the Purpose of Art...

Well we all know the answer to that one. But you don't have to be a conceptualist to have slaves. Or employees.
 
big soft moose said:
the simple rules of discussing art - 1) anyone who dares to disagree with david is automatically wrong and stupid.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Only me in the thread.


I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I'm expecting those that don't agree to just leave it that: They don't agree. Discuss, debate. fine... but if nothing you see or read is changing your mind, fine... then we've had a discussion.. but what's with the name calling and viciousness FFS??

No one's accusing those that shoot wildlife of only doing so because they're sad, and usually elderly anoraks with no social skills who like being alone. It would be easy to do if you felt like sticking the boot in because that's the STREOTYPE, but no one does because it would be childish, yet it's acceptable to stick the boot into anyone who works in fine art. You can hurl words like "Prat" "Nonce" "Drossites" around when addressing those involved with that genre with absolute impunity, yet if you call anyone else anything in here, even something quite mild such as "idiot"... RTM... warning and post deleted.

Double standards. Because the vast majority are anti-art, no one complains... stick to the boot into bird on a stick images and people start booing like little girls because that hits close to home for THEM... The majority. Hell... even CALLING them Bird on A Stick images upsets them.... and we can't upset the majority can we.

That's how I see it in here. You can't be critical about anything without someone accusing you of calling other people's work worthless and crap.... said in the same paragraph where they're calling fine art work worthless and crap usually.


I just want parity.


The disagreement here is not even the work.. it's the understanding of what art is. No one is seeing the elephant in the room though. Art is not what you want it to be, no matter how convenient that would be.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Who did the sawing and pickling, though? Hirst or a professional sawyer and pickler?
Click to expand...

this is true - but it still required some creative vision to come up with the idea... unlike an unmade bed which we all see every morning , or a pile of tea bags on the floor (which the cleaners mistook for rubbish and cleared away).
 
big soft moose said:
this is true - but it still required some creative vision to come up with the idea... unlike an unmade bed which we all see every morning , or a pile of tea bags on the floor (which the cleaners mistook for rubbish and cleared away).
Click to expand...

That's the point though. We all see an unmade bed, but we don't look at it and consider exhibiting it. It's just the same as William Eggleston seeing a red ceiling and taking a photograph of it, or David Hockney painting a swimming pool. All this stuff is out there, it's part of the artist's job to make people look at, and think about, it.


Steve Smith said:
I have never heard that term before. I must try to remember it and use it at an appropriate time!
Click to expand...

There's also what a friend of mine (who is a nature/wildlife photographer) calls 'stamp collecting'. Which is when a photographer who hasn't yet got a particular bird on a stick has to add one to his (it's usually his) collection. And it must be a sharply photographed, pristine example of the bird, on a particularly attractive stick, against a perfectly smooth background. :)
 
Ed Sutton said:
That's the point though. We all see an unmade bed, but we don't look at it and consider exhibiting it.
Click to expand...

may be thats because most of us don't consider it to be art
 
droj said:
I seem to remember being banished from here once for using the term 'train spotting' (in a related context) ... (sigh) ...
Click to expand...

was that in the bird forum ?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yeah. Only me in the thread.


I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I'm expecting those that don't agree to just leave it that: They don't agree. Discuss, debate. fine... but if nothing you see or read is changing your mind, fine... then we've had a discussion.. but what's with the name calling and viciousness FFS??

No one's accusing those that shoot wildlife of only doing so because they're sad, and usually elderly anoraks with no social skills who like being alone. It would be easy to do if you felt like sticking the boot in because that's the STREOTYPE, but no one does because it would be childish, yet it's acceptable to stick the boot into anyone who works in fine art. You can hurl words like "Prat" "Nonce" "Drossites" around when addressing those involved with that genre with absolute impunity, yet if you call anyone else anything in here, even something quite mild such as "idiot"... RTM... warning and post deleted.

Double standards. Because the vast majority are anti-art, no one complains... stick to the boot into bird on a stick images and people start booing like little girls because that hits close to home for THEM... The majority. Hell... even CALLING them Bird on A Stick images upsets them.... and we can't upset the majority can we.

