Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2025 10:40 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:47 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
Rob MacLennan wrote:
BaRTiMuS wrote:
What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.


Or what if you're a documentarian/journalist/purist whose form of art is in the truth of the image itself, rather than what 'truth' you can inject into it? Some of, in fact probably all of the most powerful images I've seen came from film, not digital, and involved little or no retouching. Right now I'm thinking of images of war, from WWI and WWII, and Vietnam.


Valid point, but is a documentary photographer considered an artist? Is there work considered art? Because an image is "powerful" does it make it art? Thinking about this immediately makes me think of the majority of photos I saw at the Blackstar "Human Rights Human Wrongs" exhibition at Ryerson a while ago. With photography it's a tricky subject because you can look at the sports/documentary/wildlife photographer and put them in a separate category from the "fine art photographer". BUT, all of these types of photographers can definitely sell their work as "art". Then there is the grey zone, like street photographers, who are documenting daily life, but in an artistic way.

Personally, I feel that the subject isn't as important as the motive behind the photo. If you shoot a fire hydrant on the street from an artists perspective you will probably get a considerably different image than the same subject shot by someone with a documentary perspective. Both of these perspectives can come with separate ideas of whats right and wrong in terms of post processing. Someone can spend their entire lives taking extremely powerful and moving images that touch on topics of human rights or war, selling these photos in galleries. But I don't think that makes them an artist, it makes them an amazing documentary photographer. What if those exact same images were taken by another photographer, who wasn't there to document history, but only there to create images that evoked pain and suffering. Would he then be an artist? Not sure, this is where things get pretty murky to me.

I haven't taken an art class, I don't know anything about art history, I just know my own views and feelings on this subject, right or wrong. To me, an artist isn't as concerned about the subject of the photo or it's literal interpretation. Personally, I'm more interested in evoking a particular feeling than documenting the places I go to. I really don't care if the end product looks anything like the original image, I just want to recreate the way I felt when I walked into that scene for the first time, and the scene I had in my mind when I took the photo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:59 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:26 pm
Posts: 1155
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanfaust/
BaRTiMuS wrote:
Rob MacLennan wrote:
BaRTiMuS wrote:
What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.


Or what if you're a documentarian/journalist/purist whose form of art is in the truth of the image itself, rather than what 'truth' you can inject into it? Some of, in fact probably all of the most powerful images I've seen came from film, not digital, and involved little or no retouching. Right now I'm thinking of images of war, from WWI and WWII, and Vietnam.


Valid point, but is a documentary photographer considered an artist? Is there work considered art? Because an image is "powerful" does it make it art? Thinking about this immediately makes me think of the majority of photos I saw at the Blackstar "Human Rights Human Wrongs" exhibition at Ryerson a while ago. With photography it's a tricky subject because you can look at the sports/documentary/wildlife photographer and put them in a separate category from the "fine art photographer". BUT, all of these types of photographers can definitely sell their work as "art". Then there is the grey zone, like street photographers, who are documenting daily life, but in an artistic way.

Personally, I feel that the subject isn't as important as the motive behind the photo. If you shoot a fire hydrant on the street from an artists perspective you will probably get a considerably different image than the same subject shot by someone with a documentary perspective. Both of these perspectives can come with separate ideas of whats right and wrong in terms of post processing. Someone can spend their entire lives taking extremely powerful and moving images that touch on topics of human rights or war, selling these photos in galleries. But I don't think that makes them an artist, it makes them an amazing documentary photographer. What if those exact same images were taken by another photographer, who wasn't there to document history, but only there to create images that evoked pain and suffering. Would he then be an artist? Not sure, this is where things get pretty murky to me.

I haven't taken an art class, I don't know anything about art history, I just know my own views and feelings on this subject, right or wrong. To me, an artist isn't as concerned about the subject of the photo or it's literal interpretation. Personally, I'm more interested in evoking a particular feeling than documenting the places I go to. I really don't care if the end product looks anything like the original image, I just want to recreate the way I felt when I walked into that scene for the first time, and the scene I had in my mind when I took the photo.


