What is 'Fine Art'?

[Byker28i]

One of my favourite photographers is John Gay. His book, England Observed, mainly shows rural and small town life in England from the 1940s to the 1960s but there are also some product advertising images in there which he did in order to make a bit of money, perhaps when sales of his normal work were not as high as he hoped. A total contrast to his normal style but still well executed.


Steve.

I also have that book, some great commercial images in it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Fair shout. I have no clue as to what is and what isn`t Fine Art.
Thank you re "Decorative Art" though

It's quite lovely. Not everything has to be "fine art". That's not my standpoint at all. I like things that are beautiful to look at as much as the next guy. I just get annoyed when people make a "good" image and start getting shouty when it's suggested it's not art (not by me either... just in general).

 

[Paulie-W]

It's quite lovely. Not everything has to be "fine art". That's not my standpoint at all. I like things that are beautiful to look at as much as the next guy. I just get annoyed when people make a "good" image and start getting shouty when it's suggested it's not art (not by me either... just in general).

It`s all pretty subjective, art in general. Whatever form or concept imho.

One of the funniest things I`ve ever heard, was a few years back, when I took my daughter to the Tate Modern, and there was a heap of tissue, creating ahem "Art". The first comment from my daughter was "that looks like my bedroom, when I have a cold". I laughed out loud, much to the disgust of the staff member overseeing the exhibit

 

[Carlh]

As many times as this type of thread gets created, it is entertaining, informative and always educational. Roll on the next art related thread ! lol

 

[TheBigYin]

As many times as this type of thread gets created, it is entertaining, informative and always educational. Roll on the next art related thread ! lol

there's always something interesting in there, I'll admit, though there's often a pretty poor signal:noise ratio...

 

[sirch]

there's always something interesting in there, I'll admit, though there's often a pretty poor signal:noise ratio...

Needs a lower ISO



or at least some posters need to be not so fast perhaps

 

[chuckles]

Needs a lower ISO



or at least some posters need to be not so fast perhaps

What? So they can think before committing to the Ether?

 

[juggler]

It really is simple. It is thus:

Fine art is concept driven.. it's in response to something. It communicates an idea, or even ideology. It is often designed to challenge or question popular opinion. It's designed to be controversial and make people think. The dictionary definition is quite simply wrong. Dictionaries are not flexible or responsive enough to keep up with the words they are defining usually, and this is one such case.

Decorative art is designed to be an example of craft skill. It is designed to be pretty or attractive, or appreciated for aesthetic values alone, and the subject is not particularly important (although it still can be a factor).

These things change however. Fine art 200 years ago would be what we know think of as decorative art. Some however, still transcend time... Turner for example... it's STILL challenging today... whereas a Constable and other romantic painters, while still admired and rightly so (in a historical context)... would be utterly dismissed as sentimental crap if they painted such things today.

Welcome back; few of the many working artists (fine artists, including some photographers) and craftspeople (decorative artists, including some photographers) I know would have been able to summarise the position anything like so succinctly.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It`s all pretty subjective, art in general. Whatever form or concept imho.

That's the problem. It's not. This is what causes the arguments. Art can be defined quite clearly, I've been doing so all throughout this thread. It's not just my onion, it's generally accepted by a large number of people, all with PhDs, tenured professorships. Why then, does anyone unqualified think they can come along and just feel they can redefine it as and when it suits them and be convinced they're opinion is valid, despite being based on nothing more than "I don't like it and I think it's s**t"? Would anyone try to redefine the laws of physics just because they didn't like them? The fact is though, that the laws of physics ARE being challenged, daily. We now know that Newtonian physics is flawed, despite it being heralded as fact for hundreds of years. However, you arrive at that decision through rigorous debate, testing, experimentation and evidence gathering.. you don't just go "I think that's s**t" and expect the scientific community to go... "Oh... Ok then... guess we'll change it". However, despite this, that's exactly what people seem to think is OK with art. They have no art education, have not studied it, are not active in the community, and so not actually create art, yet feel they're opinions are valid. They're not.. not unless you put up a decent argument for your case.

One of the funniest things I`ve ever heard, was a few years back, when I took my daughter to the Tate Modern, and there was a heap of tissue, creating ahem "Art". The first comment from my daughter was "that looks like my bedroom, when I have a cold". I laughed out loud, much to the disgust of the staff member overseeing the exhibit

That's not a decent argument for your case.

