Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

ancient_mariner said:
One of the points we've covered is that art isn't about enjoyment - it's about making statements and sharing philosophies through the medium in use ...
Click to expand...
Of course art can involve enjoyment! Even in its production - its practitioners may struggle with their expression but also have the pleasures of discovery - and for those who receive it, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually in whatever proportion, it can be like food!
 
droj said:
Of course art can involve enjoyment! Even in its production - its practitioners may struggle with their expression but also have the pleasures of discovery - and for those who receive it, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually in whatever proportion, it can be like food!
Click to expand...

A point others have made is that art isn't about whether you like it or not, and the impression I have is that a lot of work isn't made to be enjoyed at all. That's certainly not universally true, of course, but seems more common than not.
 
No, I'm not going to buy this! Art in any case umbrellas a great gamut of practice - shading off into craft in one direction, whimsy and decoration in another, and a blatant attempt to earn money in another ... but hell, the world would be a miserable place if not much art was enjoyable!

Are we going to have to define enjoyment next???
 
Last edited:
I find some art enjoyable because I don't understand it or, sometimes, because I don't like it. I enjoy thinking about it.

The point being made earlier is that whether or not an individual likes a work is no measure of whether or not it is art.

I'm with droj on this. I don't believe that, in general, work is produced to be not enjoyed. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure that's even possible.
 
The idea that art is not to be enjoyed is ridiculous. Imagine writing a piece of music which is painful to listen to (I mean intentionally - it's been done accidentally many times!).


Steve.
 
I'm intentionally mirroring back some of the comments here, in tone if not intent. But the understanding has been made that art is primarily a medium of communication, rather than pleasure or displeasure, like speech: one can have a conversation and may enjoy or otherwise, but speech - the medium - isn't necessarily enjoyable, even though some will enjoy the craft of communicating well and in a particular style.
 
The expression uses the medium, then is exposed to the world (unless you're Vivian Maier) and is open to reception or rejection according to the perceptions of its viewers / listeners / whoever. We've done the argument about 'like' / 'dislike', Toni. That's about superficial subjectivity - but there may be deeper subjectivities. No-one can be totally objective - it wouldn't be human! So why not think about levels of appreciation instead? You can appreciate great art without understanding its techniques of production (although such understanding may enhance your appreciation). We will have to enter the realm of intuition, rather than seeking mechanical explanations ... it doesn't have to be about describing the message (if there is one), but about feeling it ...

There is low art and high art.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Some 'art' is produced to shock, question, stimulate. Not necessarily to enjoy.
Click to expand...
I am enjoying your user-name in the context of this discussion.

Talking of art (which can include some photography - the original post was just about photography), the 'official' art world contains a lot of red herrings and smoke and mirrors, usually created by people whose livelihood is connected to it in some way. I hope I wasn't the only one here who enjoyed Grayson Perry's Reith lectures (that said things publically that have been obvious privately for years)? The guy is subversive, accurate, and fun, simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
A point others have made is that art isn't about whether you like it or not, and the impression I have is that a lot of work isn't made to be enjoyed at all. That's certainly not universally true, of course, but seems more common than not.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean the artist didn't enjoy making it, or that despite not liking it, the viewer didn't enjoy viewing it. By "like" I think we're referring to "Oooh.. that's nice... I'd like that on my wall". It doesn't have to be that, no.... but is that the only sort of art you'd enjoy looking at?
 
Pookeyhead said:
That doesn't mean the artist didn't enjoy making it, or that despite not liking it, the viewer didn't enjoy viewing it. By "like" I think we're referring to "Oooh.. that's nice... I'd like that on my wall". It doesn't have to be that, no.... but is that the only sort of art you'd enjoy looking at?
Click to expand...

For me to enjoy 'art' it needs to be uplifting, exciting, beautiful, interesting, enriching. I can also see a value in art that stimulates, informs and calls attention to certain things, and this kind of art I likely wouldn't want on my wall and there may be some enjoyment, though there may also be none.

Ouside of these areas I'd suggest there's quite a bit of art that neither adds value to the viewer, nor is enjoyable. Is it still art? Probably, by the definition of communication through a medium, but enjoyment?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enjoyment - The state of taking pleasure in something.
 
There's a difference between enjoying doing something and getting satisfaction from it, just as there is between enjoying looking at something and and appreciating it. None of these are mutually exclusive of the others, although they might not always go hand in hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top