Is there such a thing as art photography?

Ed Sutton said:
You still haven't answered my question. Why shouldn't your 'elite few' decide what is art given that they spend their lives dealing with the stuff? I'd have thought they have a better insight into it than someone who doesn't.
Click to expand...

Because at the end of the day the best they (the elite few) can come up with is an opinion. Fully accept that it may well be an informed opinion, but it is still just an opinion.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've seen here people told that the pictures they produced, which they considered art, were nothing more than craft
Click to expand...

Must say i've not really seen that... I've occasionally seen images dismissed as "record shots" in some of the "fur and feather" sections, but on a personal level, I'm not actually sufficiently "invested" in the subject matter to really discern the difference - other than one person actually had the patience to wait until the front of the bird was pointing at the camera instead of the tail.

I will say however that with a number of things I've posted, I've definitely argued that what I'd posted was thoroughly and definitely craft - even though a number of people were arguing that it was definitely veering towards art. By most definitions, the very fact that i've said "it's craft - the whole series of a dozen or more images were nothing more than a 6 month long extended self taught lesson in composition and lighting craft" means that it can't be art by any meaningful measure. What I learned during that process however DID stand me in good stead in further endeavours where I produced a number of commissioned pieces that I genuinely DO consider to be nearer to art... Probably because I could forget worrying about the technique and process and concentrate on getting what was in my head translated into pixels or silver halide crystals....

It's a slippery thing to nail down this Art stuff...
 
munch said:
is a debate not a chance to provide opposing views, or do we all have to agree and keep quiet when we disagree?
Click to expand...

Providing opposing views is good - though personally I do think you weaken your position by couching them in emotive terms such as "up themselves", "intellectual twaddle", " emperor's new clothes. " - frankly i was holding out for "Pile of Bricks" and "I don't know art, but I know what I like" for full house in TP Art Thread Bingo :)
 
TheBigYin said:
Providing opposing views is good - though personally I do think you weaken your position by couching them in emotive terms such as "up themselves", "intellectual twaddle", " emperor's new clothes. " - frankly i was holding out for "Pile of Bricks" and "I don't know art, but I know what I like" for full house in TP Art Thread Bingo :)
Click to expand...
Maybe they are emotive words, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong though.

Emperors new clothes I think is very appropriate. Everybody agrees with the "expert" (or more appropriately they haven't the courage to disagree) until someone points out the obvious.
 
munch said:
Because at the end of the day the best they (the elite few) can come up with is an opinion. Fully accept that it may well be an informed opinion, but it is still just an opinion.
Click to expand...
I won't argue with that. But even informed opinions can change. What tends to happen with this is that populist opinion lags behind informed opinion.

munch said:
Everybody agrees with the "expert" (or more appropriately they haven't the courage to disagree) until someone points out the obvious.
Click to expand...

And some people disagree because they aren't prepared to look into, let alone accept, the possibility that the expert is right.
 
Last edited:
munch said:
Maybe they are emotive words, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong though.

Emperors new clothes I think is very appropriate. Everybody agrees with the "expert" (or more appropriately they haven't the courage to disagree) until someone points out the obvious.
Click to expand...
Which expert would this be?

All disciplines have multiple experts with different opinions based on different arguments. None are definitively right or wrong

If someone weighs up the different arguments and decides that one expert is the most likely to be correct, they are, by default ,saying the others are more likely to be wrong.
 
myotis said:
I don't want to repeat my earlier post, but I still find it odd that you consider photography that "tries to creatively reflect thoughts, ideas, emotions, sense of humour etc. of the maker" as a particular "branch" of photography. In the 50+ years of photography I have nearly always considered this to be "photography". Which has sub branches where reality, or at least honesty, (as reality is an elusive concept), is important. Such as the documentary/reportage photography of the fire you mention. Or in my own branch of photography, when I worked as a scientific/industrial photographer in a research establishment.

I say "nearly always", for until I read Ansel Adams books when I was 18 or 19, I probably saw photography more as an objective tool than a creative one, but reading his books completely changed my photographic path.

However, I also wanted to endorse the books that Dave recommends above, I found them really enlightening reading. Not listed on the link, but part of the series is "Design Principles" by Jeremy Webb which I also found useful. Paul Hills book is a must read and I think Zen Camera by David Ulrich is a low cost useful read.
Click to expand...
@Graham, not everybody shares our direction and if you start talking creativity and something that reflects the maker more than the photographic subject, the great many photographers start feeling left out, because it is not their aim. I want to always be mindful and respectful of the direction of others, even as you and I share the general sense of direction in our journey. You notice that as it is, some feel that some of us are putting their approach down or trying to somehow eject them from our photographic community. I do not want to see that happening. We should be a broad tent where everybody is welcome and we need to be cognizant of our differences.

