'clever' and ingenuous; but that's my opinion.

Masking, or double-exposure techniques, whether done in camera - preferably a large format 4x5 - or on the baseboard under an enlarger, have been one way of pushing the boundaries of phtography; as you have experienced. Another terrific technique I'm sure you know about is 'light-painting'.

Let me approach this from another angle. I predict that we are fast coming to the stage when photography is never fully trusted again. Any picture that looks great or dramatic will automatically be suspect, as in "oh, I know that you digitally altered it". Even when it was a totally honest, unmanipulated photo! This is a complete swing-round from the days of "the camera never lies"- which , you know as well as I do, is not the whole truth. The camera is as honest as its user.

But, we are now seeing deliberate distortions of even News photos - there was a case a few years ago

of a photojournalist in the M.E. falsifying a pic, for which he was fired. Now it is almost accepted that any good picture has been altered. I feel that the future of this wonderful medium is going to be problematic - well for those photographers like me who respect its purity AND realism.

Now, 'art photography', as I've indicated, has far greater license. Essentially, anything goes in the quest for an artistic image. So why have I never seen [or taken] a photograph that satisfies my criteria of Art?

Being 'clever', or bringing together different elements that can be assimilated creatively and contrastingly, is just adding to the photo, until a point is reached where it's no longer a photo, but a collage, and it has'nt got any closer to art.

I haven't finished on this subject yet, but will give you a chance to reply. :P

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tony. You wrote:

Hello Jon No. I don't consider the monochrome picture "naturalistic". I don't consider it romanticist either.

Well, what about my question about a staged photo of a scene of something like Dagny and the boys rescuing Galt. Wouldn't that be "romantic"? And what about movies? Do you consider them to be art? If so, what's the cutoff? How many frames of film must there be before a photographed staged scene becomes art?

I don't, if that is your intention, consider it any kind of art. I think it lies somewhere on that continuum between craft and naturalist art.

Keep in mind that I'm not asking about your personal opinions of what is or is not art, but that I'm talking about Rand's views on what is or is not art according to Objectivism, as well as what is or is not "romantic." I think the photo that I posted a link to is "romantic" by Rand's standards since it doesn't present an ordinary, everyday recording of random events from reality, but imaginatively expresses danger, heroism and anything but an "everyday" occurrence, and it is a selective re-creation of reality created for the purpose of projecting something that is important to the artist.

It is an impact-ful, 'artful', ingenious, well-designed and pre-visualised, quite haunting, photograph. It is also, like many combination photos, just a touch too 'clever' and ingenuous; but that's my opinion.

Masking, or double-exposure techniques, whether done in camera - preferably a large format 4x5 - or on the baseboard under an enlarger, have been one way of pushing the boundaries of phtography; as you have experienced. Another terrific technique I'm sure you know about is 'light-painting'.

Let me approach this from another angle. I predict that we are fast coming to the stage when photography is never fully trusted again. Any picture that looks great or dramatic will automatically be suspect, as in "oh, I know that you digitally altered it". Even when it was a totally honest, unmanipulated photo! This is a complete swing-round from the days of "the camera never lies"- which , you know as well as I do, is not the whole truth. The camera is as honest as its user.

Right, and the users have been "dishonest" since the first days of photography. The medium has always been treated by one person or another as a means of improving upon (or romanticizing) reality. I agree with you that it's an ethical issue when so-called photojournalists indulge in photo manipulation, but it's simply an act of artists making good use of their tools when art photographers do it.

But, we are now seeing deliberate distortions of even News photos - there was a case a few years ago

of a photojournalist in the M.E. falsifying a pic, for which he was fired. Now it is almost accepted that any good picture has been altered. I feel that the future of this wonderful medium is going to be problematic - well for those photographers like me who respect its purity AND realism.

Now, 'art photography', as I've indicated, has far greater license. Essentially, anything goes in the quest for an artistic image. So why have I never seen [or taken] a photograph that satisfies my criteria of Art?

