Is there such a thing as art photography?

Pavel M said:
there is a difference between expressing opinions about a presented work or expressed opinions on one hand and personal attacks.
Click to expand...
This is true.

However, I don't think there have been any personal attacks in this thread. Some strongly expressed opinions, yes, but my experience of this site is that any such attacks would have resulted in immediate action from the moderators - and I know that from personal experience! :naughty:

Perhaps you should review the postings that you think have been personal and ask yourself if that's actually what happened.
 
munch said:
I like something because I like it, I haven't been to art school, etc to have somebody tell me why I should rate somebody above somebody else, why pieces form into a certain style.
Click to expand...
This is total nonsense.
whether or not you or I ‘like’ something has no bearing on its value.
You can like or not like anything, you’re totally free to do that, and no ‘expert’ would try to force you otherwise.

But the idea that knowledge of any subject doesn’t give weight to an opinion is just funny, if you swap ‘art’ for any other subject. Only when discussing art can the man on the street feel his opinion is as worthy as an ‘expert’. It’s frankly laughable.

Jay Rayner is a better judge than I am of what makes a good meal, it’s still daft to suggest he should be allowed to tell me what to like. But he ought to be able to write me an essay on the cultural origins of a recipe.
 
munch said:
Sorry, but all that statement does is just prove my point
"All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "oncologists" are so up themselves and their "science" that other people's opinions are not to be considered as having any merit."
Click to expand...
See how daft it looks.
having knowledge elevates the value of an opinion.
How is that difficult to comprehend?
 
Its not really total nonsense though is it, its merely somebodies opinion. It may differ from yours, mine and many others but that is what it is. An art historian obviously knows better than any the history of art, how it was constructed, materials used, artistic movements of the time and socio/political contexts of the day. An art critic/gallery owner/curator tries to dictate trends we should follow now and in the future. The first is purely/mainly knowledge based and the second is trying to predict trends which brings it back to just being a (possibly) informed opinion.
And is about money.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
This is total nonsense.
whether or not you or I ‘like’ something has no bearing on its value.
You can like or not like anything, you’re totally free to do that, and no ‘expert’ would try to force you otherwise.

But the idea that knowledge of any subject doesn’t give weight to an opinion is just funny, if you swap ‘art’ for any other subject. Only when discussing art can the man on the street feel his opinion is as worthy as an ‘expert’. It’s frankly laughable.

Jay Rayner is a better judge than I am of what makes a good meal, it’s still daft to suggest he should be allowed to tell me what to like. But he ought to be able to write me an essay on the cultural origins of a recipe.
Click to expand...

But there's the Emperors New Clothes possibility. The man on the street can add some balance or an alternative view, not that it would necessarily matter to potential buyers. To take an extreme example I don't care what justification or explanation is used for unmade beds or dead animals in formaldehyde and they're unlikely to be viewed as art by me or even the majority. Not that that matters as these things will have a value to certain buyers but a voice on the street expressing an opposing and non expert opinion is at least just that, another opinion, and it might be shared by 99.9% of people. Not that that matters to the buyers as it's likely that no one in their circle will laugh and say "You've just paid £40m for that? You're off your head mate. You could have donated that £40m to the children's hospice." Not in public anyway.

Not that I expect anyone to be influenced by me and equally I'm not likely to be influenced by anyone telling me how wonderful, worthy or valuable something I have zero interest in is.
 
gerry s said:
Its not really total nonsense though is it, its merely somebodies opinion. It may differ from yours, mine and many others but that is what it is. An art historian obviously knows better than any the history of art, how it was constructed, materials used, artistic movements of the time and socio/political contexts of the day. An art critic/gallery owner/curator tries to dictate trends we should follow now and in the future. The first is purely/mainly knowledge based and the second is trying to predict trends which brings it back to just being a (possibly) informed opinion.
Click to expand...

An art historian has been through some sort of educational system and is perhaps a product of that system and perhaps unlikely to go too far out on a limb, deviate too much from the accepted view or be too controversial.
 
fusion07.miller said:
Is that not the same thing ?????? ;)
Click to expand...
Many people buy a camera to take their own pictures of friends, family, places they have visited, etc. They print their pictures and hang them on the wall or put those images into a display system. They haven't paid someone else to make those displayed pictures, hence, according to the quoted Wikipedia article, they are "fine art photographs".
woof woof said:
An art historian has been through some sort of educational system and is perhaps a product of that system and perhaps unlikely to go too far out on a limb, deviate too much from the accepted view or be too controversial.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there's a clear difference between technical education and arts education.