I'm definitely no expert in art, but just some food for thought on the documenting history. Before photography, artists would document history in their paintings, many of which are considered works of art and hung in galleries. But of course these were interpretations of history by an artist to invoke a feeling or emotion in the viewer. Yet for most back in those days this was how they learned about events and history, especially when most couldn't read.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:31 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
Rob MacLennan wrote:
BaRTiMuS wrote:
What if your form of artistic expression involves shooting low quality jpegs and blowing them up really large in print? When it comes to art nothing is off limits and no one is doing it wrong. Nobody told Pollock to sell his paint brushes because he didn't use them in a conventional fashion.


Or what if you're a documentarian/journalist/purist whose form of art is in the truth of the image itself, rather than what 'truth' you can inject into it? Some of, in fact probably all of the most powerful images I've seen came from film, not digital, and involved little or no retouching. Right now I'm thinking of images of war, from WWI and WWII, and Vietnam.


Valid point, but is a documentary photographer considered an artist? Is there work considered art? Because an image is "powerful" does it make it art? Thinking about this immediately makes me think of the majority of photos I saw at the Blackstar "Human Rights Human Wrongs" exhibition at Ryerson a while ago. With photography it's a tricky subject because you can look at the sports/documentary/wildlife photographer and put them in a separate category from the "fine art photographer". BUT, all of these types of photographers can definitely sell their work as "art". Then there is the grey zone, like street photographers, who are documenting daily life, but in an artistic way.

Personally, I feel that the subject isn't as important as the motive behind the photo. If you shoot a fire hydrant on the street from an artists perspective you will probably get a considerably different image than the same subject shot by someone with a documentary perspective. Both of these perspectives can come with separate ideas of whats right and wrong in terms of post processing. Someone can spend their entire lives taking extremely powerful and moving images that touch on topics of human rights or war, selling these photos in galleries. But I don't think that makes them an artist, it makes them an amazing documentary photographer. What if those exact same images were taken by another photographer, who wasn't there to document history, but only there to create images that evoked pain and suffering. Would he then be an artist? Not sure, this is where things get pretty murky to me.

I haven't taken an art class, I don't know anything about art history, I just know my own views and feelings on this subject, right or wrong. To me, an artist isn't as concerned about the subject of the photo or it's literal interpretation. Personally, I'm more interested in evoking a particular feeling than documenting the places I go to. I really don't care if the end product looks anything like the original image, I just want to recreate the way I felt when I walked into that scene for the first time, and the scene I had in my mind when I took the photo.


Let me answer you with this: Writing can be an art form, whether done to inform or to evoke. Why any less so photography?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:43 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
@Rob
If someone is crafts words on paper to evoke thoughts, emotions and feelings; it certainly can be considered an art form. If someone puts facts and charts down as an author of a science textbook, would you lump that writer into the same category? I wouldn't. This is the same type of distinction I make with photography. That's why I wouldn't necessarily put sports, news, wedding, etc. photographers into the same category as an artist. I don't even really think "fine art photographers" should call themselves photographers. They should just be artists, who cares what the medium is.

@Jordan
You're exactly right, and that's where it gets really confusing. Are these "works of art" important because of their historical importance, the importance of the artist or their individual artistic merit? The Mona Lisa is a fantastic example. Can it be considered a work of art if it's an EXACT depiction of the real life subject? How is it any more artistic than the many thousand painted portraits already out there, painted in the past and present? No one will ever know what da Vinci was thinking when he put paint to canvas; but the fact that she had been painted by a different artist at the same time as da Vinci could make one think that da Vinci's Mona Lisa has about as much artistic merit as a studio portrait shot by any working photographer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095047/Mona-Lisa-copy-painted-Leonardo-da-Vincis-student-unveiled-Madrid.html

This is where the subjectivity of art comes in. If someone is willing to pay big bucks at a gallery for something to put on their wall, do we throw our hands up and call it art? Or do we try to explore the thought process of the artist to better understand what we're paying for? Maybe the Mona Lisa isn't a work of art because the subject or what we actually see on the canvas, maybe it's a work of art because of a dozen external factors, including the artist himself. A lot of contemporary art could be a very simple and straight forward approach to this idea.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:15 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
The Naming Of Types
(Stolen and poorly adapted from T. S. Eliot)

The Naming of Types is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a photographer must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.