Another issue is the lumpers and splitters. If you obsessively keep on splitting, you find that nothing fits comfortably in your category. If you lump, you end up with a very heterogeneous group. I try to walk the middle ground here - not to lump or split too much.

Obviously, I personally feel most comfortable and interested in examining photography as an art form, accepting that there are other directions. I see myself as a painter in heart but one who started too late to learn how to paint. I find little inspiration among photographers and most my inspiration comes from painters. My photos are honest in a sense that I never claim that any of my photos reflect reality as camera sees it. Some of my photos (a few) are not significantly modified and would past the journalistic rules of being unaltered but most would not and most of them obviously do not reflect reality as a camera would see it.

I am aware that Adams used every trick available to him at the time to modify reality to what he wished to show. I find it funny to hear people talking about returning to Adams's honesty in photography.

As to the books, I do not know the works you recommend and I will most definitely look for them. I wonder if Design Principles are for me. I read a lot about Principles and Elements of Design. My take is that these design tools are great if your intent is to create a harmonious image. If you aim to show tension or disharmony and lots of other thoughts and emotions, you need to deviate from these "rules" to achieve your intent. In my mind I divide composition into basic and advanced. The basic follows the "rules" while the advanced is cognizant of the rules but it directs composition to achieve artistic intent.
 
myotis said:
Which expert would this be?

All disciplines have multiple experts with different opinions based on different arguments. None are definitively right or wrong

If someone weighs up the different arguments and decides that one expert is the most likely to be correct, they are, by default, saying the others are more likely to be wrong.
Click to expand...


My problem is that with art it is purely based on opinion. there are no facts to back it up.
 
munch said:
I was providing an opposing view, that view is you can't really define "art", (it is rubbish if you like) I do think the debate is worthwhile hence whilst I have joined in.
Click to expand...
Munch, you have made a long list of posts in this stream, but I still have no clue what specifically art in photography means to you and more importantly why. All I hear is that you are not being heard. I would say you are not hearing what many of us are saying to you (including me) and you are not speaking back to us (including me) except venting your frustration. If you want to know the reason why your comments are given low weight, these above are the reasons. I am not trying to be hurtful, but you would benefit from not always looking at others or the system for the source of the problem and occasionally also look at your actions and how your own actions contribute to the outcome you do not like.
 
Last edited:
Pavel M said:
Munch, you have made a long list of posts in this stream, but I still have no clue what specifically art in photography means to you and more importantly why. All I hear is that you are not being heard. I would say you are not hearing what many of us are saying to you (including me) and you are not speaking back to us (including me) except venting your frustration. If you want to know the reason why your comments are given low weight, these above are the reasons. I am not trying to be hurtful, but you would benefit from not always looking at others or the system for the source of the problem and occasionally also look at your actions and how your own actions contribute to the outcome you do not like.
Click to expand...

Art photography means nothing to me as you can't define what is art. There is really no more to be said as far as I am concerned. I am happy to talk about what I like and why.

You asked the question "is there such a thing as art photography" I have answered your question and my reasons why. I freely admit I have not spent my time going through books on fine art etc, because as I keep on saying it is based on opinions.

My whole working life I have worked on facts/scientific principles things that can be proved and with experience, I have pushed the boundaries of those "facts".

As I said I turn wood as a hobby, I make things that please me or I make things that people want. Everything is defined, nearly always in a set order. If I sell something that tells me the person likes it, that is enough. I don't ask them to define why they like it.