That's how I see it in here. You can't be critical about anything without someone accusing you of calling other people's work worthless and crap.... said in the same paragraph where they're calling fine art work worthless and crap usually.


I just want parity.


The disagreement here is not even the work.. it's the understanding of what art is. No one is seeing the elephant in the room though. Art is not what you want it to be, no matter how convenient that would be.
Click to expand...


Monsieur

I wouldn't get too unhappy, it's not been a bad discussion ……. beats going to Syria!

and I am sure that you may have turned a few minds …….. which cannot be bad ……. although I have no idea what you are talking about half of the time
 
Last edited:
I supose an elephant in the room could be art if it was sawn in half and pickled in a really big tank :LOL:

as to the art is not what you want it to be - i agree its not what many want it to be (including the eno quote thatkicked this discussion off), art is in my view the skillful expression of a creative vision... remove either the skill or the creativity and it isnt art. If no one else 'gets it' it isnt because they are thick - its because you (the artist) have failed in expressing your vision.

Also on davids point about why theres so much hostility against those who feel that art is for example 4 tea bags and a page of waffling pretentious text - its because those people are equally hostile in return and tend to portray anyone who suggests that the emporer is naked as an unintellectual pleb.
 
It's interesting that the two pieces picked up on are Damiens Hirsts Shark and Tracey Emin's bed. Part of the Young British Artists

I saw the bed as an interesting self portrait. She has said: Following a failed romance, Emin went through a period of severe depression accompanied by excessive drinking and bouts of casual sex. One night after a particularly heavy binge, she woke up thinking, “If I don’t drink some water I’m going to die.” Crawling back to the bedroom from the kitchen, she looked at her bed and thought: “Ugghh! It was disgusting. And then, from one second looking horrible, it suddenly transformed itself into something removed from me, and something beautiful.”

Hirsts shark, or to give it it's proper title, The physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living, was interesting,although I preferred the repetition on the medicine cabinet, although Hirsts work could be seen as repetitive.

No-one mentioned Gillian Wearing yet?
 
big soft moose said:
may be thats because most of us don't consider it to be art
Click to expand...
That's the same as saying football isn't what you consider to be a sport, but cricket is.

big soft moose said:
as to the art is not what you want it to be - i agree its not what many want it to be (including the eno quote thatkicked this discussion off), art is in my view the skillful expression of a creative vision... remove either the skill or the creativity and it isnt art.
Click to expand...

There we go a gain. This conflation of skill with art. The creativity you crave is in the thought process, in thinking that a found object can be art. If you can't accept that premise then the argument is a stalemate because artists have accepted it for over a century. But just because something is art doesn't mean it is good art - regardless of the craft skills used, or lack of them.
 
Pookeyhead said:
<snip>

...The disagreement here is not even the work.. it's the understanding of what art is. No one is seeing the elephant in the room though. Art is not what you want it to be, no matter how convenient that would be.
Click to expand...

I've enjoyed the debate, mostly. But I'm still no clearer about what art is. It used to bother me, and I've struggled with this question, on and off for 40 years. My conclusion is that art simply cannot be defined, not in any universal way. As they say, it is in the eye of the beholder - which sounds trite and clichéd, but most clichés contain a lot of truth.

Far greater minds have wrestled with the same question for thousands of years, yet no-one has come up with an answer (not even here, in the last couple of days). I think one of the better definitions is 'that which transcends itself' and that's a form of words which at least the majority would probably agree with, if only because it is so broad. But transcends itself in what way? Evokes an emotion? What emotion, and how exactly? That's the problem with trying to define art - the definition needs to be explained with further definitions, with examples and exceptions, and so it goes round and round.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I've enjoyed the debate, mostly. But I'm still no clearer about what art is. It used to bother me, and I've struggled with this question, on and off for 40 years. My conclusion is that art simply cannot be defined, not in any universal way. As they say, it is in the eye of the beholder - which sounds trite and clichéd, but most clichés contain a lot of truth.

Far greater minds have wrestled with the same question for thousands of years, yet no-one has come up with an answer (not even here, in the last couple of days). I think one of the better definitions is 'that which transcends itself' and that's a form of words which at least the majority would probably agree with, if only because it is so broad. But transcends itself in what way? Evokes an emotion? What emotion, and how exactly? That's the problem with trying to define art - the definition needs to be explained with further definitions, with examples and exceptions, and so it goes round and round.
Click to expand...