Being 'clever', or bringing together different elements that can be assimilated creatively and contrastingly, is just adding to the photo, until a point is reached where it's no longer a photo, but a collage, and it has'nt got any closer to art.

Oh, but it has become art at that stage, at least according to Rand's definition. It has become a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judments," exactly in the same way that a movie has, except with fewer frames of film.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, the word 'selectivity' is probably key here. Rand's 'purposeful selectivity' is even better.

That little world in the viewfinder of a camera is the first selection one makes. Just by swinging that frame around, one is seeing things in an accentuated light. "What interests me, this... or this?"

The finished picture has the same effect on another person (usually). It has been given added significance by being the 'slice of life' that the photographer selected, and here it is within its borders, standing or falling on its own merits.

Almost the first thing I assess when I see someone's photo is 'why was it taken?' What was the photographer's purpose? Did she succeed?

Every photographer wants to make a statement. I can only draw on my own experience, and I've enjoyed a wide range, from press to industrial, still-lifes to theatre, never once did I want a 'realistic' photograph. Every picture was an attempt to impress my style, and my point of view.

The statement one makes comes by three major techniques (and several minor ones):

Light, in its infinite varieties - which is my number one value, btw

Juxtapositioning/selectivity

Timing.

[For me the subject matter has lesser importance.]

But before I let this get away from me, my main point is that selecting a view, and juxtaposing elements within it by: timing; or by directing/ arranging; or by image- manipulation; are all really the same end.

To return to the fine photograph you posted. What difference does it make to my opinion of art? Firstly, it is still a photo. Secondly it is actually a photo within a photo. This is the second thing any viewer sees, after being struck by its impact. The 'how did he do it?', I think you will agree, is irrelevant to artistic appraisal. All that counts is, what are its artistic merits?

You asked me to suspend my opinion of art, in favour of Ayn Rand's own judgement. Well I have learned over time to agree with her. So allow me to remind you of what she said about Romanticist vis-avis Naturalist art - not 'romantic', or 'natural',b.t.w. This crucial difference is the difference between what is life affirming, and what is only a mirror held up to life (Naturalism) Between the 'ought' and the 'is'.

Mere beauty, was not her over-riding concern, in art. On photography she wrote "there is an artistic element in some photographs which is the result of such selectivity..... some of which can be very beautiful".

More importantly for our purposes here, she wrote that art " is the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials". I remind you that the picture we're discussing is the creation of a concrete in terms of CONCRETE essentials. ie, two juxtaposed photos, which are themselves images of other concrete essentials. The introduction and consequence of a certain amount of 'abstract' quality, is not alone proof of art.

For your movie set question, I can relate this to stage photography and also to the few times I've been a publicity stills man on film sets. The best creative skills of lighting man, set designer, wardrobe etc., and the arrangement of attractive actors leads to a scene of compelling power. But my photographs are still not art. [ I also don't consider movies as art; even though some can come close ].

Provocative discussion. I welcome any other opinions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, the word 'selectivity' is probably key here. Rand's 'purposeful selectivity' is even better.

That little world in the viewfinder of a camera is the first selection one makes. Just by swinging that frame around, one is seeing things in an accentuated light. "What interests me, this... or this?"

The finished picture has the same effect on another person (usually). It has been given added significance by being the 'slice of life' that the photographer selected, and here it is within its borders, standing or falling on its own merits.

Almost the first thing I assess when I see someone's photo is 'why was it taken?' What was the photographer's purpose? Did she succeed?

Every photographer wants to make a statement. I can only draw on my own experience, and I've enjoyed a wide range, from press to industrial, still-lifes to theatre, never once did I want a 'realistic' photograph. Every picture was an attempt to impress my style, and my point of view.

The statement one makes comes by three major techniques (and several minor ones):

Light, in its infinite varieties - which is my number one value, btw

Juxtapositioning/selectivity

Timing.