That is how my brain works so I just don't get how something can be purely defined by opinion.
 
munch said:
My problem is that with art it is purely based on opinion. there are no facts to back it up.
Click to expand...
Everything is based on informed opinion, but these opinions aren't just plucked out the air they are based on evidence from centuries of studying art produced over thousands of years, scientific studies on how people perceive and react to art, interviews with artists, debates amongst academics and non academics, public response to art, the financial art market. how many people visit different art exhibitions etc, etc

So these opinions are based on a massive depth of knowledge, that's why we have experts, to bring a depth and breadth of knowledge about a subject that exceeds our own.
 
munch said:
All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "arty types" are so up themselves and their "art"
...
As I said in another thread intellectual twaddle.
Click to expand...
AndrewFlannigan said:
"it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar".
Click to expand...
Who is providing the vinegar?

munch said:
is a debate not a chance to provide opposing views, or do we all have to agree and keep quiet when we disagree?
Click to expand...
Yes it is but debate relies on advancing an informed argument not just restating the same thing.

munch said:
Because at the end of the day the best they (the elite few) can come up with is an opinion
Click to expand...
munch said:
My whole working life I have worked on facts/scientific principles
Click to expand...
Most of the things that affect our daily lives are not based on some universal laws of physics, they based on custom, practice and general consensus - i.e. matters of opinion! Morality, politics, the law, religion, money, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, these are all driven by consensus of an elite not any kind of "scientific" fact.
 
sirch said:
Most of the things that affect our daily lives are not based on some universal laws of physics...
Click to expand...
Laws which are not set in stone. I heard they will have to be rewritten after two neutron stars have been recording colliding with black holes in the space of a few days. :)
 
Pavel M said:
not everybody shares our direction and if you start talking creativity and something that reflects the maker more than the photographic subject, the great many photographers start feeling left out, because it is not their aim. I want to always be mindful and respectful of the direction of others, even as you and I share the general sense of direction in our journey. You notice that as it is, some feel that some of us are putting their approach down or trying to somehow eject them from our photographic community. I do not want to see that happening. We should be a broad tent where everybody is welcome and we need to be cognizant of our differences.

Another issue is the lumpers and splitters. If you obsessively keep on splitting, you find that nothing fits comfortably in your category. If you lump, you end up with a very heterogeneous group. I try to walk the middle ground here - not to lump or split too much.
Click to expand...
I don't think I can add anything to my original post.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Is there such a thing as art photography?

And if there is, how can you tell?
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Pavel M said:
Some of my photos (a few) are not significantly modified and would past the journalistic rules of being unaltered but most would not and most of them obviously do not reflect reality as a camera would see it.
Click to expand...

The problem I have here is the whole concept of photographic reality and truth. Even a completely unaltered photograph isn't necessarily "honest". The colours aren't real, they are invented by Olympus and Adobe engineers. The choice of framing and the direction you point the camera can completely change the reality e.g. point the camera in one direction can show a shopping centre full of boarded up shops, point it the other direction can show thriving shops and a designer cafe.

The best example of this might be Gordon Parks photographs of Harlem, where his photographs showed a gentler and more compassionate side of the gangs than expected. He hoped his photographs would change people's perception of Harlem, and make them feel safer, but Life magazine deliberately only published (against his wishes) photographs that reinforced the existing views of Harlem.

For these reasons, and others, I think that the starting point of photography should be of a medium that can be manipulated to tell the story the photographer wants it to.

Pavel M said:
I am aware that Adams used every trick available to him at the time to modify reality to what he wished to show. I find it funny to hear people talking about returning to Adams's honesty in photography.
Click to expand...

Indeed, or the idea that he would still be using film and reject photoshop.

Below is one my favourite Ansel Adams quotes:

“In electronics, the technology we have now can do far more than film. As the world’s silver resources are depleted, these new technologies are particularly important… Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics . Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again”

Playboy interview May 1983.

Pavel M said:
My take is that these design tools are great if your intent is to create a harmonious image. If you aim to show tension or disharmony and lots of other thoughts and emotions, you need to deviate from these "rules" to achieve your intent.
Click to expand...

I don't see these as rules, but rather learning the principles of what elements of design will lead to harmony and what elements will lead to disharmony. I've just had a look and the book has a couple of pages on creating Incongruity, and why you might want to
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
Most of the things that affect our daily lives are not based on some universal laws of physics, they based on custom, practice and general consensus - i.e. matters of opinion! Morality, politics, the law, religion, money, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, these are all driven by consensus of an elite not any kind of "scientific" fact.
Click to expand...

You are right of course but I have a suspicion that many of those customary practices were originally set in being by what passed for scientific or at least rational and practical considerations at the time.

Edit: typo.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
That cuts both ways.

People who get upset/offended be being told their work isn't art do so because they think that something being art gives it more value than if it wasn't art.
Click to expand...

It certainly can. Often offence can be taken because of how things are said - doubly so when typing & then reading back the response. It may not be the 'being told' that's the issue, but like calling a Jew a Jew, or a gay man gay, can be offensive, even though the statement is literally true.

