Is a photo that is art of more value than one that is pleasing?

ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Moderator
Messages
27,780
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I wanted to ask the question that's been going round in the threads here in a slightly different way.

There is a definite line of thought that suggests an image is only of value if it carries a deep and profound message, otherwise it might as well be nothing. There is another line of thinking which sees value in the things the viewer finds pleasing and no value in the things they do not. The tension between these is that both suggest images that they don't 'approve' of have no value, though the artistic side is a bit more vociferous about 'birds on sticks etc' than the non-artistic side (who usually label it in their heads as crap & move on somewhere they find interesting).

It can get difficult and confusing, because some will see a photo they find pleasing and call it art, leading to a desire to learn about 'art' only to realise that it is seldom pleasing and not what they want to take pictures of. This leads to the obvious question: does being 'art' bring any more value to an image than the viewer finding they want to look at it?

I also wonder if, should an image actually draw people back for a second look, it may also be art, since presumably the image spoke to them enough to want a second look, though the message it presented may not have been a verbal/conscious one, other than "that's lovely".

I've been through this a little, and have happily settled the issue that I don't create and don't want to create art as I presently perceive it's understood, and can't be happier with my pictures than if people want to hang them on their walls.
 
I feel it all depends on the viewer that determines the images value, to them.

I don't noramlly shoot "art" however I do shoot to give people, and myself, pleasure in looking at the images produced. A lot of the time the viewers can relate to the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
Art is what you think it is. I may think it's cr@p.

A few bricks put together by the "right person" is art, to several of us it's a pile of bricks.

We may all be right.

Value again is difficult to define. Is it monetary value, value to society or just personal. I have a photograph taken of my dad, that's is cropped wrong, slightly out of focus, but it is the most "valued" photograph I own. most would attach no value to it.
 
munch said:
We may all be right.
Click to expand...
That's the generous version. I like it.
munch said:
Value again is difficult to define. Is it monetary value, value to society or just personal. I have a photograph taken of my dad, that's is cropped wrong, slightly out of focus, but it is the most "valued" photograph I own. most would attach no value to it.
Click to expand...
You more or less have to factor personal value out of the general, if it's a poor photo. We can appreciate your valuation of it, but we didn't know the person so the public value is less.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
There is a definite line of thought that suggests an image is only of value if it carries a deep and profound message, otherwise it might as well be nothing. There is another line of thinking which sees value in the things the viewer finds pleasing and no value in the things they do not. The tension between these is that both suggest images that they don't 'approve' of have no value, though the artistic side is a bit more vociferous about 'birds on sticks etc' than the non-artistic side (who usually label it in their heads as crap & move on somewhere they find interesting).

I also wonder if, should an image actually draw people back for a second look, it may also be art, since presumably the image spoke to them enough to want a second look, though the message it presented may not have been a verbal/conscious one, other than "that's lovely".
Click to expand...
This sounds like a healthy enquiry, but it would seem that you've found your own balance within it - which might be a product of the tone (not a pun) of your personality / character, in contrast to many who post here who seem to tilt at windmills. It's good to be analytical, though, since the alternatives are ignorance and laziness. What people find 'pleasing' is one thing, and what might be found satisfying is another. But satisfying in what way? Analysis is always good. How else can you know where you are?
 
People like what they like. There is no more fundamental value in a photograph with intended "meaning" than a piece of eye-candy.
The problem arises because a lot of people around here actively dismiss anything that isn't eye-candy and will frame everything in a technical perspective. There is also a lesser problem where people try to contrive "artiness" for the sake of artiness.
Personally, I don't understand why someone would want to look at golden-hour-landscape after golden-hour-landscape and still be wowed by each picture; or recreate scenes that have already been endlessly recreated (like, for example, the classic aspect of Buachaille Etive Mor with a long exposure of the river in the foreground) but if it gives you and others pleasure, who am I to judge?
However, there is an element that roll their eyes at any sort of criticism that goes beyond the technical and instead asks "why this image?" Perhaps the criticism focuses on subject or cliche; and it is met with snide contempt for any attempt to look beyond the technical image. We'd do well to accept that images can be read in different ways and different people want to get different things from them. But don't dismiss alternative perspectives out of hand.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There is a definite line of thought that suggests an image is only of value if it carries a deep and profound message
Click to expand...