The first is the presentation and explanation of proven facts but the second is simply indoctrination into a creed and, so far as I can see, no different to political or religious propaganda. At the end of each and every day, art is a matter of liking and thus entirely personal. In the extremely unlikely event that you are the only person who likes or dislikes something presented as art, your opinion is as valid as any other person's.

This is why "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a valid analogy to all art criticism.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
But there's the Emperors New Clothes possibility. The man on the street can add some balance or an alternative view, not that it would necessarily matter to potential buyers. To take an extreme example I don't care what justification or explanation is used for unmade beds or dead animals in formaldehyde and they're unlikely to be viewed as art by me or even the majority. Not that that matters as these things will have a value to certain buyers but a voice on the street expressing an opposing and non expert opinion is at least just that, another opinion, and it might be shared by 99.9% of people. Not that that matters to the buyers as it's likely that no one in their circle will laugh and say "You've just paid £40m for that? You're off your head mate. You could have donated that £40m to the children's hospice." Not in public anyway.

Not that I expect anyone to be influenced by me and equally I'm not likely to be influenced by anyone telling me how wonderful, worthy or valuable something I have zero interest in is.
Click to expand...
Surely the highlighted bits are the only ones that are facts. You know that your opinion on the matter is unqualified.

I’m not likely to spend a million on a work of art, £10k on a bottle of wine or £100k on a car, so offering an uninformed opinion of them would just be a sign of my ignorance.

The ‘emperors new clothes’ is routinely misunderstood in this context. It’s not about being an uninformed voice of reason. That little boy was (in the modern parlance) speaking truth to power. He wasn’t questioning some learned knowledge that he didn’t agree with; he was pointing out a lie.
 
I would imagine that he is saying that "A picture that is produced for sale or display rather than one that is produced in response to a commercial commission" are one and the same as far as they are both done for money.
If it isn't then that's two of up for dim person of the day
;)
 
For those who haven't already read it, and interested in an informed opinion to how the art world works (albeit the view of one person) "Playing to the Gallery by Grayson Perry is a short and easy read.
 
Phil V said:
This is total nonsense.
whether or not you or I ‘like’ something has no bearing on its value.
You can like or not like anything, you’re totally free to do that, and no ‘expert’ would try to force you otherwise.

But the idea that knowledge of any subject doesn’t give weight to an opinion is just funny, if you swap ‘art’ for any other subject. Only when discussing art can the man on the street feel his opinion is as worthy as an ‘expert’. It’s frankly laughable.

Jay Rayner is a better judge than I am of what makes a good meal, it’s still daft to suggest he should be allowed to tell me what to like. But he ought to be able to write me an essay on the cultural origins of a recipe.
Click to expand...

True, but lately that’s been superseded by “every opinion is valid” or some such nonsense, on climate change, COVID, 5G, etc. :(. It used to be “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” which is something quite different and more to do with free speech vs censorship :(.
 
sphexx said:
True, but lately that’s been superseded by “every opinion is valid” or some such nonsense, on climate change, COVID, 5G, etc. :(. It used to be “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” which is something quite different and more to do with free speech vs censorship :(.
Click to expand...
There seems to be even more of the anti elite sentiment her in North America and particularly in the USA. This very much applies to the intellectual elite for some reason.
 
gerry s said:
I would imagine that he is saying that "A picture that is produced for sale or display rather than one that is produced in response to a commercial commission" are one and the same as far as they are both done for money.
If it isn't then that's two of up for dim person of the day
;)
Click to expand...
Ah ok, to me the motivation is very different. My personal take is that a commercial commission is fulfilling an order for a customer, whereas fine art photos that are produced for sale or display comes from a drive to communicate something. People I know who have had success selling fine art pictures tell me setting out to make money has been the least successful strategy in their experience.
 
TimHughes said:
My personal take is that a commercial commission is fulfilling an order for a customer, whereas fine art photos that are produced for sale or display comes from a drive to communicate something.
Click to expand...

A lot of art was at one time produced to fulfil orders from wealthy clients.
 