Pavel M said:
@toni, I am not here very long, so I may not know the instances you are talking about. I have not come across what you describe. I see art photography as a particular branch of photography where the intent is not to capture "reality" as camera interprets it, but instead tries to creatively reflect thoughts, ideas, emotions, sense of humour etc. of the maker. When I am reading in papers about a fire somewhere, I do not want the artists feeling about it but a photograph that competently documents the event as it happened (to me that is craft). The same is with photos of war correspondents. And I also want to see Picasso's Guernica, which gives me a body blow each time I see it and which reflects the artist's reaction to the bombing of civilians without documenting it. There is room for both. I am as a hobbyist more interested in art, but I could have ended up a wildlife photographer trying to learn about animals and birds and documenting their life. Why the ranking?

After much research of various kind, I came to a conclusion of what art is to me. There are wide range of opinions on that. I sometimes submitted the same image to more than one juried show and only once was the same image accepted in 2 shows. Obviously professional art jurors do not agree with each other either. That is good!!!! Imagine going from one gallery to another, all representing the same taste!! Boooring! There is actually too much fashion in art. It washes over like a wave. Usually, these fads promote something that everybody (at least in the art world) will consider motherhood and apple pie. Pre-pandemic, it was art made from recycled materials and woman empowerment. Next time, the fad will be something else.

I am the OP on this now sizeable post. The reason I started it was not in a hope that my view "wins":confused: but rather to hear wide range of views. The idea that I could convince people of my view was in my view a nonstarter. My idea was that I and all participants will have a chance to learn something from each other. My father introduced me to a debate as a learning tool when I was about 5. He would take on the view opposite to mine and defend it vigorously (regardless of what his actual view was). By the time I was about 8, I was onto him. We stuck with it until Soviet invasion when I was 19 and I left the country. I learned a lot from the debates. My father could have nailed me easily to the wall but he did not. 5 minutes after the debate ended, I would not remember who argued for what, but my understanding of issues was far greater.

I consider these debates very useful as well as fun. There should be no winners and losers and the differences of opinion are unlikely to be resolved. We should participate in debates only if we can keep it mostly cool and mostly not infuriate the others. If we do, the discussion looses its purpose. Nobody should feel that their views are being put down. But that is a 2 way street.
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned, art discussion has caused a huge amount of friction here in the past, however for the most part this has been a useful thread. Discussion and debate is good. :)
 
sirch said:
I've not seen that, do you have any examples? As I said up thread it's quite simple, print it, sign it and get a gallery to hang it and it IS art. Failing those attributes its somewhere between dropping a guitar on the floor and playing 3 chords on it, i.e. it might be art or it might be an accident.
Click to expand...

That's history now. I still feel the effects (though I wasn't the target) but have largely moved on.


Why is craft any less valuable than anything else, again its honestly not something I have ever come across. In fact quite the opposite, I'm sure craft items earn their makers far more than that the average artist can make from their work.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to pass your comment by, because it's too valuable to leave.

The implication (and I think statement in times past - not going to dig through those posts) was that you are not able to create - the most you can manage is craft.

As I just mentioned about calling a Jew a Jew, while it may be a truth, it was used in a way to lock someone out and shut the door on them. I know of know other creative endeavour that apparently tries to exclude aspirants. In reply to the OP's question one poster answered "Of course there is. But, having to ask the question means that you will never know what it is." which may have been an attempt at humour, but which goes straight back to the exclusive club that says "you can't belong".

The OP has had work displayed in some very well recognised galleries, yet some in this thread have questioned if his work even IS art. This creates a hostile environment, that discourages contribution and squashes aspiration.
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
Which expert would this be?

All disciplines have multiple experts with different opinions based on different arguments. None are definitively right or wrong

If someone weighs up the different arguments and decides that one expert is the most likely to be correct, they are, by default ,saying the others are more likely to be wrong.
Click to expand...
I think it is not necessary to nail who is right in this setting. If you work on a project together, you must make a team decision. In the gallery, the gallery owner or the curator or the gallery members make the decision, In the forum, you just smile at each other and go your separate ways. I think in the forum, the trick is to find people with similar interest (but not necessarily the same views), with whom you can work cooperatively to the mutual benefit.
 
Just to go back to the OP's question
Is there such a thing as art photography?

David Hockney obviously thinks there is.

