When does Photography become Art?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Ortt, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    :


    Hello, Floyd:

    Yet, with multi-millions of dollars and the best movie-making equipment
    in existence, at their disposal, Hollywood's non-talents (e.g., Chuck
    Norris) can still only spit out mindless action films.

    Artistic, they ain't!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    Aaron wrote:


    Hello, Aaron:

    Damned right, I question the judgment (such as it is), of "Crazy"
    Guggenheim! He was a drunken comedian, who used to appear on "The
    Jackie Gleason Show," during the 1960's. <G>

    Seriously, he was really a goofy, fictional character, played by
    Frank Fontaine (1920-1978).


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:


    Hello, Neil:

    Why? I saw "Blow Up" (1967), on the "CBS Late Show," back in the 1970's,
    and found it incredibly boring and pretentious.

    The lack of commercial interuptions/cuts, on the DVD version, still
    won't make this alleged "movie" any more enjoyable, in my estimation.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 22, 2007
  4. John Ortt

    Aaron Guest

    Hello John Turco:

    I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that art can be made
    "automatically," although software such as "Aaron" (named aptly, I
    should add) pushes the boundaries of that belief.

    Nevertheless, there can be a certain artistic property to creations
    made with a purposeful neglect for the process. Take, for example, The
    Blair Witch Project. I didn't like that film, but apparently enough
    people liked it to give it a fairly broad release. I wouldn't say that
    it is a masterpiece of cinema, or that it represents a timeless
    achievement in film, but it has a certain quality to it owing to how
    little post-production was done, which was a conscious decision on the
    part of the filmmakers.

    Thus, I can see how a lack of post-processing can also contribute
    something to a piece of art, provided that the lack of post-processing
    was a conscious decision; that decision represents the artist's hand
    guiding the work toward his/her goals.

    My conclusion is that art cannot be "required" to have any of these
    specific properties, but the two things that all pieces of art have in
    common are these: an artist and an audience.
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
  5. John Ortt

    Aaron Guest

    Greetings John Turco:

    Of course I was talking about the Solomon R. Guggenheim museum of
    modern art in New York, NY (not the Guggeinheim Museum Bilbao, in
    Bilbao, Spain), which actually has little to do, operationally, with
    anyone from any Guggenheim family at this point.

    Still, your humorous aside adds a certain levity to an otherwise
    somewhat tense conversation.
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
  6. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Aaron:

    Somebody named a program, after you? :)
    So, do you think that the infamously horrid Hollywood director, Ed Wood,
    ever created anything artistic?
    Opinions vary. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 24, 2007
  7. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Aaron:

    "Bilbao" sounds more Portuguese, than Spanish. ("Guggenheim" bears no
    resemblance to either one, naturally. <g>)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 24, 2007
  8. John Ortt

    Mike Russell Guest

    ....
    Catalan.
     
    Mike Russell, Jun 24, 2007
  9. You may very well be right. It's decades since I've seen it too, and my
    recollection of it is vague. I don't recall being hugely impressed by it
    when I did see it. The *theme* is certainly intriguing though.

    I'll check my local library instead. When I looked at "Blow Up" prices since
    posting that it cooled my interest somewhat. There are a lot of really good
    movies you can get awfully cheap nowadays.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 24, 2007
  10. I don't know if he was a house painter. He did watercolors, and had some
    aspirations toward architecture I think.

    I doubt his watercolors had anything to do with his politics, or starting
    World War II. I believe his art work came before World War I, and his
    politics came after that war, in large part as a reaction to the communists
    who had taken over much of Germany in 1919-20.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 24, 2007
  11. John Ortt

    Aaron Guest

    Salutations, John:

    No, regrettably, it was created when I was but a youngster still
    vandalizing my parents' walls with crayons.
    As I say, art is in the eye of the beholder. Surely Ed Wood's
    spectacularly horrid creations were unearthed in the '80s for a
    certain "camp" value that might, to some, be seen as artistic. That
    certainly doesn't make it good.

    At least Ed Wood himself satisfied two of the major prerequisites to
    artistic stardom: he died penniless and in obscurity...
     
    Aaron, Jun 25, 2007
  12. John Ortt

    Aaron Guest

    Isn't that some sort of a boat? Oh, no, that's a *catamaran*...
     
    Aaron, Jun 25, 2007
  13. I don't see how a *lack* of any sort of work can "contribute" anything.

    Consider that an ordinary camera user with no interest in photography per se
    may take a photo that many would call a snapshot (a mildly contemptuous term
    as it is generally used here). Now someone suggests to that person that one
    of his photos could be much improved by the use of image-editing software.
    The person replies, "Nah, I don't wanna bother."

    That meets your requirement (the lack of post-processing is a conscious
    decision). How has it contributed anything to the photograph?
    It's the definition of the former that is in question.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 25, 2007
  14. Ed Wood may well have been the worst director of all time (didn't he win an
    award for exactly that?), but all cinema is an art form and so in some sense
    must be "artistic."

    Again, this speaks to my earlier point that art may be really, really lousy
    and still be art. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a director works to
    create a work of art, no matter how badly it fails in terms of having any
    *value* as art, it is still art.

    Maybe if Wood had had more money, he'd have made lousy pictures with better
    production values at least. So they'd have been somewhat better lousy
    pictures. :)

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 25, 2007
  15. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Mike:

    Thanks; I just >knew< it looked kind of funny. :p


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 26, 2007
  16. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Neil:

    Interesting idea, poor implementation. "Blow Up" is a mod mishmash, set
    during the "Swinging London" period of the mid-1960's.

    You could try Blockbuster, also.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 26, 2007
  17. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Neil:

    Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (a.k.a., Joseph Stalin) studied for
    the priesthood, in his younger days. Would that Dolph and Joe had stayed
    with their original, respective occupational plans!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 26, 2007
  18. John Turco wrote in part:

    German Expressionists would have invaded Czechoslovakia?
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Jun 26, 2007
  19. Yes, I sure agree with that.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 27, 2007
  20. John Ortt

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Aaron:

    Well, then, can you identify the person, of whom this "Aaron"
    application is a namesake? Could it be Henry "Hank" Aaron, the old
    baseball slugger, whose (Major League) career home run record is
    currently being threatened, by Barry Bonds?

    <edited>

    Sad, very sad. It was only after his death that he received any real
    recognition, whatsoever; even then, he became the subject of ridicule.

    Ed Wood (1924-1978) may have been a crummy director, but, he wasn't a
    bad person. The way he tried to help Bela Lugosi (1882-1956), his lone
    actor of any merit, was laudable.

    By the mid-1950's, Lugosi - immortalized, in "Dracula" (1931) - was an
    old, impoverished man, in poor health and far from his native land
    of Hungary. Wood was one of his few friends, in the whole world, when
    Lugosi eventually succumbed to a heart attack, in 1956.

    These events, among others, are depicted in the fictionalized account,
    "Ed Wood" (1994). Howlingly hilarious, with Johnny Depp in the title
    role, and Martin Landau stealing the show, as Lugosi (Oscar-winning
    performance, best supporting actor).


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.