Art: that which is deliberately attempting to either invoke a particular reaction, emotion or state of consciousness. That which is attempting to make you see something how you have never seen it before.
 
Like the "skillful the skillful expression of a creative vision" definition, this would seem to include advertising and political propaganda. Is it intended to add these to art?

No opinion expressed - just asking.
 
The23rdman said:
Art: that which is deliberately attempting to either invoke a particular reaction, emotion or state of consciousness. That which is attempting to make you see something how you have never seen it before.
Click to expand...

Yes, that covers art, but it also covers a lot of other things - that's the problem.

Photojournalism can be very evocative, of a war zone say, but is that art? Or pictures of a crime scene or medical experiment? Does art have to be deliberate? What about those happy accidents, quite common in photography, that the artist sees and captures? Is pressing the shutter release a sufficiently deliberate act? What about a portrait of a family member that is extremely evocative to other family members but means nothing to anyone else? The list of exceptions, or not depending on your point of view, is long.
 
Contemporary Art? Sheila McGregor of Axis says contemporary art is ‘”work that doesn’t simply inhabit a well established convention without in some way trying to move beyond it.”
 
I Also came across an article on Axis about this very subject

People who say they don't get art are missing the point says Rory Duckhouse in this month's Rant
I often hear the comment ‘I don’t get art’. It can be used as an anti-intellectual badge of honour or a defensive way of saying 'I don’t like it'.

Art can work on many levels, from the aesthetic to the conceptual, and for some people it’s easier to dismiss it outright than attempt to engage with it.

As Ryan Gander notes, "Adults are genuinely scared, unless they've had visual training, of approaching contemporary art because they think they're going to get it wrong, or be made a fool of, or say the wrong thing.”
While engaging with an art work can be a subjective and instinctive experience, many people also feel they need a certain level of knowledge to understand it properly. Art is hard, but it is a language you can learn the more you engage with it. It can be scary, too, but it won't hurt you if you get it 'wrong'.

There are also external factors that hinder audiences engaging with art, from the language we in the arts use to the way institutions are set up and marketed, as well as personal experiences with art education.

The gallery space can be intimidating, and sometimes the quality of the interpretation doesn’t match that of the work on show. This mismatch can reinforce the feeling of being made a fool of.

If you believe that art should be relevant to everyday life and accessible to all you might be right to blame institutions for unintentionally disengaging audiences and urge them to do more to support their visitors.

Perhaps more could be done to reassure people that they don’t necessarily need an art degree to appreciate art and that a personal response can be valid, even if others disagree with you.

I'd like to tell people that there's no need to be hostile or dismissive, and there is no need to be afraid - you just need to make an effort!

http://www.axisweb.org/features/news-and-views/the-rant/rant-107/
 
Anyone with an 'interest' in the business of art, should be regarded with suspicion.
 
I enjoy these debates/arguments. I find myself agreeing with almost everything Pookeyhead says. I have a theory, its that photography draws the technically minded due to its, well, engineery type of logical process. What often happens is that we get used to and good at performing the technical type of image. As has been said before, taking 'pretty' well exposed pictures. The reality is that anyone who has also learned the technical skills could also take the same images quite easily. Often you hear people on this forum start to say "What next?", "Where do I go from here?" "I feel like I'm stuck in a rut", "It's just not holding my interest like it used to" and "I am struggling for inspiration". This is because they have reached a technical ability in their chosen field (wildlife/macro/landscape etc etc) and it no longer holds a challenge to them. It's like hitting a wall. What next, where next. My advice is generally, emotion. Try to get some kind of 'emotion' into your images. As soon as this is attempted the whole process takes on a different slant and interest. Some can't/won't, others embrace and start a whole new journey.

What actually separates the 'technical' photographer and the 'artistic' one is that art knows no boundaries. Most of the fun comes from the development of the idea. The actual execution of it can be relatively simple. Of course, as has been said before, there is no issue in being both at times.