[For me the subject matter has lesser importance.]

So far, it sounds to me as if you're describing art. You're talking about using careful selectivity to present a stylized vision which expresses a point of view. How is that not art?

But before I let this get away from me, my main point is that selecting a view, and juxtaposing elements within it by: timing; or by directing/ arranging; or by image- manipulation; are all really the same end.

To return to the fine photograph you posted. What difference does it make to my opinion of art? Firstly, it is still a photo. Secondly it is actually a photo within a photo.

Actually, it's not a photo within a photo. It's a photo in which the viewer is looking through two windows of the corner of a house out into the outdoor space beyond, in which an armored man is riding a horse while a woman with a flowing veil/headdress clings to his arm. Both characters are looking backward, giving the impression that they're being pursued. The outdoor scene complies properly to its perspective -- in other words, its perspective doesn't distort in the way that it would if it were two photographs mounted on perpendicular walls. Also notice the bottle on the right window sill, as well as the fact that light is coming through the windows, and it's even casting a small bit of light on the interior wall just beneath the right window.

This is the second thing any viewer sees, after being struck by its impact. The 'how did he do it?', I think you will agree, is irrelevant to artistic appraisal. All that counts is, what are its artistic merits?

And "being struck by its impact" is one of the artistic merits that one should consider when looking at a work of visual, symbolic fiction like this.

You asked me to suspend my opinion of art, in favour of Ayn Rand's own judgement.

I didn't mean to imply that I was asking you to suspend your opinions in favor of Rand's, but to point out that my purpose in this discussion has been to focus on the Objectivist Esthetics -- its definitions and principles regarding what criteria must be met in order for something to either qualify as art or be rejected -- not to ask various posters about their own personal tastes or opinions. Not that I'm not interested in your personal views.

When people state that photography is not a valid art form according to Objectivism, and I object to such statements based on my view that Rand may not have been aware of many of the techniques that photographers use, and that she may not have contemplated just how fictional or symbolic an art photograph can be, discussing your or other peoples' personal theories about art, as opposed to sticking to Rand's, is tangential or incidental, regardless of how interesting it might be.

Well I have learned over time to agree with her. So allow me to remind you of what she said about Romanticist vis-avis Naturalist art - not 'romantic', or 'natural',b.t.w. This crucial difference is the difference between what is life affirming, and what is only a mirror held up to life (Naturalism) Between the 'ought' and the 'is'.

The photo of the man and woman on the horse is not an image of what "is." It is a stylized, fictionalized image of an event that did not take place in reality. Its purpose, clearly, is not to hold a mirror up to life and to record an average moment of things as they are, put to project a vision of a world in which people are choosing to act, and doing so in the face of great danger. The image is stylized, fictional, dramatic, very selective in its content and composition, and it fits Rand's emphasis on volition as the defining aspect of romanticism. In short, it's art, and it's very highly romantic art by Rand's definitions.

Mere beauty, was not her over-riding concern, in art. On photography she wrote "there is an artistic element in some photographs which is the result of such selectivity..... some of which can be very beautiful".

More importantly for our purposes here, she wrote that art " is the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials". I remind you that the picture we're discussing is the creation of a concrete in terms of CONCRETE essentials. ie, two juxtaposed photos, which are themselves images of other concrete essentials. The introduction and consequence of a certain amount of 'abstract' quality, is not alone proof of art.

As I said above, the image is not the juxtaposition of two photographs. And how anyone could claim that the "abstract essentials" projected in the photograph are a mere consequential element is beyond me.

For your movie set question, I can relate this to stage photography and also to the few times I've been a publicity stills man on film sets. The best creative skills of lighting man, set designer, wardrobe etc., and the arrangement of attractive actors leads to a scene of compelling power. But my photographs are still not art.

Again, the point isn't to limit the scope to whether or not you think that your photographs are art according to your aesthetic theories, but to whether or not some photographs can qualify as art according to the criteria of the Objectivist Esthetics.