First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Snapshot, Wedding, Nature, Macro or Travel
All of them fun everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:

But I tell you, a photographer needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you the most accordant
That name is of course Photojournalism.
A name that is a beacon for both truth and realism
With the names Bokeh and Sharpness being of much lesser importance

But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE PHOTOGRAPHER HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice he or she is in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
Of all the names his is the smartest,
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
That of course is because he's an Artist
Of deep and inscrutable singular Nature.


Last edited by Metrix on Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:43 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
ions wrote:
Good point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
@Rob
If someone is crafts words on paper to evoke thoughts, emotions and feelings; it certainly can be considered an art form. If someone puts facts and charts down as an author of a science textbook, would you lump that writer into the same category? I wouldn't. This is the same type of distinction I make with photography. That's why I wouldn't necessarily put sports, news, wedding, etc. photographers into the same category as an artist. I don't even really think "fine art photographers" should call themselves photographers. They should just be artists, who cares what the medium is.


While I'm not talking about charts and lists of facts, I'm guessing that you've never written for compensation. Writing well, in almost any venue, is an art form. A simple business letter needs must be written in a form that evokes certain reactions from the recipient. If it doesn't, then it's ineffective. Whether it's 'art' or not is in the eye of the beholder.

You've never seen a sports, news, or wedding photograph that puts you in the moment? Instills a certain emotion? Evokes a physical reaction? They can be snapshots or they can be taken at a key moment. That, in itself, is a very special skill. Is not the choice of how and when also artistic?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:59 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
Rob MacLennan wrote:
You've never seen a sports, news, or wedding photograph that puts you in the moment? Instills a certain emotion? Evokes a physical reaction? They can be snapshots or they can be taken at a key moment. That, in itself, is a very special skill. Is not the choice of how and when also artistic?


I think that's where I see things differently. While these photos do instill emotions and physical reactions, I don't see the process you describe as artistic. This is where my views of art being art not necessarily because of the physical content in front of you, but a number of external factors and influences including the person who creates it. If the person who took this sports, news or wedding photo was there on assignment and they caught a moment they knew would evoke some emotion; it wouldn't make them an artist all of the sudden.

As for the comment about the writing, I wouldn't be that broad. With that logic you could say almost ANY job is art form.

P.S. It's nice to have a really good discussion like this on TPMG, even if no one really gets anywhere or learns anything :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:45 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:29 am
Posts: 3415
Location: James in RH
Has thanked: 2 times
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/cahhK
Art, as with Love or Beauty, is difficult to describe or define but only understand that without it our lives would be very mundane and trivial. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:38 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
Rob MacLennan wrote:
You've never seen a sports, news, or wedding photograph that puts you in the moment? Instills a certain emotion? Evokes a physical reaction? They can be snapshots or they can be taken at a key moment. That, in itself, is a very special skill. Is not the choice of how and when also artistic?


I think that's where I see things differently. While these photos do instill emotions and physical reactions, I don't see the process you describe as artistic. This is where my views of art being art not necessarily because of the physical content in front of you, but a number of external factors and influences including the person who creates it. If the person who took this sports, news or wedding photo was there on assignment and they caught a moment they knew would evoke some emotion; it wouldn't make them an artist all of the sudden.

As for the comment about the writing, I wouldn't be that broad. With that logic you could say almost ANY job is art form.

P.S. It's nice to have a really good discussion like this on TPMG, even if no one really gets anywhere or learns anything :lol:


It's always nice when a reasonable conversation can be had.

If choosing the time of day, angle of light, framing, etc. can result in a picture of a simple flower that is considered art then why couldn't the same be said about (to use an example I would be most familiar with) those considerations with respect to a motorcycle on a racetrack? A flower isn't a particularly interesting subject, is it, and yet people routinely consider such images to have artistic merit.

There is art to be found in the design of a computer case, the shape of a car's body, the cut of a set of motorcycle racing leathers. Anything can be more than just its intended function.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:50 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
Rob MacLennan wrote:
There is art to be found in the design of a computer case, the shape of a car's body, the cut of a set of motorcycle racing leathers. Anything can be more than just its intended function.