Now, being controversial here, technical brains are technical for a reason. It is the mindset that attracted individuals to photography in the first place. The technical bit. Then someone like David (Pookeyhead) comes along and says that artistic photography requires more. Takes more thought and depth and planning and creativity. And this is where the conflict arises. Most photographers took up photography exactly and precisely because they arent that creative (if they were they'd be a painter/musician/author/sculptor etc etc) and this kind of debate then is seen as a 'threat' to their hobby. It touches on areas that they know aren't within their reach and mindset. They therefore react with aggression to the subject because it is seen to undermine the hobby itself. Obviously I'm generalising here but hopefully you get my drift.

I recently gave a presentation to a camera club in the midlands and I spoke about trying to be creative. Like David, I totally understand that we aren't all blessed with creativity. However, it is quite simple to build this into your image making. Inspiration is all around us and ultimately it doesn't matter whether its classed as 'good' art or not, its personal, its yours, its your creation. I have a hard drive full of images I enjoyed producing, some are rubbish, some I think are quite good. The fact is, I don't care what others think as I don't really show them off generally. If I did, I would want a reaction. Love or hate. "It's nice or it's good" wouldn't be a pleasing response. Interestingly, "I don't get it" also works for me.

I am a rubbish artistic photographer generally (imo) however it doesn't stop me striving to improve, doesn't stop me studying other's work and trying to understand what I like and why I like it.

Just because an image is classed as 'art' doesn't mean you are supposed to get it or like it. I earlier in the year went to London and viewed a photographic exhibition of Andy Wharhol's photographs. I didn't get it or like it and was left wondering that if it was anybody elses images would they have been exhibited. However, I just accepted I didn't get it/like it and moved on.

I, like David don't really understand the personal aggression displayed towards other's who deem to aspire, produce or appreciate 'art'. It can only be due to feeling threatened.

If its about money and £ value then its jealousy and a lack of understanding about the art world. Most 'artists' make extremely small amounts of money. Maybe there is some other reason.

Whenever 'art' is introduced as a topic, inevitably 'piles of bricks' and 'unmade beds' get trotted out as if they are what 'art' is about. It totally ignores millions of other brilliant examples of both historic and modern art. If I've heard 'Emperor's new clothes' used once in these discussions I've heard it a thousand times. It ignores artists like Antony Gormley (Angel of the North etc) who seems to be generally liked across the demographics.

David's attitude I have to say pretty much mirrors my own as if I had written some of his posts for him! (I didn't and couldn't be that eloquent!) It's simple, most images on this and other forums are nice pretty pictures with beginners striving to improve their 'technical' abilities and experienced photographers trying to better hone their technical abilities. There is very little evidence around the emotion or meaning of the images. I too have no issue with that at all. Pretty pictures are lovely to look at. But they rarely 'move' me. Loads of images that are so called art don't move me either but many do. I love those images that make you stop and think and wonder. They are the ones I wish I had taken and created and the reason I still take photographs.

Oh well, onwards and upwards...
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, that covers art, but it also covers a lot of other things - that's the problem.

Photojournalism can be very evocative, of a war zone say, but is that art? Or pictures of a crime scene or medical experiment? Does art have to be deliberate? What about those happy accidents, quite common in photography, that the artist sees and captures? Is pressing the shutter release a sufficiently deliberate act? What about a portrait of a family member that is extremely evocative to other family members but means nothing to anyone else? The list of exceptions, or not depending on your point of view, is long.
Click to expand...
Art has to be deliberate in my mind.
 
The23rdman said:
Art has to be deliberate in my mind.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that the scene has to be deliberately created artificially by the photographer? A photojournalist could be watching a scene unfold, then intentionally taking his image at the decisive moment - quite deliberate. So there is intent to communicate, planning and then image creation - what's missing?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Do you mean that the scene has to be deliberately created artificially by the photographer? A photojournalist could be watching a scene unfold, then intentionally taking his image at the decisive moment - quite deliberate. So there is intent to communicate, planning and then image creation - what's missing?
Click to expand...
I think photojournalism can be art.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Do you mean that the scene has to be deliberately created artificially by the photographer?
Click to expand...