I also don't consider movies as art; even though some can come close.

Well, that's very much at variance with Objectivism, despite your having said above that you've learned over time to agree with Rand. I have to wonder if you also don't consider plays to be art, or literature (since it doesn't actually present a "concrete" but only words denoting concepts which lead us to merely imagine concretes). Or music or architecture, since, as Rand's Objectivist Esthetics states, they also don't re-create concretes.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that a good photographer can do is emphasise, exaggerate or minimise aspects of the subject matter in front of his lens. He is beholden to the subject matter, first and last.

He can indicate a mood or a personal preference. If he could 'create a concrete in terms of abstract essentials', he would now be an artist.

If one were to take a photograph of Rodin's The Thinker, and seamlessly (naturally) drop it into another photograph of students in a lecture hall - with matched light, matched perspective, etc - what would the resulting image be? I doubt, firstly, that the image would be a 'photograph'- manipulation has removed the essence of photography. Would it be an artwork, naturalistic, or romanticist; after all it has within it an recognisably great sculpture? I don't think so, either.

What we end with here is perhaps a wryly humorous image [an illustration] combining two media. In a similar way, you, sorry, the photographer, has produced an image of ominous foreboding by ADDING the component of photography to an existing image or artwork. (Room, trees, windows, horse and riders.) The horse and riders could just as easily stand or fall :) on their own as a work of art. Bringing a piece of art into photography means it is no longer a photograph. And possibly(?) it is no longer a piece of art.

The 'one frame out of a movie' that you keep referring to, is just a photograph, no matter how beautiful; the 'sense of life' of a great movie is dependent on all aspects: script [speech], sound [music score], action and visuals. A still photograph has removed all other knowable context and elements from the scene except for a split-second visual. How can it be art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that a good photographer can do is emphasise, exaggerate or minimise aspects of the subject matter in front of his lens. He is beholden to the subject matter, first and last.

He can indicate a mood or a personal preference.

No. A photographer can choose everything in a photograph, from its overall abstract thematic content, to the specific entities shown, to the gestures and positions of his characters, and he can even add things which don't -- or in some cases can't -- exist in reality.

Here's an example, which I posted earlier, of a photo in which I created, back in the pre-digital days, a "concrete in terms of abstract essentials" which did not exist "in front of my lens":

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/212794949_c4a5801970_o.jpg

As I said previously, it's not a real flower, and it wasn't made of any real objects. It's not a cutout, and it wasn't drawn, painted or in any other way rendered by hand. The image was created using nothing but lights, lenses, film, filters, a light table and various exposure techniques.

Rand wrote that when an artist paints an apple, he isolates "the essential, distinguishing characteristics of apples, and integrate them into a single visual unit." I've done the same with the image of the flower, only on light-sensitive film rather than canvas.

If he could 'create a concrete in terms of abstract essentials', he would now be an artist.

Then art-photographers are artists, since they "create a concrete in terms of abstract essentials," as I've amply demonstrated over and over again -- they manipulate and arrange visuals to create a fictional or symbolic image, a conceptual representation of what they think is in some way important or significant.

If one were to take a photograph of Rodin's The Thinker, and seamlessly (naturally) drop it into another photograph of students in a lecture hall - with matched light, matched perspective, etc - what would the resulting image be? I doubt, firstly, that the image would be a 'photograph'- manipulation has removed the essence of photography.

Why do you conclude that manipulation has removed the "essence" of photography? Photography is the process of producing images on light-sensitive surfaces. Manipulation doesn't alter the fact that an image has been produced on a light-sensitive surface, and photography doesn't have an "essence" which arbitrarily excludes techniques which photographers began using almost immediately after the medium was invented.

Would it be an artwork, naturalistic, or romanticist; after all it has within it an recognisably great sculpture? I don't think so, either.