Although it might be a false dichotomy to separate art as an object and art as an action yet it is still worth considering the multiple uses of the word art. Take the term State of the Art: although there maybe art used to get to the State of the Art and the object produced maybe has many aspects of art but isn't it still basically a product of science and technology? The same could be said for lets say sports photography, hopefully the photographer puts his art and skill into his work into his photography but I don't think every photograph that he takes should be considered art, some maybe but not all. Any object can incorporate art or be the result of skills and trades derived from artistic or design aesthetics. But isn't calling every object art just because it incorporates artistic aesthetics just weakling the term art until it is rather meaningless? This brings us full circle to: how do we or can we separate an object as art or non-art?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:57 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
BaRTiMuS wrote:
Rob MacLennan wrote:
You've never seen a sports, news, or wedding photograph that puts you in the moment? Instills a certain emotion? Evokes a physical reaction? They can be snapshots or they can be taken at a key moment. That, in itself, is a very special skill. Is not the choice of how and when also artistic?


I think that's where I see things differently. While these photos do instill emotions and physical reactions, I don't see the process you describe as artistic. This is where my views of art being art not necessarily because of the physical content in front of you, but a number of external factors and influences including the person who creates it. If the person who took this sports, news or wedding photo was there on assignment and they caught a moment they knew would evoke some emotion; it wouldn't make them an artist all of the sudden.


I'm with you on that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
By the way, writing business letters to be effective is not art, writing a story that invokes feelings and inspires is. This is coming from a copywriter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:07 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
There's an art to effective communication. Your strict definition is your own. Art is very good at providing exceptions to rules, try to pin it and it will evade you. Try hard to pin it and it will laugh.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:47 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:26 pm
Posts: 1155
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanfaust/
Well apparently war can also an art - I recall some book being called "The Art of War" ;-)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
So how much of art is simply in the intent to have what you create be called "art"? If you say it's art then is it, simply by declaration and regardless of the skill with which it is executed?

Take the letters of Thomas Pane, for example. Are they not art because the intent was political discourse, or are they art because they were meant to move the soul to action?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:37 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
Rob MacLennan wrote:
So how much of art is simply in the intent to have what you create be called "art"? If you say it's art then is it, simply by declaration and regardless of the skill with which it is executed?

Take the letters of Thomas Pane, for example. Are they not art because the intent was political discourse, or are they art because they were meant to move the soul to action?


I would agree with both of these statements. If you create something with the intent of artistic expression, it's art. Even if it sucks and you have no skill.

I don't consider Thomas Panie's letters to be art because of the original writers intent. Would you still consider them art if they didn't play any role in American history? If Paine was completely unknown and they were simply just another pile of essays written by a political dissident? My guess is these letters, in that context, would be completely irrelevant and unimportant no matter how well they were written. I wouldn't throw the "art" term out there for anyone who is able to pull feelings an emotions out of an image or text; because to me, in that context, you could categorize anyone who writes a romance novel as an artist.

Now, if these same letters were written by someone who's intent was solely artistic expression, they would always be art, no matter how historically important they were, and no matter how well or poorly they were written.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:50 pm
Posts: 113
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jscottharrison/
jordanfaust wrote:
Well apparently war can also an art - I recall some book being called "The Art of War" ;-)


There is also a book called War of Art. :shock:

I heard it is an interesting read.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
I would agree with both of these statements. If you create something with the intent of artistic expression, it's art. Even if it sucks and you have no skill.

I don't consider Thomas Panie's letters to be art because of the original writers intent. Would you still consider them art if they didn't play any role in American history? If Paine was completely unknown and they were simply just another pile of essays written by a political dissident? My guess is these letters, in that context, would be completely irrelevant and unimportant no matter how well they were written. I wouldn't throw the "art" term out there for anyone who is able to pull feelings an emotions out of an image or text; because to me, in that context, you could categorize anyone who writes a romance novel as an artist.

Now, if these same letters were written by someone who's intent was solely artistic expression, they would always be art, no matter how historically important they were, and no matter how well or poorly they were written.