Why do you suggest "deep and profound"? None of the threads you refer to are saying the message has to be deep and profound. It just has to be there. You assumed it's deep and profound because of a prejudice against people who appreciate art. You assume we all want "deep and profound". Not so.. we just want the images to say something, about something, as that's what we get pleasure from. Understanding the artist and the work. We like having to do some work to get our heads around the imagery. Just show us pretty that says nothing, and we'll think it;s pretty... then move on. Pretty is 10 a penny.

However.. some people want pretty, so there's always going to be an audience for pretty... why not just accept that you make pretty and stop being apologetic about it?

ancient_mariner said:
It can get difficult and confusing, because some will see a photo they find pleasing and call it art, leading to a desire to learn about 'art' only to realise that it is seldom pleasing and not what they want to take pictures of. This leads to the obvious question: does being 'art' bring any more value to an image than the viewer finding they want to look at it?
Click to expand...

If you find something pleasing to look at, why not just assume it's pleasing to look at? Why does pleasing to look at mean it's art? The issue arises when people who create something that's pleasing to look at insist it's art, BECAUSE it's pleasing to look at. I think my car is pleasing to look at, but It's not art.



ancient_mariner said:
I also wonder if, should an image actually draw people back for a second look, it may also be art, since presumably the image spoke to them enough to want a second look, though the message it presented may not have been a verbal/conscious one, other than "that's lovely".
Click to expand...

Noting wrong with that. Lots of images are lovely, but not what I'd consider art. I don't regard them in a lesser way. What grinds my gears is when people always want to elevate the work to something it' snot, just because it looks awesome. If you take pretty pictures, then just get on with it and stop trying to justify it.

ancient_mariner said:
I've been through this a little, and have happily settled the issue that I don't create and don't want to create art as I presently perceive it's understood, and can't be happier with my pictures than if people want to hang them on their walls.
Click to expand...

Then why start the thread? Just be content with your place in all of this. :) There's nothing wrong with making images that are just beautiful to look at. You have to remember though, that the viewer decides what your work is, not you. Those who mistakenly think pretty = art will think your work is art regardless.

Most artists don't give a crap what people think abut the work though. The minute you start making work to please other people, then you've really lost what it's about. If you want to make work to please other people and make them want to decorate their homes with it, then fine... just accept this, and embrace it.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Being crap doesn't mean it's not allowed to be art.


Steve.
Click to expand...


What makes a photograph art has little to do with the image if you think about it. That's what confuses people. "How can this be art.. it's crap?". "This is beautiful.... this is art".

The two are not necessarily connected.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The minute you start making work to please other people, then you've really lost what it's about.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A quote from Joseph Conrad in The Heart of Darkness sums it up for me:

"I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means."

I reckon that applies as much to people who make pretty pictures of sunsets as people who make Art.
 
Pookeyhead said:
What makes a photograph art has little to do with the image if you think about it. That's what confuses people. "How can this be art.. it's crap?". "This is beautiful.... this is art".

The two are not necessarily connected.
Click to expand...

That is the point I was trying to make.

Same with music. It might be truly awful, but it's still music.


Steve.
 
is the OP saying that art cant be pleasing and anything pleasing cant be art since we have to differentiate between the two?
 
There's a book I've had kicking about wishlists for several years that I keep meaning to buy, Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained by Susie Hodge because I'm sure it would explain better to the "haters of bricks" than I could why a pile of bricks can be art. But for those that don't get modern art, how many of you actually look at it? Tate Modern is free, it has a fantastic collection. Go look at it a few times. At worst you'll be inside in the warm on a wet day, at best you might find something you like.

"What is art?" is a question that's flumoxed many of the world's great thinkers..

He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not Art, and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid Art, but putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit tricky.

“No urns,” he said at last.

“What urns?” said Nobby.

“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Best is both, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”

“What about a potted plant?”

“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
Click to expand...
 
well its vaguely interesting (or not i guess) but ive studied a little bit of art history and seems that its only fairly recently in the calendar that we see the arrival of abstract works that demand a bit more thought out of the viewer. You go back in time, through the Baroque of the 17th century, the Rennaissance of the 16th , hell even the roman and greek BC times and all the art is pretty obvious. Sure there is a lot of allegorical meaning, plenty of symbolism in the components of an image or sculpture but the meaning was always there to be seen and understood by the viewer.

