«

On 8/11/2012 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce <> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
>>>>>> Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long
>>>>>> predates anyone
>>>>>> currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists'
>>>>>> right to do
>>>>>> what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should
>>>>>> not be
>>>>>> encouraged.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What, in your opinion, defines "good art"?
>>>>
>>>> Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good
>>>> art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard
>>>> pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through
>>>> your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what
>>>> I believe defines art.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different
>>>>> people at random, you would get ten very different answers.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who
>>>> agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our
>>>> individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and
>>>> still not agree.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or
>>>>> "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up
>>>>> to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals.
>>>>
>>>> That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly
>>>> those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion
>>>> in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying
>>>> critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work.
>>>>
>>>>> Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it
>>>>> something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or
>>>>> something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common
>>>>> factor).
>>>>
>>>> With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through
>>>> before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not
>>>> all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art".
>>>> Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental
>>>> art.
>>>>
>>>> Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as
>>>> art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see
>>>> below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately.
>>>>
>>>> The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and
>>>> deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the
>>>> production of "art" is not the typical intent.
>>>>
>>>> The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension
>>>> or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a
>>>> photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art".
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
>>>>> that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
>>>>> one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?
>>>>
>>>> No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at
>>>>> a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that
>>>>> sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very
>>>>> interested to hear your and others' views.
>>>>
>>>> OK! Let's get my definition out of the way.
>>>> To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance,
>>>> photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes
>>>> the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response,
>>>> be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter,
>>>> nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art".
>>>>
>>>> A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure
>>>> photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap
>>>> here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two
>>>> categories as "art".
>>>>
>>>> A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it,
>>>> disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of
>>>> "art". That is probably just a snapshot.
>>>
>>> That doesn't quite read coherently.
>>>
>>> Let me rephrase that last remark.
>>> A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the
>>> level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional
>>> investment, is certainly not art.
>>
>>
>> Which viewer?
>
> Any viewer.
>
>> What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?
>
> His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".
>
>> I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
>
> It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling
> and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being
> declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual
> response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work
> of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as
> art whether you like it or not.
> If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about
> the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly
> establish an indifference to it.

Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby
elevated to art?

BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.

>
> Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
> closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
> ...but that is my opinion.
> Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute,
> Utica, NY.
> < http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k >
>
>



--
Peter

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:56:06 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN <> said:
:
: > I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
:
: It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start
: feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of
: being declared art, you have established a personal opinion,
: intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the
: level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it,
: defines it as art whether you like it or not.
: If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked
: about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would
: firmly establish an indifference to it.
:
: Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
: closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
: ...but that is my opinion.
: Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY.
: < http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k >

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background
on which they displayed it.

Bob

I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.

Doug McDonald

On 8/11/2012 3:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-08-11 11:56:29 -0700, PeterN <> said:
>
<snip>

>>>> What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?
>>>
>>> His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".
>>>

Even if its a bad HDR?

>>>> I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.
>>>
>>> It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling
>>> and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being
>>> declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual
>>> response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work
>>> of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as
>>> art whether you like it or not.
>>> If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about
>>> the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly
>>> establish an indifference to it.
>>
>> Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is
>> thereby elevated to art?
>
> No. You looked at it, it was meaningless to you, and you are somewhat
> indifferent to it, ergo it is probably what it always was, a snapshot,
> never art, mostly a wasted effort.
> There are shots which have been submitted to the SI which can only be
> deemed snapshots. It takes one look by the viewer (in this case me) and
> the first thing that goes through my mind is, "Why did this individual
> even bother submitting this, SNAPSHOT"?
>
> Pretty much as some press shot of a politician at a press conference is
> just that, an example of non-art photojournalism recording a moment for
> which I feel nothing but indifference.
> This for example, is not art:
> < http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics..._120811_wg.jpg >

It is definitely art. The art of deceit.