 

[Furtim]

That's the problem. It's not. This is what causes the arguments. Art can be defined quite clearly, I've been doing so all throughout this thread. It's not just my onion, it's generally accepted by a large number of people, all with PhDs, tenured professorships. Why then, does anyone unqualified think they can come along and just feel they can redefine it as and when it suits them and be convinced they're opinion is valid, despite being based on nothing more than "I don't like it and I think it's s**t"? Would anyone try to redefine the laws of physics just because they didn't like them? The fact is though, that the laws of physics ARE being challenged, daily. We now know that Newtonian physics is flawed, despite it being heralded as fact for hundreds of years. However, you arrive at that decision through rigorous debate, testing, experimentation and evidence gathering.. you don't just go "I think that's s**t" and expect the scientific community to go... "Oh... Ok then... guess we'll change it". However, despite this, that's exactly what people seem to think is OK with art. They have no art education, have not studied it, are not active in the community, and so not actually create art, yet feel they're opinions are valid. They're not.. not unless you put up a decent argument for your case.



That's not a decent argument for your case.

There's a difference in that the laws of physics on the whole describe observable events, whereas the art is a purely intellectual process.

The fact that there are accepted norm and definitions amongst the cadre who make a career in art is great and essential for them operate as such, and I'm happy to accept that definition. However it is not immutable nor a given in any observable physical sense, and as such it is open to a wider degree of interpretation.

 

[sirch]

Would anyone try to redefine the laws of physics just because they didn't like them?

The thing is they do, quantum physics is the obvious example, because it seems "weird" people don't "believe" it and assume it is physicists off on some kind of flight of fancy. It's the same with alternative medicine, dowsing, climate change and all kinds of things. There are just some people who are not prepared to put in the work to understand a field of intellectual endeavor and think that them making stuff up is the same are 40 years of study.

There's a difference in that the laws of physics on the whole describe observable events, whereas the art is a purely intellectual process.

The fact that there are accepted norm and definitions amongst the cadre who make a career in art is great and essential for them operate as such, and I'm happy to accept that definition. However it is not immutable nor a given in any observable physical sense, and as such it is open to a wider degree of interpretation.

But there are accepted norms in physics, Newton was the norm until Einstein, the standard model is now the norm even though it hasn't been reconciled with gravity. On it goes, GCSE physics, like GCSE art is based on established practice, much of which in both cases is incontrovertable but some of which will change in future.

 

[Furtim]

The thing is they do, quantum physics is the obvious example, because it seems "weird" people don't "believe" it and assume it is physicists off on some kind of flight of fancy. It's the same with alternative medicine, dowsing, climate change and all kinds of things. There are just some people who are not prepared to put in the work to understand a field of intellectual endeavor and think that them making stuff up is the same are 40 years of study.




But there are accepted norms in physics, Newton was the norm until Einstein, the standard model is now the norm even though it hasn't been reconciled with gravity. On it goes, GCSE physics, like GCSE art is based on established practice, much of which in both cases is incontrovertable but some of which will change in future.

Can theory in art be incontrovertible?

 

[Pookeyhead]

There's a difference in that the laws of physics on the whole describe observable events, whereas the art is a purely intellectual process.

Theoretical physics is not observing anything.. it's theoretical until someone prioves it, but theories are still treated with respect because they are postulated upon by those who know what they're talking about. Proving something that doesn't exist with an equation never quite cuts it.. it still needs an experimental physicist to come along and prove it.

Besides... MANY things are not really observable but still theorised upon by those qualified to do so.

The fact that there are accepted norm and definitions amongst the cadre who make a career in art is great and essential for them operate as such, and I'm happy to accept that definition. However it is not immutable nor a given in any observable physical sense, and as such it is open to a wider degree of interpretation.

Actually it is, and it's not decided upon solely by those you refer to either - it's not decided upon by academics (directly). Galleries operate to make a profit and who ULTIMATELY decides are those that visit galleries... the audience. If a certain type of work isn't popular with the gallery going public, then galleries will not exhibit it. THAT is a fact.... Unless of course, you're one of the bunch that assume we're all brainwashed and spend good money to go and see shows and exhibitions we don't even like.