Moving up to modern times you start to see the piles of bricks and cracks in the floor claiming to be art. Maybe it is or not. the modern stuff isnt really for me but im all for people getting what they want out of anything. Im convinced Hirst will release a book on his death bed entitled something along the lines of "i was mugging you all off all along". give me a Titian or a Durer over a Emin or Hirst any day. Although i did like his jeweled skill thing :)
 
The original question centred on the value of an image. "Is a photo that is art of more value than one which is pleasing?" Of, course the definition of "art" is elusive and has kept the world's great thinkers occupied for centuries.

Value can be defined in financial terms (as in "x" is worth more than "y" when both commodities are for sale in an open market) or it can be defined as a personal parameter, where something is of huge personal value to oneself without being of any monetary value to anyone else. One may treasure something as art, which cost nothing but which pleases the eye, or may despise something which has huge "value" on an open market.

But as someone has pointed out that, I'm sure we all have images of lost loved ones, family occasions or other memories which are of untold value to us. No-one could (or would want to) buy my images of my late parents from me, even should they wish to. They're poor images judged on purely photographic parameters, but hugely valuable to me.

So, in terms purely of "value", do we define "art" as something people would be willing to pay good money to own? (whether it's a photograph, a painting, a sculpture or whatever ...) ... in which case there are lots of images out there being sold as "art" which many of us would not want to admit to having taken, and which we may see as bland, uninspired or just pain poor for one reason or another. But, none the less, people do buy these things, use them to decorate their walls and take pleasure in ownership. Art, to me therefore, is something I would want to own (regardless of its cost or price), look at repeatedly, take pleasure in seeing, take pride in owning; something which is thought provoking and something which generally enhances my life in some way.

The true value of that to me, is not measured in financial terms. Rather it is something which each of us, as individuals, must define.
 
Quicksnapper said:
Art, to me therefore, is something I would want to own (regardless of its cost or price), look at repeatedly, take pleasure in seeing, take pride in owning; something which is thought provoking and something which generally enhances my life in some way.
Click to expand...


One of the problems I see with this idea is that it can be applied to a large number of things which most definitely are not art. As an example, we are shortly going to be redecorating and would like (apparently) a "feature wall". As we are going to be doing this I have suggested covering this particular wall with slate tiles. Using your criteria:

Is it something I would want to own - yes
Look at repeatedly - yes (I like looking at natural stone)
Take pride in owning - yes (will add to the ambiance of the room in my opinion - ymmv)
Is thought provoking - yes (again imo)
Will generally enhance my life in some way - yes (having natural material in the room will be good)

Is it art? Most definitely not.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I'm sure some Turner prize winner made a sculpture from a pile of poo a few years ago.
Click to expand...
When shared on a photography forum or in a monthly popular photography magazine the turd will be presented in turn-the-dial-to-11, technicolor, glitter-rolled horror. Whilst the artist understands that s*** is an artistic statement in its own right and requires no polishing or embellishment.

Sometimes the difficulty is in understanding that it's the thought, not the effort that makes the art. Although in Jeff Koons case I'll make an exception.. I think he's moved from "artist" to "managing director" with the factoryisation of the production of his pieces..

Last year Grayson Perry presented the Reith Lectures on the subject of contemporary art, they're really worth downloading to listen to in the car- http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith - if you want to learn more about what contemporary art is (and isn't - I remember the talk on defining the boundaries of contemporary art being particularly good, and being stuck in a jam on the M25/M4 I had plenty of opportunity to listen to it at the time it was broadcast).
 
Last edited:
Quicksnapper said:
Art, to me therefore, is something I would want to own (regardless of its cost or price), look at repeatedly, take pleasure in seeing, take pride in owning; something which is thought provoking and something which generally enhances my life in some way.
Click to expand...
Bythesea said:
Is thought provoking - yes (again imo)
Click to expand...
If you replace "is thought provoking?" by, "does it provoke discussion of meaning beyond the physical boundaries of the piece?" it might make more sense.

A slate feature wall in your living room is unlikely to provoke questions on the impact of quarrying on the natural environment and communities, or the impact of closure of Welsh slate quarries on the local economy and communities, or the working conditions of Chinese slate workers.

