what is art

This just proves that art - or 'Art' - is culturally defined. What individuals think of this or that piece does not matter (except to them). The status of art with a capital A is bestowed by culture as a whole.

I think the parameters have a long way to go before an Ipad is considered 'art'

Me, I am not bothered whether something is or isn't art, time and reputation see to that. If something pleases my aesthetic and intellectual senses, that's good enough for me. In other words, I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!

(And that certainly includes Mondrian)!

A mass produced item can not be art, I think we all agree about that.

There you've it

I know that, I just thought its been a while since the iPad was mentioned...

Hit the nail square on the head.

Well said that man.

I may not have said it quite so well as Pentaxophile, but we could have saved the last 5 pages...

Yes, but that is my point! Even if the 1.2 billion people in China don't think it is art, that doesn't change the fact that it IS art.

Ah okay, I only said it was a point of view thing

Thoramay, is probably still not happy with our conclusion.

Robbie. I started this thread asking for a concensus on what is art in photography. I also asked that we read comments carefully and also respond carefully. Your statement that my reference to my grandson was ridiculous is offensive and beyond the standard that we hold with on this forum. Do please read what I have written carefully. The points I made are valid. Disagree if you may but hold to what I have written. A photograph will never evoke the same emotional response as the real thing. Being picky that paintings are not 3d leaves me wondering whether you grasped that I was refering to all art in galleries.
Seeking a general agreement on this issue will never haappen if we fail to give space to opinions that are different from our own.
I have enjoyed all the comments but your own comes over somewhat dogmatic, but that is your style and I will not quarrel with you on this.
Because I have no firm opinion of my own regarding art in phoptography, I was hoping for input. I am no wiser.
Thoramay

It might not fit well with the chinese tradition of art, which parallels western art but is presumably quite different. Maybe some chinese artifacts of great cultural value would not be seen in the same way by us.

In other instances we may view artifacts from other cultures in a way we have become accustomed to in our own culture, which may mislead us as to the actual meaning of the objects. Aboriginal art for example. Is this abstract art for our viewing pleasure, or is it something with meaning we can never really comprehend, never having experienced the role it has in that culture.

We can call aboriginal paintings art, but this is applying our own cultural 'badge of significance' rather than reflecting anything native to their culture. (I know no one even mentioned aboriginal art- its just an example of how 'art' is not a universal concept and we are highly biased by our own culture!)

Where to start?

If you believe that my comment was offensive, then a definition of offensive should be sought prior to a definition of art. Then again, you considered Gartmore suggesting that you should visit art galleries offensive, I believe the general consensus would not agree with you.

I just don't see how comparing your emotional response of looking at a photo of your grandson to seeing your grandson in person has any place in a discussion about the definition of art. Particularly after boldly proclaiming that we shouldn't even be talking about architecture (God forbid!). Double standard, no?

Secondly, I'm a little confused by your statement:

"A photograph will never evoke the same emotional response as the real thing"

You perhaps need to be clear on the concept of "photographs of art" versus the concept of "photographs as art", as your posts seem to increasingly confuse the two.

I agree that photographs of art are not going to have the same impact as the art itself, I purely suggested viewing online tours of galleries in light of you saying it was impossible for you to attend them in person. So much for trying to be helpful.

In terms of photographs as art, if you don't believe that they can elicit the same emotional response as other forms of art, then we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've seen photographs of rusting chains that due to the composition have evoked an emotional response from me, far greater than me seeing some rusty chain in person ("the real thing" as you might call it). Similarly a photo can in a split second capture the emotion on someone's face that may be missed by the naked eye. A photgraph on the front of the FT today showed a protester in Greece kicking away a tear gas canister, posed almost like a footballer. Had I been there in person I wouldn't have been able to stop and ponder my emotional reaction, but the fact it was captured in phot meant I could.

Then again, this is all just my opinion, which gets us back to the point of view which suggests the definition of art is a personal thing, and as such is difficult to reach a general consensus on.

Finally, in terms of your statement:

"Because I have no firm opinion of my own regarding art in phoptography, I was hoping for input. I am no wiser"

Whether this was intended as a sly jibe I don't know, but if after 5 pages you cannot see that input has been given (offensive to the contributors, perhaps?) we might all be best consigning this topic to the knackers yard, as you're never going to be satisfied.

Robbie I must say this was the most rewarding discussion we ever had about art on this forum, it was however just between some members but I think we came quite close to a "simple" definition that's true for most art.

So thank you all for your input, it was a joy.

As for photography as art... photography is always about capturing... I think you should see a photo as a story someone wants to tell, we all know the saying a photo is worth a thousands word right?
It's all about where the photo takes us and lets us see, the same is true for paintings. If you are serious you need to look at a photo for at least 20 seconds and let your thoughts wander.

Thoramay, I know for sure you remember the landscapes photo from James Knight-Smith that did nothing for you.

Look again link

You life on an island so doesn't it remind you of the sea, can't you taste the salt air then and feel the wind when you let your mind wander over the photo?

Probably it's only me that's so airy though

robbie. It is interesting that only you have ressponded in negative terms. You are putting your assuptions onto my shoulders and then accusing me. I do not need to defend myself for my opinions. Just read again what I have written very carefully.
thoramay.
I am truely pleased, with one exception, the way this debate has been conducted in such a civil manner.