No.. it has to be produced, taken, or whatever... with deliberate intent... for a reason. It doesn't mean the scene itself needs to be deliberately created. Even if you produce something quite by accident, you have to recognise what it's doing... communicating, and then you can edit appropriately, or even develop the work forther once you've given it context and purpose. To walk around shooting for no reason, and then choosing the "best" ones, or the ones you "like" for no reason other than "wow" or "looks cool" can not really be art because it serves no purpose other than to be a pretty adornment for a wall, or to illustrate a holiday brochure, or some other use that doesn't allow the image to "transcend" itself.. as previously discussed.

Not being art is not a bad thing. That's where people spit their dummies out. Being told your work is not art is not an insult.. it's a description. There's just as much worth in a photo that's nothing more than pleasing to look at. It's just not art if that's it's only purpose. I have a friend that makes some lovely landscpae images.. probably better than any I coudl take. I like them. I've considered asking to buy some for the wall of our cabin near Ambleside (he shoots the Lake District). It's not art though. They're bloody good images, and they are lovely things... beautiful to look at. Why is that not enough?


ancient_mariner said:
A photojournalist could be watching a scene unfold, then intentionally taking his image at the decisive moment - quite deliberate. So there is intent to communicate, planning and then image creation - what's missing?
Click to expand...

Tricky one this. I think it's because the intent of the photojournalist is to report primarily, but what you describe doesn't sound like photo-journalism to me, it sounds like press photography. A photo-journalist will be working on a project... he'll be going to.. let's say... Afghanistan for a reason... not just to report the "News", but to illustrate, document, and create a narrative... a story that consists of not just one image for a newspaper headline, but a series of work that unfolds in a narrative for a magazine, or at least a full, serious and considered article in a quality newspaper or journal. As such, anything he takes will not be in isolation as a single image, there will be a whole series of other works (images and text) to support the bigger picture. Photo journalists aren't there to get a front page news image, which is why their work is of much higher quality, and often quite loaded with narrative and are clearly considered pieces. They have purpose and context. An example: A press photographer who was rushed to the scene at the World Trade Centre on Tuesday September 11th 2001 would have taken some very stark, and interesting images. He would not have realised however, that he was recording "9/11". He would not know it was the culmination of a well planned and considered attack on the US by Al Qaeda. Retrospectively, we can look back on some of these images with that context and appreciate things the photographer captured and give the image a context and weight never considered at the time, but nevertheless, he was at the right place at the right time. The images are poignant, powerful and moving, but only because of the context we apply to them LATER once we have all the pieces of the puzzle. The photojournalist however, is not rushing to the scene to record the latest scoop for the front page, he's deliberately planning and creating a whole host of images to tell the entire story KNOWINGLY and understanding what he is tacking in terms of the narrative and story. The power of the images from a photojournalist come from them as much as anything else, because they go with that remit in mind: To make sense of... to tell the whole story.

Can photojournalism be art? Yes.. absolutely. Can press imagery be art? Sometimes, yes, but press/war photographer's work tends to becomes meaningful in the sense of art after the fact, when the images take on a historical context.. once we have all the detail to relate them to the full story... only then do we fully appreciate them. Don McCullin's work is exhibited every bit as much as an "artist's" work, but not at the time, as it didn't have the full context in which to place it, and therefore appreciate it. We need the purpose of the image to transcend the image itself The reason is everything. That's why people appreciate art. That's why Emin's bed is art.. whether you like it or not, because it's not just a bed... it transcends that. As Byker said, it's a self portrait, it's about depression, mental illness, and despair. The fact that it's a bed is irrelevant (to a degree).


Rich_Ellis said:
I enjoy these debates/arguments. I find myself agreeing with almost everything Pookeyhead says. I have a theory, its that photography draws the technically minded due to its, well, engineery type of logical process. What often happens is that we get used to and good at performing the technical type of image. As has been said before, taking 'pretty' well exposed pictures. The reality is that anyone who has also learned the technical skills could also take the same images quite easily. Often you hear people on this forum start to say "What next?", "Where do I go from here?" "I feel like I'm stuck in a rut", "It's just not holding my interest like it used to" and "I am struggling for inspiration". This is because they have reached a technical ability in their chosen field (wildlife/macro/landscape etc etc) and it no longer holds a challenge to them. It's like hitting a wall. What next, where next. My advice is generally, emotion. Try to get some kind of 'emotion' into your images. As soon as this is attempted the whole process takes on a different slant and interest. Some can't/won't, others embrace and start a whole new journey.