What we end with here is perhaps a wryly humorous image [an illustration] combining two media. In a similar way, you, sorry, the photographer, has produced an image of ominous foreboding by ADDING the component of photography to an existing image or artwork. (Room, trees, windows, horse and riders.) The horse and riders could just as easily stand or fall on their own as a work of art. Bringing a piece of art into photography means it is no longer a photograph.

You lost me there. How does photographing a work of art make a photograph "no longer a photograph"? A photograph is a photograph regardless of what visual content it contains.

And possibly(?) it is no longer a piece of art.

Again, you lost me. Michelangelo's David and Leonardo's Mona Lisa have probably been photographed millions of times, including as elements within other artworks, yet they're still art. And people who view photos of them experience them as art. People who have never seen certain artworks in person have nevertheless been able to experience the art through the medium of photography.

The 'one frame out of a movie' that you keep referring to, is just a photograph, no matter how beautiful; the 'sense of life' of a great movie is dependent on all aspects: script [speech], sound [music score], action and visuals. A still photograph has removed all other knowable context and elements from the scene except for a split-second visual. How can it be art?

Paintings also remove all other knowable context and elements from the scene except for a split-second visual, so how can a painting be art by your reasoning? Many painters focus on gesture and story-telling rather than on abstract visual composition as their primary means of expression. Are their paintings non-art because they've captured a split-second visual which excludes most of the context of what the scene is about?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Art-concept has become all-embracing nowadays, to include rock paintings, or well crafted clay pots, graffiti, and the rest. If the concept is not jealously guarded, with the proliferation of images and 'creations' from all sides, we'll deserve what we get: debased, cheaper 'art'.

Jonathan, without including you in the above, you certainly do wish to expand photography, or some photography, into art. For you the technique is all, it seems; as long as the image ends up on film, or the sensor, it qualifies as a photograph. If some abstraction is involved ie, the building up of the image by light, filtration, and mutiple exposure; or, the combination of 'straight' photograph, and a copy photograph, shot from a volume of Medieval art (or whatever), utilising masking techniques,[post-production] - well it also qualifies as art.

I think you have ended up with a hybrid, that I certainly can't call art, and I am reluctant to call photography. Neither fish nor fowl, but some sort attractive, and often evocative medium I've always viewed as Photo Illustration.

It's fine by me that you want to overturn, or enlarge upon, Ayn Rand's view of photography. It is probable that she didn't know about the techniques of 'light-painting', double-exposure, etc., [though I would not be a bit surprised if she did]. Do you think she'd then discard her original appraisal?

I am sure that your work will convince the majority of people of its artistic merit, but as for me, insisting don't make it so; I will stick to my narrower definition of Art.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Art-concept has become all-embracing nowadays, to include rock paintings, or well crafted clay pots, graffiti, and the rest. If the concept is not jealously guarded, with the proliferation of images and 'creations' from all sides, we'll deserve what we get: debased, cheaper 'art'.

I disagree that the concept of art needs to be jealously guarded. Art is a very wide, complex category, and trying to protect one's concept of it seems to inevitably lead to the unintended consequence of eliminating significantly more than what one wanted eliminated. As I've been pointing out here and elsewhere, if we were to apply Rand's concept of art precisely and consistently, there would be a lot of art that would no longer qualify for one reason or another, including music, architecture and perhaps even literature, depending on how jealously we guarded her philosophical statements on the subject.

Besides, being motivated by the desire to not recognize the validity of "debased, cheaper 'art'" isn't a very philosophical approach. Something either is or is not art according to a philosophy's criteria. Our personal opinions that a given mode of expression is cheap or degrading has nothing to do with it, just as our desire to recognize as valid certain art forms that we like, but which don't meet the criteria, has nothing to do with it.

Jonathan, without including you in the above, you certainly do wish to expand photography, or some photography, into art.

Well, not to nitpick, but technically I'd say that I'm not wishing to expand photography, or anything else, but simply recognizing that some photography meets Objectivism's criteria for what qualifies as art. I'm not starting with a predetermined conclusion, but trying to apply Objectivism consistently across the various art forms. My purpose isn't to promote art forms that Objectivists don't want promoted, but to recognize and deal with the problems within the Objectivist Esthetics.