The thing is they do, quantum physics is the obvious example, because it seems "weird" people don't "believe" it and assume it is physicists off on some kind of flight of fancy.

No.. IDIOTS don't believe it because they can't understand it. Just like those who can't get their head around art dismiss that too. Anyone who understand the theories, can see for themselves that although as yet unproven, many things stand up to scrutiny on a theoretical model. Only those who don't understand the theory will just scratch their heads and assume it's all nonsense and a waste of money.... a bit like art

It's the same with alternative medicine, dowsing, climate change and all kinds of things. There are just some people who are not prepared to put in the work to understand a field of intellectual endeavour and think that them making stuff up is the same are 40 years of study.

As I said above. Climate change is not some hard to understand theory though, it IS measurable objectively. SOME alternative medicine does work... some is a sham... The jury is out on water dousing... but again, any intelligent person would withhold from total scepticism until there's a reason not to. The people you describe are ignorant people who form opinions without really knowing anything about the subjects being debated. They react with opinion, but that opinion is not arrived at from being educated about the subject necessarily. It's like American, right wing religious nut jobs actually teaching their children that there's no climate worries, and that dinosaurs are make believe. They believe those things because they don't like the prospect of them being untrue.

But there are accepted norms in physics, Newton was the norm until Einstein, the standard model is now the norm even though it hasn't been reconciled with gravity.

So there are no facts then.. which is my point. There are also no real norms either, as any SENSIBLE scientist will be ready to accept that what he thinks he's just proven, can be just as easily unproven. Which does happen with regularity.

On it goes, GCSE physics, like GCSE art is based on established practice, much of which in both cases is incontrovertable but some of which will change in future.

There's one real and deciding factor however that has nothing to do with fact or opinion. Quite simply... the stuff you see on this website will NOT sell in art galleries because that's not what people appreciate art consider to be art, it's not what they want, and therefore under any reasonable measure of what art actually is... it;s not art.

The FACT remains that people in here who have readily admitted to not having a massive interest in art, and sometimes none at all seem to think their opinions are valid, even though they are based on nothing more than whether they like it. Let's get one thing straight though. It's not that I'm not prepared to enter into a debate about what constitutes art that makes me slightly irritated by these debates, but the total lack of anything even remotely resembling a debate about the subject (with a few exceptions from more broad minded people), but instead a total refusal to accept what the art world decides based on nothing more than "It's just an unmade bed" type opinions, which are clearly just ignorant and biased by personal taste. That however... is something that's never been an option in these debates. LIKING something has nothing to do with whether it is art or not. Liking something alone can not make it art... it merely means you like it. Liking a painting or photo no more makes it art than liking broccoli makes broccoli art.

 

[JulesP]

Well I'm lost now - only wanted a simple answer and we've gone in to science, theory, quantum physics, GCSE's, idiots, broccoli and everything in between

 

[Furtim]

Theoretical physics is not observing anything.. it's theoretical until someone prioves it, but theories are still treated with respect because they are postulated upon by those who know what they're talking about. Proving something that doesn't exist with an equation never quite cuts it.. it still needs an experimental physicist to come along and prove it.

Besides... MANY things are not really observable but still theorised upon by those qualified to do so.

Kind of. Theoretical physics is about coming up with models and explanations of what we observe. Contrast to experimental physics, which is about seeking to explain what we observe though, well, experimentation. Both are tied to trying to explain the natural phenomena that brought us to this state of existence.

In other words, there is some immutable 'universal truth' that they are seeing to explain; they have not got there yet, but, that target is unchanging - only our understanding of it changes over time, and while one theory may influence another, no theory however popular, will change "the truth". It is what it is and isn't influenced by people who know better by virtue of the fact they have spent 40 years studying it.

Actually it is, and it's not decided upon solely by those you refer to either - it's not decided upon by academics (directly). Galleries operate to make a profit and who ULTIMATELY decides are those that visit galleries... the audience. If a certain type of work isn't popular with the gallery going public, then galleries will not exhibit it. THAT is a fact.... Unless of course, you're one of the bunch that assume we're all brainwashed and spend good money to go and see shows and exhibitions we don't even like.