Composite Polaroids : Photos : Works | David Hockney

Whether or not you as an individual agree is a matter of personal choice.
In much the same way is Tracey Emmin's bed art? or Sean Sculley's work at the Yorkshire Sculpture park, or indeed many of the outdoor exhibits .
 
ancient_mariner said:
, yet some in this thread have questioned if his work even IS art.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. I thought he got a pretty good reception and he did question the existence of “art photography” in his choice of title. There was only one person who was dismissiveI think, but not really in a personal way. I can think of one other who questioned the subdivision of photography that would imply some is art and the rest is not but it wasn’t in any way critical of the OP. Maybe I’m biased as I tend to think these subdivisions are a bit too artificial and the discussion is often in danger of being “arty farty”.

It‘s difficult to see why art in photography should even be a question -- maybe it all goes back 100+ years to “from today painting is dead” which turned out to be both true and untrue but set up an apparent opposition. But also any fool can take a photograph as in Kodak’s “you press the button and we do the rest” and nowadays even monkeys can do it so ’how can it be art’ because ‘art’ is supposed to be difficult to do.
 
This discussion will go on ad infinitum, but for me, photography has many facets and is all the better for it, you have your holiday snaps which the family will cherish in the future , and on the other end of the spectrum there is the photographic masterpiece ,a beautifully executed and composed fine art photo , enlarged and printed on high quality paper purely to be exhibited /hung on the wall to be enjoyed, just like a work of art, its more than just a photo or snap, photographic art perhaps.
But there are many folk who would get as much enjoyment from an exhibition of contemporary dodgy, out of whack warts and all Lomography prints taken on a naff looking toy camera, I'm open minded so I'm OK with either.
 
sirch said:
Who is providing the vinegar?
Click to expand...

AndrewFlannigan said:
It's a general statement about how to persuade others to your view.
Click to expand...

Though I fancy it’s a very anthropocentric view. I’m pretty sure the Vinegar Fly (Drosophila melanogaster) is attracted to vinegar which will be a common smell in rotting fruit rather than honey ;).
 
ancient_mariner said:
The OP has had work displayed in some very well recognised galleries, yet some in this thread have questioned if his work even IS art. This creates a hostile environment, that discourages contribution and squashes aspiration.
Click to expand...
Thank you, @toni for your kind comments. My work has been questioned and poked fun at. I generally have no issue if somebody questions whether my work is art and provides thoughtful rationale. I am quite secure about my work. The first time I was selected for an exhibition in Manhattan (I was told from 2000+ applicants from around the world) by a curator from Guggenheim, I was floating on clouds for days. I was also pleased when picked by gallery owners, curators and other art pros for other 2 exhibitions in New York, London, Seoul, Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere around the world. I feel secure that they see my work as art and the quality of work displayed around me was generally excellent. I am prepared to hear reasoning of somebody who does not think my work is art. We can debate this and and up agreeing or not. If it is a well thought through and substantiated argument, I have no problem with that. I am far less tolerant of anybody making light of my accomplishments. I can poke fun at it (and I do), my family and close personal friends can and do that often enough but nothing gives anybody else the right to do that. We had an exchange over that issue with the member who did that and I think that we reached an understanding. I think that to keep the discussion going and keep it constructive, we must be respectful of each other.
 
Pavel M said:
I think it is not necessary to nail who is right in this setting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you in the setting you describe, but Munch was objecting to being "told" by "the" expert what he should believe was art.

In the post you responded to and an earlier one I was emphasising that in any field (including the arts) there are multiple experts with multiple views and you can choose between them. And although I failed to mention it, in practise, most people mix and match the opinions of different experts to add to your own expertise when forming their current opinion on a matter.
 
myotis said:
Yes, I agree with you in the setting you describe, but Munch was objecting to being "told" by "the" expert what he should believe was art.

In the post you responded to and an earlier one I was emphasising that in any field (including the arts) there are multiple experts with multiple views and you can choose between them. And although I failed to mention it, in practise, most people mix and match the opinions of different experts to add to your own expertise when forming their current opinion on a matter.
Click to expand...