For you the technique is all, it seems; as long as the image ends up on film, or the sensor, it qualifies as a photograph. If some abstraction is involved ie, the building up of the image by light, filtration, and mutiple exposure; or, the combination of 'straight' photograph, and a copy photograph, shot from a volume of Medieval art (or whatever), utilising masking techniques,[post-production] - well it also qualifies as art.

I think you have ended up with a hybrid, that I certainly can't call art, and I am reluctant to call photography. Neither fish nor fowl, but some sort attractive, and often evocative medium I've always viewed as Photo Illustration.

It's fine by me that you want to overturn, or enlarge upon, Ayn Rand's view of photography. It is probable that she didn't know about the techniques of 'light-painting', double-exposure, etc., [though I would not be a bit surprised if she did].

Great, but only one facet of my argument addresses the issue of special effects photography and the unlimited selectivity that it offers to an art-photographer. Another facet is that no special effects are needed for certain photos to qualify as art according to the Objectivist Esthetics. Photographs created for the purpose of showing fictional or symbolic scenes also qualify, even when they have not been manipulated with the techniques we've been discussing.

Do you think she'd then discard her original appraisal?

I don't know if she would have altered her opinion if she had had more technical knowledge of photography and if she would have been familiar with the works of famous art photographers. I like to think that she would have been open to changing her views when presented with new information.

There's reason to believe that she was reconsidering her views on architecture before she died, because it had been pointed out to her that her statements on art and architecture were in conflict with each other. If I recall, she was questioned about the issue during the Q&A of her final appearance at Ford Hall Forum, and her answer wasn't satisfactory. Rather than clarifying her position, she basically repeated her contradiction. Rumor has it that the reason that there is no entry for "Architecture" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon is that she was reformulating her views on the subject (notice that there are entries for all of the other arts).

My view of Rand is that she probably would have done the same if confronted with information that she had lacked about photography -- she would have reformulated or clarified her views on photography and/or art in general. And I think that if she had been confronted with other criticisms of her aesthetic theories, she might have revised or refined her definitions and comments on a variety of art-related subjects, including "Art" itself.

I am sure that your work will convince the majority of people of its artistic merit, but as for me, insisting don't make it so; I will stick to my narrower definition of Art.

If you have the time and interest, I'd like to hear your definition, as well as if you agree with Rand on issues like whether or not an art work must communicate intelligible meanings, etc. You've already expressed disagreement with her (and me) on the issue of motion pictures qualifying as art. Are there any other art forms that she accepted but that you reject when using your narrower definition of art?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that reasoning, I would imagine that movies would also not qualify as art. After all, a movie (other than animation) is merely a series of photographs and sounds -- a mere mechanical recording -- of things that exist in reality, no?

No, because the central essential factor of a dramatic movie is the *story*. A documentary is NOT art.

Medium *alone* is not enough for determining what is and is not art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because the central essential factor of a dramatic movie is the *story*. A documentary is NOT art.

Sorry if I was unclear, but I wasn't referring to documentaries when talking about movies.

Like a fictional motion picture, a still photograph of a staged, fictional scene, and/or of objects and effects which don't exist in reality, is not a "documentary" either (or a "mere recording of things as they exist," or however one might want to put it).

Medium *alone* is not enough for determining what is and is not art.

I agree, which is why stating that photography cannot be art is inappropriate, especially when the people making the statement haven't studied the medium or investigated the work, techniques and opinions of experts in the field.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing like an art discussion to sort out the men from the boys - or the women from the girls, it seems; all of us suddenly have an opinion we'll defend to the death.