So if I take a snapshot of a muddy boot print and call it art, then it's art? What about the flip-side. Is there no "accidental" art? Art that isn't created by explicit intent?

So a romance writer, who sets out to create 'literature' isn't making art? I thought that the act of creating such a thing made it so, from your previous statement? To me Paine's work would still be art, whether or not it had ever had a hand in history. We simply wouldn't have known about it. Perhaps the fact that they did actually have an impact proves their standing?

All I'm saying is that what is art, is in the eye of the beholder. I look at a lot of Warhol's stuff and call it advertising. I look at much of the 'modern' art out there and think that I've seen more moving pieces created by a three year old having a temper tantrum with condiments. SOMEONE sees art in it though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
Rob MacLennan wrote:
All I'm saying is that what is art, is in the eye of the beholder.
You summed it up rather nicely.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:53 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
Rob MacLennan wrote:
So if I take a snapshot of a muddy boot print and call it art, then it's art? What about the flip-side. Is there no "accidental" art? Art that isn't created by explicit intent?

So a romance writer, who sets out to create 'literature' isn't making art? I thought that the act of creating such a thing made it so, from your previous statement? To me Paine's work would still be art, whether or not it had ever had a hand in history. We simply wouldn't have known about it. Perhaps the fact that they did actually have an impact proves their standing?

All I'm saying is that what is art, is in the eye of the beholder. I look at a lot of Warhol's stuff and call it advertising. I look at much of the 'modern' art out there and think that I've seen more moving pieces created by a three year old having a temper tantrum with condiments. SOMEONE sees art in it though.


If you consider "literature", in the broad sense, an art form, then yes, a romance novel would be art. But you would have to believe that anyone out there putting words to paper is creating art, which I do not (Keep in mind I'm a completely visual person, I'm a complete Luddite when it comes to literature). The fact that Paine's work did have an impact can prove that he was an important activist, a compelling writer, or an influential person in general. Does it improve his standing as an artist? I would say no.

"Accidental Art" is a tricky subject. If it was possible, then by your definition, ANYTHING could fall into that category as long as some schmuck comes along and hangs it on their wall. I would never call the person who created this "accidental art" an artist. As metrix said, I'm not sure if it makes sense to separate the art from the artist; but I have been trying to be careful and talk about the artist, not necessarily the art. If the creators intentions aren't artistic in any way, then they cannot, to me, be an artist.

While general consensus might be that "art" comes in many different forms; I have trouble grasping any other form of art than visual. While I may be wrong in this narrow minded view, I think your view of it might be a bit too broad. If you believe all literature, dance, photography, painting, sculpting, etc to be an art form, despite the creators intentions; then we're all artists and we all create art every time we take a photo, do the running man on the dance floor or put some play-doh together. I don't believe in this view, and the only way I can separate these activities into an artistic and non-artistic category is by gauging the creators intentions.

I'm even starting to confuse myself on this subject :D .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:49 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
BaRTiMuS wrote:
If you consider "literature", in the broad sense, an art form, then yes, a romance novel would be art. But you would have to believe that anyone out there putting words to paper is creating art, which I do not (Keep in mind I'm a completely visual person, I'm a complete Luddite when it comes to literature). The fact that Paine's work did have an impact can prove that he was an important activist, a compelling writer, or an influential person in general. Does it improve his standing as an artist? I would say no.

"Accidental Art" is a tricky subject. If it was possible, then by your definition, ANYTHING could fall into that category as long as some schmuck comes along and hangs it on their wall. I would never call the person who created this "accidental art" an artist. As metrix said, I'm not sure if it makes sense to separate the art from the artist; but I have been trying to be careful and talk about the artist, not necessarily the art. If the creators intentions aren't artistic in any way, then they cannot, to me, be an artist.

While general consensus might be that "art" comes in many different forms; I have trouble grasping any other form of art than visual. While I may be wrong in this narrow minded view, I think your view of it might be a bit too broad. If you believe all literature, dance, photography, painting, sculpting, etc to be an art form, despite the creators intentions; then we're all artists and we all create art every time we take a photo, do the running man on the dance floor or put some play-doh together. I don't believe in this view, and the only way I can separate these activities into an artistic and non-artistic category is by gauging the creators intentions.