And this is where artists are not like accountants. Final accounts are unambiguously what they are, but as Munch and Duchamp demonstrate (art that was declared not art, not art declared to be art) art is not an absolute, and is recognised or not in the mind of the viewer.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And this is where artists are not like accountants. Final accounts are unambiguously what they are, but as Munch and Duchamp demonstrate (art that was declared not art, not art declared to be art) art is not an absolute, and is recognised or not in the mind of the viewer.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I know nothing about accounting, but a family friend that is one says that she can produce, using legal accounting tools any results she chooses (gains, losses, balanced budgets - whatever). I could well imagine that another accountant with a different outcome in mind may well dispute her results?
 
ancient_mariner said:
e, but as Munch and Duchamp demonstrate (art that was declared not art, not art declared to be art) art is not an absolute, and is recognised or not in the mind of the viewer.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking of that when @Pavel M wrote about people poking fun at his work. If they did he’d be in rather illustrious company, the Impressionists, Turner, Picasso and so on and on.
 
sphexx said:
It‘s difficult to see why art in photography should even be a question
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I argue for just using "photography" and leaving qualifiers for when they mean something useful.

If someone says they are a wildlife photographer, you feel better informed. If someone says they are an "art photographer" I'm not sure you know anymore than if they said they were a photographer, and "photographer" conveys similar informational content as someone saying they are a painter or a poet or a writer.

From what I have seen the arguments against photography as art have been, "its too easy", the "mechanical copy and multiple reproduction" argument and the "it's not painting" argument.

I believe this comes from misunderstanding the photographic process and it's relationship with the photographer. The superficial simplicity of photography hides its capacity for creative depth and complexity. I don't think poems became any less of an art form when the printing press was invented And I don't believe that trying to make a direct comparison between one form of 2d visual art with another is valid, even if there are some obvious similarities.

To state the obvious, photography isn't painting, it has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and it's own craft and aesthetic history. Albeit, a short history with rapid evolution. It also has a universality, availability, and range of applications that probably singles it out from other arts. I suspect, the vast majority of photographs are taken with no aspirations of artistic expression, I'm not sure you could say that of paintings.

And, although I understand that in the past Poets argued against painting being an art because it was artificially created using tools (brushes and paint) we tend not to argue that one form of art can't be art because of it's differences from another form of art.

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss differences and similarities between art media, but I also think we should just get on with appreciating photography as photography.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And this is where artists are not like accountants. Final accounts are unambiguously what they are, but as Munch and Duchamp demonstrate (art that was declared not art, not art declared to be art) art is not an absolute, and is recognised or not in the mind of the viewer.
Click to expand...

While agreeing within the context of your point, I'm not sure anything is an absolute, regardless of it being art or science. Some mathematical proofs might be, but that's way outside my expertise.
 
Pavel M said:
I am far less tolerant of anybody making light of my accomplishments.
Click to expand...
Depending on the level of moderation deployed, and the decisions of the moderators, anyone posting on a public forum should be prepared for the opinions of others to be a little ego busting. That is simply the nature of the beast. Finding and using the [ignore] button is the least bad way to handle this.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Depending on the level of moderation deployed, and the decisions of the moderators, anyone posting on a public forum should be prepared for the opinions of others to be a little ego busting. That is simply the nature of the beast. Finding and using the [ignore] button is the least bad way to handle this.
Click to expand...
Andrew, I am surprised I have to say it, but there is a difference between expressing opinions about a presented work or expressed opinions on one hand and personal attacks. Our ability to discuss issues here that are important to us all can be done only under the conditions of mutual respect and trust. We all have different sensitivities to different things and what may not be a sensitive issue for me may well be a sensitive spot for you. Respect and trust are important and we should each be our own moderators if we wish to have thoughtful and comfortable discussions. Ultimately it depends whether you are more interested in a substantive discussion or if it is more important to score a cheap point and irritate someone
 
droj said:
Wrong! Commerce is a prostitute, and no judge of internal worth.
Click to expand...
The reality Droj is however, that cost of works is driven by very few individuals with very deep pockets. We may not like it, but that is the way it is. There is no objective metric to judge the quality of art.
I have several Art Basel Reports. They contain all the data about art commerce you can imagine and a lot more than you can imagine. If you or anyone else is interested, contact me. They are big! I have 2021 and 2020 reports
 
Last edited:
Things that are classified as "fine art" are very close to arts and crafts for me.

One of the first works of art are cave paintings. You have to think about the reasons why people made them back then.
Actually, people were only concerned with pure survival. Gathering enough food and hunting, being warm in winter, being protected from other tribes and predators.

And then man does something creative that is completely irrelevant to survival and reproduction: art.

But what is called art today has nothing to do with that. Nowadays, the term art stands for business. The art market is huge. Art in this sense has no meaning for me.

For me, art is something that comes from a creative process, that is not necessary for life, but that moves me. If it doesn't move me, others may call it art, but not me. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top