Jon,you have still to substantiate your claim for photography as art. The onus has always been yours. Your arguments have been: (a. Look at these pictures, and tell me they aren't art. (b. Any fictional scene that is photographed is art. (c. Anything that does not 'exist in reality' as in a composite of 2 or more images, or a result of painting with light, is art. (d. a photograph of a recognised art work, is still a photograph, and by extension, also art. (e. if Ayn Rand were around today, I am sure she would expand her definition of art, as she wasn't aware of new techniques.

a. is special pleading . I do rate them highly as Photo Illustration.

b. is really 'reaching'; since it would mean that I have 4000 photos on file, of theatre and movie-stills, that have now been elevated to art.

c. was a point I considered seriously, because I had my own questions on the matter for many years; but either a photo is a photo, or it is something else. Let me put it this way - if you painstakingly, pixel by pixel, built up an image onto a camera sensor [ or grain by grain onto a sheet of film], the resulting image - 3 months later - might be a fine piece of pointillistic Art ----- but it cannot be, by any definition of the word, a photograph.

d. is beneath consideration.

e. is special pleading. As you well know, the very earliest photographers tried to move their work into the realms of art, and were experimenting with these very same techniques. Your ideas are not new.

You have one more assertion to make, and this one I take personally. In reply to JMegan above, who made the valid point of 'medium not alone determining art', which BTW, does not prove your argument; you had to continue with .." especially when the people.. here haven't studied the medium or investigated the work... of the experts in the field."

I continued this debate with you, on the basis of respect, benevolence, and exchange of value. When this is no longer mutual, when your tone becomes hectoring, dismissive or presumptuous (as I notice it did with an experienced, thoughtful artist on another thread ); well, I'm outta here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a photographer is not photographing in a journalistic sense, but actually being selective and trying to convey a particular viewpoint, then photography is merely a medium used to express art. Such a photograph would be art. As far as I know, this is consistent with Rand's view too.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your arguments have been: (a. Look at these pictures, and tell me they aren't art.

I've never said anything close to that. I've posted examples and explained in great detail why they fit the Objectivist Esthetics' criteria for art.

(b. Any fictional scene that is photographed is art.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that any photo of a fictional scene is art. I can image that there are reasons that some photos of fictional scenes might not be art. It would depend on the photographer's intentions and purposes.

(c. Anything that does not 'exist in reality' as in a composite of 2 or more images, or a result of painting with light, is art.

I haven't argued that every composited or special effects image is art. People can use such techniques for non-art purposes. I similarly wouldn't argue that all painting is art or that all writing is art. After all, a person could paint houses and then write an instruction manual on how to paint houses.

(d. a photograph of a recognised art work, is still a photograph, and by extension, also art.

No, I've made no such argument. I've only argued that a photo doesn't cease being a photo when it contains an image of a work of art, that a work of art doesn't cease being a work of art when photographed, and that people can experience art via photography. That doesn't necessarily mean that the photo itself is art in such instances. A photographer might be simply using photography to record someone else's art. In other words, photography can be used to record reality, and it can be used to create art. A photographer who goes out to record reality doesn't create a work of art just because the object of reality that he recorded happens to be a work of art.

(e. if Ayn Rand were around today, I am sure she would expand her definition of art, as she wasn't aware of new techniques.

No, I didn't say that I was sure what she would do. She might have changed her views on photography, she might have changed her views on art in general, or she might have done nothing.

a. is special pleading . I do rate them highly as Photo Illustration.

Yes, one of your tactics has been to create new categories in which photographs are no longer considered photographs.

b. is really 'reaching'; since it would mean that I have 4000 photos on file, of theatre and movie-stills, that have now been elevated to art.

Some of them might be art. I guess it would depend on how much control you had over them, and what your intentions and purposes were. Did you first imagine the scenes, then design and build the sets based on what you had imagined, hire, clothe and and pose the actors? Or did you go into it as someone who was hired to record someone else's art? Or perhaps some combination of the two?

c. was a point I considered seriously, because I had my own questions on the matter for many years; but either a photo is a photo, or it is something else. Let me put it this way - if you painstakingly, pixel by pixel, built up an image onto a camera sensor [ or grain by grain onto a sheet of film], the resulting image - 3 months later - might be a fine piece of pointillistic Art ----- but it cannot be, by any definition of the word, a photograph.