What actually separates the 'technical' photographer and the 'artistic' one is that art knows no boundaries. Most of the fun comes from the development of the idea. The actual execution of it can be relatively simple. Of course, as has been said before, there is no issue in being both at times.

Now, being controversial here, technical brains are technical for a reason. It is the mindset that attracted individuals to photography in the first place. The technical bit. Then someone like David (Pookeyhead) comes along and says that artistic photography requires more. Takes more thought and depth and planning and creativity. And this is where the conflict arises. Most photographers took up photography exactly and precisely because they arent that creative (if they were they'd be a painter/musician/author/sculptor etc etc) and this kind of debate then is seen as a 'threat' to their hobby. It touches on areas that they know aren't within their reach and mindset. They therefore react with aggression to the subject because it is seen to undermine the hobby itself. Obviously I'm generalising here but hopefully you get my drift.

I recently gave a presentation to a camera club in the midlands and I spoke about trying to be creative. Like David, I totally understand that we aren't all blessed with creativity. However, it is quite simple to build this into your image making. Inspiration is all around us and ultimately it doesn't matter whether its classed as 'good' art or not, its personal, its yours, its your creation. I have a hard drive full of images I enjoyed producing, some are rubbish, some I think are quite good. The fact is, I don't care what others think as I don't really show them off generally. If I did, I would want a reaction. Love or hate. "It's nice or it's good" wouldn't be a pleasing response. Interestingly, "I don't get it" also works for me.

I am a rubbish artistic photographer generally (imo) however it doesn't stop me striving to improve, doesn't stop me studying other's work and trying to understand what I like and why I like it.

Just because an image is classed as 'art' doesn't mean you are supposed to get it or like it. I earlier in the year went to London and viewed a photographic exhibition of Andy Wharhol's photographs. I didn't get it or like it and was left wondering that if it was anybody elses images would they have been exhibited. However, I just accepted I didn't get it/like it and moved on.

I, like David don't really understand the personal aggression displayed towards other's who deem to aspire, produce or appreciate 'art'. It can only be due to feeling threatened.

If its about money and £ value then its jealousy and a lack of understanding about the art world. Most 'artists' make extremely small amounts of money. Maybe there is some other reason.

Whenever 'art' is introduced as a topic, inevitably 'piles of bricks' and 'unmade beds' get trotted out as if they are what 'art' is about. It totally ignores millions of other brilliant examples of both historic and modern art. If I've heard 'Emperor's new clothes' used once in these discussions I've heard it a thousand times. It ignores artists like Antony Gormley (Angel of the North etc) who seems to be generally liked across the demographics.

David's attitude I have to say pretty much mirrors my own as if I had written some of his posts for him! (I didn't and couldn't be that eloquent!) It's simple, most images on this and other forums are nice pretty pictures with beginners striving to improve their 'technical' abilities and experienced photographers trying to better hone their technical abilities. There is very little evidence around the emotion or meaning of the images. I too have no issue with that at all. Pretty pictures are lovely to look at. But they rarely 'move' me. Loads of images that are so called art don't move me either but many do. I love those images that make you stop and think and wonder. They are the ones I wish I had taken and created and the reason I still take photographs.

Oh well, onwards and upwards...
Click to expand...

Best post in this thread so far.
 
HoppyUK said:
Anyone with an 'interest' in the business of art, should be regarded with suspicion.
Click to expand...


You mean an interest in the business of art as in simply being an artist, or do you mean the "business" of art, as in art as a commercial enterprise?


Two very different things. One is saying all artists are worthy of suspicion... the other is saying that those who exploit art (and artists) for commercial gain should be treated with suspicion. The latter I would agree with.. the former would clearly be your paranoia and misunderstanding of why artists want to create art.

