what is art

Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.

Is art something that is created by one person or even several people from within their own imagination or even a creative depiction of something that is not their own making such as a landscape or model study?

Or, Is art possible by taking a photograph of something that is a true representation of what was seen by the camera lens. Can the subject matter change the photograph into art?

That's a really though we we already had a discussion about that once without a conclusion.


It can be all those things, it's the end result that counts I believe not the way through there defines if it makes it art or not.


Yes, it's what's on the picture that counts, the arrangement and use of objects in still life's is an example and the play with light.


For the ease of things I narrowed it down to something that's made by someone to be aestheticly pleasing.

I aint sure how close I got with this...

Another intersting question is do you need skill to create art?

I'm kinda shocked at how good the wiki page on art was in terms of defining a definition of Art, and the controversies that lay within those definitions. The wiki is well worth the read IMHO. Sorta figures that I take the Relativist position. Anyways, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans.[1] An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.

---

K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8

I already feel that I have jumped into something that I cannot grasp. In its relationship to art, photography, to me, has a different element to, say, painting, sculpture and associated art work. I do not go to art galleries. Do they show photography art along side paintings and scupture work? My interest is in photography. Do I create art, or do I simply take a picture that is pleasing to some people. I would like comments to relate to photography as art. The greater picture that Whelmed has painted leaves me confused.
regards Thoramay

"I do not go to art galleries"

Maybe you should. Yes, they do show photographs alongside paintings etc.

My thanks to whelmed for such a cogent post.

---

Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Depends, there will be a big fine art show in Maastricht about all kinds of 2D art and then you would see them hanging together but normally the most attention go to paintings and such.
I've make a list here for the upcoming month link not much in the UK these days.

---

Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Stefan, there are masses of shows in the UK. For a start here are some of the permanent ones like the National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, The Victoria and Albert Museum. Others like the amazing Saatchi Gallery in London usually show all forms. I dont think the source you quote even scratches the surface.

---

Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

Gartmore. might have been more polite to ask why I do not go to galleries rather than blazing the fact in large capitals. Apart from age and a disability with walking I am on an island where there are no art galleries. Not everyone can get to London and Scotland. I was just interested if these galleries include photographs as an art study. It is no big deal. Just blame Stefan for getting me interested in the subject. I am willing and wanting to be educated.
thoramay

No the ones I quote are the big or special shows, I wonder if there is a good internet source for it?

It's certainly worth a trip Thoramay, I'm sure there must be somewhere on internet an agenda with all the shows and you can pick one to your likening and make it into a day trip if you can.
The photos you see on internet never shows the whole photo, when you see it hanging on an wall you finally see what's all about.

---

Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

I would say a definition of art would be something which it would be difficult to reach a consensus on.

One man's art is another man's dead animal in formaldehyde, though on a very base level (as has been mentioned already) something created by someone which effects the emotions, would be a good place to start. Because one person's emotions are triggered for different reasons to another's (due largely to life experience), then what that person defines as art will be different to another.

A further consideration is whether something has to be created deliberately in order to be considered art...

---

If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

Some of the pictures I see defined as art leaves me cold. I don't know how that agrees with the deffinition of effecting the emotions.

Stefan. To reach London on a day trip will take over four hours. Travelling off peak fares means reaching London after midday and leaving two hours later arriving home past six in the evening, a twelve hour day for a two hour viewing, and that without stopping to eat!! My constitution would not tolerate such energy expenditure.

The major benefit of the forum is to tap into other people's experiences and to share views. I still feel there is a simpler deffinition of art in relation to photography, or is art indefinable as a subject in that art resides in the mind of the viewer.
thoramay.

But London isn't the only place they show art, there must be a place that's in day trip reach.
Look on the sites of major cities near you, most have a museum.

I think art is personal to everyone although there are some things all arts have in common.

What do you think of these? link
he won 2 gold IPA awards with his work.
- Non professional Nature Category
- awarded winner for the landscape category

Simply the grace at how he has captured the scene is stunning.
Do they do something with me emotional... no but they are aestheticly super pleasing to my eyes.

---

Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Stephan. I will be frank. They do nothing for me, not even a second glance at each one, not even wondering how he arrived at the title. How were the images done? A photograph? painting with colours? post processing? There is nothing in these pictures that echo real life to me. Just occassionally you might catch a sky like this. Where in this universe did he capture these images? It simply explains my lack of appreciation of art as difined by the art fraternity., I shall never do art if this is how it must be. Thanks for educating me.
Thoramay

Thoramay glad you are so frank and you really should be
He has capture the world we take for granted in another way, it almost look like a dream so soft is it.
They are art but they don't need to do anything with you or any one else, art doesn't have to touch you I believe but it can.

Lets see.. what about these?
Marian Drew







Oh and I like this artist
Peter liepke link
Someone here said, he only saw a noisy photos

Are these more in the line you think of as art.
Which photograph do you like?

---

Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

They disturb me. The use of the animals somehow intrude on the picture but at least I can see that the photographer is making a personal statement, inviting you into his picture, challenging you to understand what it is he is intending, almost, in one sense, attempting to shock those who treat animals as though they have personalities, human attributes. In itself, a dead animal does not shock me, using it in a picture seems, somewhat superfluous. The artist could have given the pictures a title that could, perhaps, help us to understand what the picture means overall. At least, I can understand these pics being classed as art.
Thoramay.