I would go with a standard dictionary definition: "The process of producing images on photosensitive surfaces." And I would therefore say that exposing a sheet of film grain by grain is the act of creating a photograph.

d. is beneath consideration.

Addressed above.

e. is special pleading. As you well know, the very earliest photographers tried to move their work into the realms of art, and were experimenting with these very same techniques. Your ideas are not new.

I do indeed know that the earliest photographers experimented with such techniques, which should be evident from the fact that I've said so on this thread. I've made no claim that my ideas are new. The point is that even though I, you and others are aware of these ideas doesn't mean that Rand was. We don't know if she knew much of anything about the medium and the work created by its greatest practitioners. For all we know, when commenting on photography, she may have given the issue ten minutes of thought, and considered only the family snapshots and examples of beautiful photojournalism and landscape photography that she had seen.

You have one more assertion to make, and this one I take personally. In reply to JMegan above, who made the valid point of 'medium not alone determining art', which BTW, does not prove your argument; you had to continue with .." especially when the people.. here haven't studied the medium or investigated the work... of the experts in the field."

If you're going to quote me, please try to be more accurate. I would appreciate it if you didn't add words to what I actually wrote. You added the word "here."

If you've studied the work, techniques and opinions of experts in the field, then my comments wouldn't apply to you.

I'd be interested in hearing which art photographers you've read up on. What do you think of Uelsmann's or Moholy-Nagy's techniques and ideas? Which photographers do you think had the best solution to the problems of combining 8 x 10 chrome and ortho film in a vertical stat camera?

I continued this debate with you, on the basis of respect, benevolence, and exchange of value. When this is no longer mutual, when your tone becomes hectoring, dismissive or presumptuous (as I notice it did with an experienced, thoughtful artist on another thread ); well, I'm outta here.

My tone is not dismissive or presumptuous. I don't know what level of experience you have with special effects photography, which is why I asked you very early on if you'd post examples of complex special effects work that you've created. My purpose wasn't to insult you, but to determine whether or not you actually have knowledge of the advanced techniques that I'm talking about.

As for the other thread, I do know, from looking at the art in question, which artists have some knowledge of formal perspective theories and which don't. It's not an insult to point out that people who don't understand perspective don't understand perspective, and that they have no serious criteria for judging a painting's perspective.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
I thought i would show my fine art. I'm primarily an oil painter but also work in glass.

I consider my paintings to be transforming more from naturalism to romantic realism.

heres some of my favorite romantic pieces.

You are a very talented artist. I am simply speculating, but I can deduce a lot from your life and the tragedy you went through by looking at these paintings. I am definitively curious about the fact that there are three men portrayed in almost every one of them. I really like Commemoration. It reminds me of Bryan Larsen's Young Builder and There's Opportunity Here.

Edited by Howard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a very talented artist. I am simply speculating, but I can deduce a lot from your life and the tragedy you went through by looking at these paintings. I am definitively curious about the fact that there are three men portrayed in almost every one of them. I really like Commemoration. It reminds me of Bryan Larsen's Young Builder and There's Opportunity Here.

Thank you......I am also very fond of Bryan Larsen's work. I put multiple self portraits into one to represent a disintegrated self as contrast to my current, more integrated, self. I enjoy your piece too. I have wanted to try creating an entire image on Illustrator. Do you use an electronic pad to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you......I am also very fond of Bryan Larsen's work. I put multiple self portraits into one to represent a disintegrated self as contrast to my current, more integrated, self. I enjoy your piece too. I have wanted to try creating an entire image on Illustrator. Do you use an electronic pad to do that?

Thank you. I use a Wacom Intuos3 tablet, like this. I think it is absolutely indispensable.

Edited by Howard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...