I don't know ONE artist who does it to make money. Just because some do/have made money, doesn't mean they're up to no good. If someone offered me £1000,000 for one of my photographs, I'd take the money quite happily, and I could live with your suspicion :) It almost certainly wouldn't have been my motivation for creating the image.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Do you mean planned, thought about before creation?
Click to expand...
As David said, there has to be intent to communicate something. That doesn't mean it's contrived. Great art starts with an intent and then inspiration takes over.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You mean an interest in the business of art as in simply being an artist, or do you mean the "business" of art, as in art as a commercial enterprise?


Two very different things. One is saying all artists are worthy of suspicion... the other is saying that those who exploit art (and artists) for commercial gain should be treated with suspicion. The latter I would agree with.. the former would clearly be your paranoia and misunderstanding of why artists want to create art.

I don't know ONE artist who does it to make money. Just because some do/have made money, doesn't mean they're up to no good. If someone offered me £1000,000 for one of my photographs, I'd take the money quite happily, and I could live with your suspicion :) It almost certainly wouldn't have been my motivation for creating the image.
Click to expand...

Not different things at all, only in terms of extent. And 'interest' doesn't have to be monetary.

While I may misunderstand some art, or sometimes miss the point, I would say that applies more or less to everyone that isn't actually inside the artist's head, but I certainly don't have any paranoia about it. There seem to be plenty of others on here that do, though I stopped nailing that jelly to the wall long ago. I'm interested in other people's views, whether I agree or not, take what I can and move on :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Not different things at all,
Click to expand...

I disagree. They're very different. One is a cold, calculated attempt to attach a monetary value to a work for financial gain. The other just wants to express themselves. If some cash comes their way.. so be it.
 
Ed Sutton said:
That's the same as saying football isn't what you consider to be a sport, but cricket is.
Click to expand...

not really both are widely recognised as sports - piling four teabags on the floor is not widely considered to be art.... its more like saying you don't consider tidlywinks to be a sport but cricket is


Ed Sutton said:
There we go a gain. This conflation of skill with art. The creativity you crave is in the thought process, in thinking that a found object can be art. If you can't accept that premise then the argument is a stalemate because artists have accepted it for over a century. But just because something is art doesn't mean it is good art - regardless of the craft skills used, or lack of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not conflating skill with art - many things that are highly skillful are not remotely artistic. My point is to be an artist you need both the creativity to come up with an original concept and the skill to deliver that concept in your chosen medium. Found objects are not art, have never been art and will never be art, because they arent created. (a photo or drawing of a found object , or a carving/sculpture based on one , or creative writing about one could be art - but the object itself would only be the inspiration not the artwork)
 
big soft moose said:
not really both are widely recognised as sports - piling four teabags on the floor is not widely considered to be art.... its more like saying you don't consider tidlywinks to be a sport but cricket is




I'm not conflating skill with art - many things that are highly skillful are not remotely artistic. My point is to be an artist you need both the creativity to come up with an original concept and the skill to deliver that concept in your chosen medium. Found objects are not art, have never been art and will never be art, because they arent created. (a photo or drawing of a found object , or a carving/sculpture based on one , or creative writing about one could be art - but the object itself would only be the inspiration not the artwork)
Click to expand...
Okay, so we get to the meat of it. You require something to be created to call it art. That's fine, you can define art any way you like, but it is not true. :)
 
StephenM said:
Like the "skillful the skillful expression of a creative vision" definition, this would seem to include advertising and political propaganda. Is it intended to add these to art?

No opinion expressed - just asking.
Click to expand...

great advertising requires artistic talent - though a great deal of run of the mill advertising doesnt as it is highly derivative and doesnt really include much creative vision.

Political proganda could be art (or rather art can be political propoganda) like Riefenstahl's "triumph of the will", or Eisenstien's Aleksander Nevski could be considered master pieces of cineamography , but again its only masterful agut prop that hts that definition as much run of the mill propoganda isn't delivered skillfully or created with much vision
 
The23rdman said:
Okay, so we get to the meat of it. You require something to be created to call it art. That's fine, you can define art any way you like, but it is not true. :)
Click to expand...

name one well known piece of art not created by an artist ? (even emins bed which i don't accept as art was still created, it just wasnt done with much skill imo)

End of the day art is created by definition, thats what artists do .
 
and as i said to him , name one well known piece of art not created by an artist (or group of artists)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top