I'm even starting to confuse myself on this subject :D .


Concerning your first paragraph remember that you, yourself, said that something created as art is art, even if it sucks and you have no skill. I didn't say that a romance novel was GOOD art ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:15 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
lol I did, but I don't see the connection. What romance novelist writes with the intention of creating art?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:33 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
BaRTiMuS wrote:
lol I did, but I don't see the connection. What romance novelist writes with the intention of creating art?


Probably most of them.

Edit: Although it's a bit late in the discussion, to those of you that don't think data and charts can be art you need to become aware of Edward Tufte. You will then be aware that even statistics can be "art."

I think this is an example of the... "problem." A lack of awareness and education, not necessarily formal, when attempting to define something. Like many of the social sciences Art is one of those things that's so easy to have an opinion on. For example, most feel they don't need an education in something like politics to go on about it. They haven't even touched Republic, or any other great work that followed but they'll tell you why the Tea Party is mad, how conservatives are evil and liberals are whiny bitches (all of that is true though ;)). I'm no enginamaneer so I'm not going to go tell Hotwire where to jam the flux capacitors in his buildings. I don't have that foundation that he received in his education. The reverse is why I'm so amused by his social theories. ;) There are a couple fields I'm confident that I'm fairly well educated in now, in particular ways I spose, but when asked a question related to these fields by someone who truly wants an answer, not just a one sentence cocktail party definition, I almost always start with "It depends" and probe for the purpose of the question. Why are they asking the question? What is it about the thing they're asking they want to know? Most (all?) subjects have a pile of legitimate variables that need to be considered to give a complete answer. Especially a definition. So knowing which variables a person wishes to resolves helps in providing an answer. And it's not just liberal art flakes that do this, real scienticians will give an it depends answer too. The same logic can be applied to statements. That is why some of the earlier stupider statements in this thread irked me so much. The variables, I need a better word for this concept.... reasons? ...., the reasons those statements were made had nothing to do with art. When someone says "art is this" a well thought out response to this statement looks at what is trying to be answered. Defining art is perhaps one of the most difficult things to define. It's a question that has been pondered for a very long time by very great minds. To not consider all their "it depends" when making a statement about what Art is or is not is empty opinion.

Hmmm so now that I've written that we're being ignorant and uneducated here and don't know how to back out of it without losing my point..... Fortunately, I think, to the credit of a few of the posters to this thread that's the answer we've come up with. Art depends. For the rest, I like turtles. Keep it real on the street yo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:34 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:15 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.synowiec.ca
lol thanks for that quality input? Thankfully we're all allowed to form our own opinions, educated or not. And its interesting to discuss them as long as we're not trying to pass them off as fact. If romance writers really do think they are creating art then there is seriously something wrong with this world. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
ions wrote:
For example, most feel they don't need an education in something like politics to go on about it. They haven't even touched Republic, or any other great work that followed but they'll tell you why the Tea Party is mad, how conservatives are evil and liberals are whiny bitches (all of that is true though ;)). I'm no enginamaneer so I'm not going to go tell Hotwire where to jam the flux capacitors in his buildings. I don't have that foundation that he received in his education. The reverse is why I'm so amused by his social theories. ;).
Dismissing someones opinions or thoughts on a subject because they aren't educated, or as educated as you in that field, just reeks of elitism and pompousness.

I'm failing to see what reading Republic has anything to do about having an opinion concerning the Tea Party, the conservatives or the liberals.