>
> However, if you are somehow asked to comment on a postcardish, or worse
> image the photographer believes to be "special", and it doesn't grab you
> in anyway, good or bad, there is nothing wrong with expressing your
> indifference by saying something such as, "For me it is just a
> snapshot". This applies to 99.9% of baby, cat, dog, goldfish, and
> family vacation shots, the group in front of the Tower of Pisa for example.
>
> Though most wedding photographers would disagree, I don't think of
> wedding photography as art, satire maybe, art no. It is commercial
> photography documenting a personal life event aimed at a very small
> sector of the public, and I am truly indifferent to it. Regardless of
> how tough it might be to shoot, I can truthfully say, when I am asked an
> opinion of wedding photographs, "Oh! wedding photographs, what else do
> you have"?
>

Most is craft.
While much of wedding work is cliche and documentary, a good event
photographer will bring out the best in people. it may be through good
use of lighting, the ability to catch the right expression, timing, etc.
One of the major reasons you don't see a lot of artistic event
photography is that most people won't pay for it. They think cousin Joe
can do as well, because his images are almost well exposed.


>> BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.
>
> maybe not, but you implied that you did not think of it as art.
>

Simply using myself as a first person example.

>>> Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
>>> closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
>>> ...but that is my opinion.
>>> Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute,
>>> Utica, NY.
>>> < http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k >
>
>


--
Peter

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce <> said:
>> Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
>> that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
>> one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?
>
>No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.


So, in your opinion, there is no difference at all between the
'artistic value' of a $0.49 postcard and that of a $500,000 print?

If so, why would someone pay $500,000?

Or perhaps compare two prints of similar size, both mounted and
framed, one costing $50 and the other $500,000. Why pay $500,000 when
you can fill the same size blank space on your wall for $50?

Doug McDonald <> wrote:
>I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
>what is "art":
>
>The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
>pocketbook of the buyer.
>
>In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
>of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
>of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
>The definition is circular.


Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.

On 8/11/2012 4:36 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Doug McDonald <> wrote:
>> I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
>> what is "art":
>>
>> The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
>> pocketbook of the buyer.
>>
>> In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
>> of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
>> of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
>> The definition is circular.
>
>
> Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.
>

According to your reasoning a beginning artist does not produce art. At
what price must the price sell to be considered art.

--
Peter

On Aug 11, 8:43*am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
> > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
> > : > Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
> > : > using ND filters to get the water to blur. *It was fine, effective
> > : > in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
> > : > overdone.
> > :
> > : So don't do it.
>
> > Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
>
> Of course he's not right.
>
> Photographers pursue what they want to do. *If that's what they want to
> do then so be it. *If others appreciate it, then so be it. *If they
> don't, that's fine too.
>
> Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
> fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Cue the dogs playing poker. If you really want to come off as
intelligent, instead of parroting quotes from intelligent people (a
common trait of those who think it makes them appear intelligent), try
displaying some intelligence of your own.
Overdone themes are overdone themes and there is nothing you can say
that can validate their existence.

On Aug 11, 4:35*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> said:
> >> Or is it in any way related to the selling price? *Is a single image
> >> that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
> >> one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?
>
> >No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.
>
> So, in your opinion, there is no difference at all between the
> 'artistic value' of a $0.49 postcard and that of a $500,000 print?
>
> If so, why would someone pay $500,000?
>
> Or perhaps compare two prints of similar size, both mounted and
> framed, one costing $50 and the other $500,000. *Why pay $500,000 when
> you can fill the same size blank space on your wall for $50?

A long time ago, someone who understood art suggested that people who
can't afford good art (pretty much most people now as real art
continues to set records at auctions as the rich move away from stocks
and bonds) suggested prints of good art were better to decorate a home
than mediocre paintings.

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012081120153177904-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2012-08-11 18:12:17 -0700, PeterN <> said:
>> On 8/11/2012 4:36 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> Doug McDonald <> wrote:
>>>> I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
>>>> what is "art":
>>>>
>>>> The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
>>>> pocketbook of the buyer.

Simply determines what is art... TO THEM.


>>>> In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
>>>> of the art world.

TO THEM, and their own.


>>>> Who determines who is an opinion maker
>>>> of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
>>>> The definition is circular.

So stop worrying about their little world. Enjoy your own instead.


> Great art can be great art if it costs $100, or if it costs $1M.

... or $100M, or $1, or is given away.


> Just placing a $1M price on a pile of garbage, and having a bunch of
> dilettantes call it art, does not make it so.

Of course it does, just as them denigrating a $10 work doesn't mean it
isn't.


> Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining "art".

Depends on whose "definition" you use.

Trevor.