Pavel M said:
There seems to be even more of the anti elite sentiment her in North America and particularly in the USA. This very much applies to the intellectual elite for some reason.
Click to expand...
This, I suspect, is quite true and due to the realisation that the sole difference between "the elite" and "the masses" is the ability to lie with a straight face.
sphexx said:
True, but lately that’s been superseded by “every opinion is valid” or some such nonsense, on climate change, COVID, 5G, etc.
Click to expand...
I think that's the fault of our politicians and our journalists, too many of whom have adopted Joseph Goebbels's stated principle that "words can be moulded until they clothe ideas and disguise." Perhaps they should try telling the plain unvarnished truth for a change.
 
Phil V said:
See how daft it looks.
having knowledge elevates the value of an opinion.
How is that difficult to comprehend?
Click to expand...

I am not denying that knowledge elevates an opinion. My point is that when it comes to art and deciding what is good and what isn't that is all there is, opinions. The Oncologist you used as an example may well make an informed opinion on if he/she will operate or not. But that is backed up by science.

Money, certainly can't be used to define the "artistic" value of a piece of work.
 
munch said:
My point is that when it comes to art and deciding what is good and what isn't that is all there is, opinions.
Click to expand...
People with informed opinions judge what is good and bad in all sorts of areas. Such as floor gymnastics at the Olympics, and sheep dog trials.
 
Ed Sutton said:
People with informed opinions judge what is good and bad in all sorts of areas. Such as floor gymnastics at the Olympics, and sheep dog trials.
Click to expand...
But they do that based on rules.

Can I ask one of you to tell me exactly what is art in photography and give me some basis for that?

So far everybody keeps telling me I am wrong, but no one has actually given a definitive answer to the OP
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This, I suspect, is quite true and due to the realisation that the sole difference between "the elite" and "the masses" is the ability to lie with a straight face.
Click to expand...
?????????/:confused: You and I must be getting information from very different sources. One of the things you learn in graduate school is how to identify sources of factual information. Those are usually the sources that have most to loose if they are found lying. Oh, but wait. I said graduate school and therefore elite and therefore a lier

But we are moving away from photography and so this is it for me on this topic.
 
Last edited:
munch said:
But they do that based on rules.
Click to expand...
So why can two judges draw different conclusions about the same performance? Surely if they apply the rules they will give the same result. :thinking:

Anyway, I don't know why anyone is replying to your posts given what you posted earlier:
munch said:
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.
Click to expand...
It makes discussion pointless.
 
Pavel M said:
?????????/:confused: You and I must be getting information from very different sources. One of the things you learn in graduate school is how to identify sources of factual information. Those are usually the sources that have most to loose if they are found lying. Oh, but wait. I said graduate school and therefore elite and therefore a lier

But we are moving away from photography and so this is it for me on this topic.
Click to expand...

We have the benefit of having a Prime Minister who is a documented liar. He was sacked from two jobs for lying (one was falsifying a quote I think) and then had a successful career as a ‘journalist’ ( commenter really) where he wrote mostly misleading things about the EU and now in office says things that are demonstrably false. This is different from previous politicians who may have put a gloss on things and so on :(. Trump of course was similar but not so polished :(.
 
munch said:
So far everybody keeps telling me I am wrong, but no one has actually given a definitive answer to the OP
Click to expand...
That's because there is no definitive answer.

Maybe it's my background in science and statistics, where we are used to there being no definitive answers, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the lack of definitive answers when it comes to the arts.

I'm not sure what kind of definitive answer you are hoping for, but I can't see you ever getting one.

I could give you a suggested marking rubric for a college photography portfolio. Not that it helps in defining art, but it does give an insight on how marks are given for photography projects in college and how it's possible to quantify and compare opinions based on subjective judgement.

Rubrics like this allow the marker to award points for things like how well the students "Image choice maximally supports the idea or concept expressed by the portfolio" or how well the students "use of light effectively creates mood or meaning in the photo".

We used similar rubrics for marking science and statistics papers in university where the marks would rely heavily on expert judgement e.g. how appropriate was the choice of statistical model, how well did the student interpret the results of the model. How well did the student explain those results etc etc.

In a university setting, these subjective scores are double marked for either a sample of assignments or for all assignments. Differences, that can't be resolved between the first and second markers will result in a third marker being pulled in to moderate the differences. Sometimes this could lead to lengthy debates between the markers until a "fair" mark was agreed.
 
droj said:
Wrong! Commerce is a prostitute, and no judge of internal worth.
Click to expand...
Whilst I am inclined to take your post with a pinch of salt it is an opportunity to say ...


