I realize "art" is completely completely subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beerholder, but...
I don't spend a lot of time looking at photos online, but there are a few places I occasionally look through the submissions.
The words I keep coming back to are "overcooked" and/or "contrived".
Some of them are initially eyecatching, but then I realize I feel like they're too perfect or just "wrong". (One in particular involved a rock formation and a sunset in the distance...and the side of the rock formation facing the viewer was perfectly lit - when it should have been in deep shadow)...Portraits of people in unnatural poses....
To be honest, I see more photos on this site, taken by you lot, that make me go "damn...wish I'd taken that".
Art is difficult to pin down. Even the dictionary definition of it is vague. All the definitions seem to have some form of the word "intention" or similar. The artist has an idea and works to create it. I forget who had the famous saying, to paraphrase, 'to have an idea takes imagination, to make art takes science.'
All the definitions seem to have some form of the word "intention" or similar.
Maybe that's what I think I see - the images online are taken for that reason: to stand out, to catch eyeballs and/or compete with others.
I'm not saying folks who post images here aren't taking images to post, but I'd hazard a guess it's not their primary driver.
I mostly go for a wall hanger. Not so much what would look good on a screen. True to thyself I guess rather than worrying over what the 'internet' thinks.
The only definition I've found for art that is inclusive enough is that which is deliberately created and contributes to the ongoing dialog between artist and audience.
It's unsatisfying but how else can you get a Warhol on the same scale as a Rembrandt?
Otherwise I go for Bleirer's definition. What do I want to put on my wall? And so what if it's twee, maybe I like twee.
If the premise is accepted that we are all special and that non of us are the same, then I feel that the "art" I produce is a "thing" that gives me pleasure and should stir up that warm fussy feeling, or at least put the viewer on a road in that direction; and it will always be unique. Photographs are probably as arty as I will ever get and my pleasure in the good (...there is a another circular argument!...) ones is increased when they provide pleasure to others as well. I don't think I am looking for a "wow" reaction, I think "that's nice" would always suffice.
Regardless of the definition, I am still waiting to take my first artful image. I've come close a couple of times, but none of my photos are what I think of as special. I keep trying though.
I too look at a couple of sites that are updated with a new photo everyday. Sometimes they are very good but most of the time they look a lot like my pics...ho-hum. Like you I keep coming back to PL for inspiration and knowledge. Thanks everyone.
I've thought a lot about what art is and what it isn't. One necessary requirement in my mind is that art should represent some aspect of its creator and it should also have a transformative effect through the transmission of that aspect. I don't believe one can define art only as its end-product, but rather it must also include how it was created as well.
Art is an absolute subjective..erm.. subject. For me, it's the mix of creativity and masterfulness. Creativity without masterfulness is just chaos (a blank canvas hanged on a wall is not art, it's a blank canvas hanged on a wall), masterfulness without creativity is just copying. In music it's easy to see the difference too. In one extreme, you have most of the soundtrack composers for Hollywood, on the other extreme you have Yôko Ôno. I'm not making a value based judgement, I enjoy many composers from Hollywood, and while I can't enjoy Yôko I know that was never her intention.
Most photography I see online tend to one of these extremes, as it is quite hard to create art, or at least good art. I don't consider myself an artist, although I consider myself a photographer.
a blank canvas hanged on a wall is not art, it's a blank canvas hanged on a wall
Unless you give it an esoteric title and charge a museum an insane amount of money for it. 😝
I know it when I see it, and when I look at the Audoban photography award winners each year, I'm seeing it.
a blank canvas hanged on a wall is not art, it's a blank canvas hanged on a wall
Unless you give it an esoteric title and charge a museum an insane amount of money for it. 😝
Unfortunately we live in a world where post-modernism is a thing, something that replaced the whole need for craftmanship. That, for me, isn't art. But, I admit that it is almost funny to enter a museum like Tate Modern, in London, and seeing people staring at the same canvas for an hour :P
But, I admit that it is almost funny to enter a museum like Tate Modern, in London, and seeing people staring at the same canvas for an hour :P
Being the wiseass that I am, in HS, I spent a lot of time in the hall, after being thrown out of art class.
The only specific offense I recall was when I challenged the teacher's assertion that the folks who throw brushes at canvases spend a lot of time plotting where each color should go.
"So, what happens if they don't throw straight? I mean, what if they want yellow over here and it hits over there....is it ruined?"
"Get out".
it should also have a transformative effect through the transmission of that aspect.
But - my above snarkiness about esotericism aside - what if no one else "gets" what you've created? Is it still art? Have you "failed" as a creator?
Example: I have a photo I really like. It's a tight shot of an old, stone farm field wall that has long since outlived it's usefulness.
Most people - my wife included - look and go "....it's a wall.." The best I've gotten is "...there's a lot going on there..." That's true. There are a lot of different shapes and an almost infinite number of shades of green - mosses and such.
But when I look at it, it's with the realization that, despite those stones have been taken from disparate places, the passage of time has rendered them harmonious. They all now belong. As "proof", if you were to look at the photo and then I were to Photoshop in a brick, it would be very jarring and out of place.
But since I'm the only one who "gets it" is it still art, or just a boring picture of a farm field wall, taken by some weird guy?
I forget who had the famous saying, to paraphrase, 'to have an idea takes imagination, to make art takes science.'
This dovetails very nicely with a video I just watched. Brian May (a musician and astrophysicist....you may have heard of him...) was asked about technology and technical proficiency in music. He said he thinks of himself as a Victorian because back then there was no real distinction between "art" and "science".
At first, I nodded, and agreed with him, but on further reflection, I thought "No, he's wrong - SCIENCE is the enemy of ART". Science is methodical, deliberate, cerebral. Art is random, spontaneous, visceral. No scientist would just randomly cram two substances together, yet artists mashup disparate things all the time. Science is about control, art is about letting go of control. Science is from the head, art from the heart. At best, they're uneasy bedfellows.
Then I thought about this as it applies to photography and I said "Well, having technical proficiency allows you to more easily capture that "thing" that you saw, like knowing which pigments to mix and what brush to use allows a painter to get on canvas what is actually in their head."
....but then I realized that some of my favorite pictures that I have taken were shot from the hip, as it were...
Hey, it's no fun arguing with yourself and losing. 😑