Damien Hurst's diamond encrusted skull does create discussions on conspicuous consumotion and the nature of human mortality (and also the inverse relationship between relevance and market value when applied to BritArt)
 
Alastair said:
There's a book I've had kicking about wishlists for several years that I keep meaning to buy, Why Your Five Year Old Could Not Have Done That: Modern Art Explained by Susie Hodge because I'm sure it would explain better to the "haters of bricks" than I could why a pile of bricks can be art.
Click to expand...

I'd stick with the Grayson Perry lecture.

If you are interested in the creative process and how it leads to art I think this is worth a listen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l03f6

That's if your definition of making art is 'sophisticated, intelligent playfullness'.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I'd stick with the Grayson Perry lecture.

If you are interested in the creative process and how it leads to art I think this is worth a listen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04l03f6

That's if your definition of making art is 'sophisticated, intelligent playfullness'.
Click to expand...
Someone has kindly offered to send me a copy of the WY5YOCNHDT that they no longer need.

I'll add that podcast to my list. In Our Time also has several episodes relevant to art - I've been building up the series on a USB stick for listening to in the car.
 
Alastair said:
Sometimes the difficulty is in understanding that it's the thought, not the effort that makes the art.
Click to expand...
I sometimes think that's the key. Creating art requires conscious intent. Maybe the intent is to create something which is pretty, and that is not invalid; or maybe the intent is to provoke other thoughts. But without conscious intent there can be no art.
 
After reading through the various recent threads on the topic I'm beginning to think the two are incomparable. You might as well ask, "Which has more value, a car or a camel?" I guess it all depends on where you are and where you want to get to.
 
I think its down to the person.

Some people will buy art because it pleases them,others will because they believe thats the sought of art they should have on their wall,others will buy because it something they hope will rise in value over time,an investment :)
 
To answer the OP's question literally: something that is considered art may be worth money, a pleasing image is less likely to be worth anything.
 
Which photographs will be looked at with interest in say 200 years time? Art or so called record photographs showing images of life today?
 
parkmoy said:
Which photographs will be looked at with interest in say 200 years time? Art or so called record photographs showing images of life today?
Click to expand...
Both, but for different reasons.
 
Yes - or rather, individual examples of both, and others not ... may the informative survive and the rest sink, but who's to decide what is the dross?
 
The vast majority of photography has a much shorter lifespan than older photos purely because there are now so many of them. One of the main reasons I take portraits though is the intrinsically high value my clients place on them. That personal element is rewarding for me. Very often with "art" it's not the content but the artist that defines how it is received.
 
The 'good' art (whatever that is) will doubtless still be looked at in 200 years time, but I think more of the record photos will be of interest. IMHO more 200 year old 'everyday' pics will be valued than similar vintage photographic club competition winners:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
parkmoy said:
Which photographs will be looked at with interest in say 200 years time? Art or so called record photographs showing images of life today?
Click to expand...

Probably the record/documentary pictures which are good pictures in themselves. Many of what are now regarded as 'art' photographs from the past were made as documents. A good picture is a good picture regardless of it's original purpose.
 
parkmoy said:
The 'good' art (whatever that is) will doubtless still be looked at in 200 years time, but I think more of the record photos will be of interest. IMHO more 200 year old 'everyday' pics will be valued than similar vintage photographic club competition winners:)
Click to expand...


I agree. You only have to look at images taken 50, 60, 70 years ago to realise this. Some of the most mundane, poorly composed, record shot type of images become a lot more interesting when you can see the fashions, people, cars, etc. of the past.


Steve.
 
I agree with Steve. The black and white images taken by an aunt in the 50's of our family are SO interesting. Wouldn't change them for anything out there.
 
My take is that I can't answer the question because I don't know what meaning is assigned to "value".

On finding images worth a second look - well, I'd always look twice (or more times) at an image of a happy cat or kitten (adjective there because the RSPCA sends out pictures of tortured animals - or used to). And although always pleasing, I can still distinguish good and bad in my terms.

On the other hand, there is some art that I do not find pleasing at all - but I can still recognise it as good art.

I don't think that there is any necessary correlation between "pleasing" and "art", positive or negative. "Pleasing" is inherently subjective, and even to some extent culturally conditioned. I personally would find much "fine dining" very, very unpleasant indeed because I don't like the modern essential ingredient of garlic. But that doesn't mean I'd think that the chef was bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top