The problem with art is that it's entirely fluid and malleable. You don't need to be formally educated in art to form an opinion of what it is and isn't. Unfortunately there's very little room for objectivity concerning the appreciation of art, and by extension, how people define it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
BaRTiMuS wrote:
lol thanks for that quality input? Thankfully we're all allowed to form our own opinions, educated or not. And its interesting to discuss them as long as we're not trying to pass them off as fact. If romance writers really do think they are creating art then there is seriously something wrong with this world. :D


Absolutely. People are allowed to have opinions. It's when they become pronouncements that I get my back up. And sure, I imagine they do. Stephanie Meyer probably thinks she created a love story that she considers to be art. Very few people that create ....stuff.... will look at what they create and say "that's not art" or "I don't create art." I know from direct experience that the debates between what is fiction and what is Literature get ugly. Jodi Piccoult, for example, feels the alphabet grants her the right to sit near Thomas Pynchon on the bookshelf. She's wrong of course, but she thinks she should be there. :D

Venser wrote:
Dismissing someones opinions or thoughts on a subject because they aren't educated, or as educated as you in that field, just reeks of elitism and pompousness.


Not quite. I dismissed the pronouncements made based on opinion of questionable merit. If I had opinions on where Hotwire should install his flux capacitors (he's an electrical engineer and I am not to give you context) it would be an ignorant opinion. Sure, I'm allowed to have ignorant opinions, but I'm not gonna stand on a soap box telling the engineer he's wiring the building wrong and should sell his tools. Nor would I tell people to sell their cameras or that they're doing it wrong based on my opinion. If you guys can prove to me people should sell their cameras cause they shoot only jpeg go for it. Cite your sources please.

Venser wrote:
I'm failing to see what reading Republic has anything to do about having an opinion concerning the Tea Party, the conservatives or the liberals.


You do know I didn't mean the band from Windsor right? I really don't want to sound jerky but an education on politics would help clarify that for you. Or, are you dismissing Classic seminal texts out of hand and arguing that uninformed opinion is just as valid as informed opinion? An informed educated response and approach is not as valuable as an uneducated one? Lemme know if your TV ever breaks, I'll have an opinion on how to fix it. I've never fixed a TV in my life and I know very very little about those circuits and panels. Without that foundation discussions like these can quickly become talking about how dreamy sparkly vampires are. Meh. I prefer turtles.

As an extension of this I suggest people study the history and theory of photography, or any subject they want to pontificate on, so that they can have more meaningful discussions on it. It's quite a bit more rewarding. Actually, more importantly than being able to yammer on about it more intelligently it may quite possibly improve what you create. This is something I am actually trying to do when I have time to do so. I've studied photography briefly from a literary theory lens but I don't have a very strong photography background in this sense to talk about how this discussion fits in. If anyone can slap a narrative on something it's me but I wish to become a better photographer so I am beginning to make an effort looking at the art more formally. I think it will make me a better shooter. And this is why I give PotatoEYE, who is a talented friend I respect, such a hard time when he spouts such nonsense. I think he's talented and very capable but I also think he takes himself and subjects like these too seriously to the point it's detrimental(and elitist and pompous) and doesn't do anything for the development of his own work. Assuming he's not just being a polemic.

Venser wrote:
The problem with art is that it's entirely fluid and malleable.


Agreed.

Venser wrote:
You don't need to be formally educated in art to form an opinion of what it is and isn't.


Agreed. But education will vastly increase the chances of making an opinion correct and actually worth sharing. And I never said that education had to be formal.

Venser wrote:
Unfortunately there's very little room for objectivity concerning the appreciation of art, and by extension, how people define it.


Disagree. As you said, it's "entirely fluid and malleable."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:22 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am
Posts: 1528
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
ions wrote:
Agreed. But education will vastly increase the chances of making an opinion correct and actually worth sharing. And I never said that education had to be formal.


Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on this point. In my opinion, of course, all that a formal education in art does is give someone a background in naming conventions and historical references. Since art is very much about what you like it doesn't do anything to make an opinion 'correct.'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Rob MacLennan wrote:
ions wrote:
Agreed. But education will vastly increase the chances of making an opinion correct and actually worth sharing. And I never said that education had to be formal.


Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree on this point. In my opinion, of course, all that a formal education in art does is give someone a background in naming conventions and historical references. Since art is very much about what you like it doesn't do anything to make an opinion 'correct.'


Why it's called 'correct' is because it is a preconception that is commonly considered to be 'correct', all coming from the formal education source. There is no 'correct' version of what is art if you don't look at it this way. Which might also make you reconsider the values of what is 'normal' in a community etc...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group