... that of course the views I have expressed in this thread are only a tiny part of what I think on this subject. It amused me for a while (amused in the sense of a puzzle, an intellectual exercise), to try to find something concrete around which ideas might coalesce in a field which by its very nature is completely ephemeral and resists all attempts to pin it down. It falls very much into the explanatory gap

One of the other things I think is - Art is the mathematics of emotion.
 
I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something like, "art, like love, is undefinable and very necessary"

Antony Gormley called it the obsessive pursuit of the impossible.
 
sphexx said:
We have the benefit of having a Prime Minister who is a documented liar. He was sacked from two jobs for lying (one was falsifying a quote I think) and then had a successful career as a ‘journalist’ ( commenter really) where he wrote mostly misleading things about the EU and now in office says things that are demonstrably false. This is different from previous politicians who may have put a gloss on things and so on :(. Trump of course was similar but not so polished :(.
Click to expand...
So Trump (to the south of us) is a representative of an Elite? :eek: :mad: My read is that your Prime Minister is an identical twin to Trump, but somehow a little smarter
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
That's because there is no definitive answer.

Maybe it's my background in science and statistics, where we are used to there being no definitive answers, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the lack of definitive answers when it comes to the arts.

I'm not sure what kind of definitive answer you are hoping for, but I can't see you ever getting one.

I could give you a suggested marking rubric for a college photography portfolio. Not that it helps in defining art, but it does give an insight on how marks are given for photography projects in college and how it's possible to quantify and compare opinions based on subjective judgement.

Rubrics like this allow the marker to award points for things like how well the students "Image choice maximally supports the idea or concept expressed by the portfolio" or how well the students "use of light effectively creates mood or meaning in the photo".

We used similar rubrics for marking science and statistics papers in university where the marks would rely heavily on expert judgement e.g. how appropriate was the choice of statistical model, how well did the student interpret the results of the model. How well did the student explain those results etc etc.

In a university setting, these subjective scores are double marked for either a sample of assignments or for all assignments. Differences, that can't be resolved between the first and second markers will result in a third marker being pulled in to moderate the differences. Sometimes this could lead to lengthy debates between the markers until a "fair" mark was agreed.
Click to expand...
For the record, I certainly never expected a definitive answer. I wanted to know not just what members feel, but most importantly why they feel the way they do. Some members have very strong opinions but I am not sure i know what they actually are and most certainly I do not know why they think what they think. Thankfully Graham, your answer is clear to me.
 
Pavel M said:
For the record, I certainly never expected a definitive answer. I wanted to know not just what members feel, but most importantly why they feel the way they do. Some members have very strong opinions but I am not sure i know what they actually are and most certainly I do not know why they think what they think. Thankfully Graham, your answer is clear to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know you weren't, my post was really building on earlier posts with Munch.
 
It seems to me that Art is a form of craft with no practical use beyond decoration.
And preferably with an esoteric appeal.
Its value lays mostly on demand, rarity and fashion.

Photographs tend have greater availability than demand, so have appropriate low value.

Increasingly rare wet photography by various minority processes will undoubtedly increase in value.

Mainstream photography exists in a heavily saturated market, that rarely ventures into, or is accepted by the more rarefied Art world.

This is much the same position that most amateur artists find them selves in.
 
Sometimes it communicates something wonderful..... Sometimes it talks rubbish though.
 
droj said:
Craft's just a vehicle. Art goes far, far beyond decoration - it has a voice, something to communicate.
Click to expand...
Art certainly can communicate, but so can a news paper, communication does not make a news paper art. Most, if not all forms of media communicate, including photography. I take that as a given. Communication does not make art art, it is not a defining factor that differentiates it from something not recognise as art.
 
Pavel M said:
So Trump (to the south of us) is a representative of an Elite? :eek: :mad: My read is that your Prime Minister is an identical twin to Trump, but somehow a little smarter
Click to expand...

Our PM, Johnson, is very different from Trump in many ways and certainly understands how politics works even if he is personally incompetent. Trump is certainly a member of the US elite or perhaps we should say aristocracy. Born to great wealth, mostly lost it but managed to keep going by confidence trickery until he had a lucky break and became a TV ‘personality’ and started raking it in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top