I don't see there being the same 'universal truth' in art - there is no absolute end state we are seeking to explain. Just like in any area of study, including physics, the 'current' thinking from those at the top of the tree influences those at the bottom, either directly though teaching or through mere exposure phenomenon (you know that is true, because you know it to be true through exposure to the ideas). Where art differs to a hard science like physics is there is no 'absolute truth' to help maintain objectivity; if in physics, a theory is postulated that better explains the natural world, it can be quantitively be judged to be 'better' and therefore accepted even it if goes against the prevalent concept at the time.

My view is that art is subjective in the context of the example given above. The business of art is a complex system, with accepted rules and norms, studied with academic rigour, and a shared understanding across a wide body of individuals. It is open to challenge and development, and I am in no way saying that the study of physics is more worthy than the study of art.

What I am saying is, by the nature of it being a subjective field, if greater credence is given to those who have 40 years experience studying the field than say a relative new-comer with only a couple of years, because there is no quantitive way for the newbie to say - 'but my way is better', there is a risk that the subject becomes irrelevant.

Now the system was survived because it is devised by clever people and has built safeguards in to allow accepted norms to be challenged (some would say perhaps it is very good at this), but it's dangerous for people to discount the opinion of the dirty uneducated general public just 'because'. That will only lead to the subject being less relevant over time with an ever decreasing circle of 'experts'.

The rest of your quoting is messed up - most of those are not my points.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't see there being the same 'universal truth' in art - there is no absolute end state we are seeking to explain. Just like in any area of study, including physics, the 'current' thinking from those at the top of the tree influences those at the bottom, either directly though teaching or through mere exposure phenomenon (you know that is true, because you know it to be true through exposure to the ideas). Where art differs to a hard science like physics is there is no 'absolute truth' to help maintain objectivity; if in physics, a theory is postulated that better explains the natural world, it can be quantitively be judged to be 'better' and therefore accepted even it if goes against the prevalent concept at the time.

You're slightly mistaken about this idea that hard sciences are purely objective and soft sciences are not.

Here's an extract from a paper I wrote on this subject.

anachronistic, subjectivity can lead to objectivity. (Davies, C.A. 2008)

Reflexivity simply means being self-referent – having the ability to look at oneself objectively to establish one’s subjectivity, and to also willingly examine closely and discuss frankly our own motives for undertaking the research. In this respect there is an argument that social science, through its inherent self-reference can be equally as valid, and measurable as natural science. In fact, as Bourdieu writes,

“Social interests generate tactics of persuasion, opportunistic strategies and culturally transmitted dispositions that influence the content and development of scientific knowledge.” (Bourdieu, P.2004. p19)

This explains that while the actual data gathered by natural science may well be empirical and ‘proven’, there are factors involved in the generation of such science that can, and historically have been influenced by sociological factors – the sociology of knowledge: What is researched, and how it is researched are almost certainly driven by sociological factors, so by default, the worth of certain data are questionable without a rigorous and transparent process of reflexivity (Bloor, D. cited in Hollis et al. 1982). While this does not undermine the value of genuine scientific endeavour, or question the quantitative data it generates, it does add some weight to the idea of being relativistic in one’s thinking when making distinctions between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ science, and when considering the notion of truth. Reflexivity is at the core of making social science credible.

So in essence, while science seeks empirical truths, where we look for those truths, and what truths we seek are essentially dictated by policy written by those who have their own agendas - not scientists... as scientists require funding and resources, which are granted, or not by those that have a vested interest in the research being done.

There is one widely accepted truth about art though. For quite some time now, it has been widely accepted it has to have purpose if it's to avoid being merely decorative in nature, and therefore by definition, most amateur photography is not art, That can't be measured, no... there's no mathematical model to represent this, it has just been decided by the majority who are in one way or another stakeholders in the enterprise. Therefore, actually truth is irrelevant. You are welcome to invent your own meanings for art any time you like. However, it may well be fruitless if no one else agrees with you because while art may be a solitary endeavour for some, it's useless as such if there's no audience for your work.

The business of art is a complex system,

I have no interest in the "business" of art, and that's not what I'm talking about. All business has one agenda, and that is money. Contemporary art happens at a grass roots level. What is popular is very often exploited by art dealers, sure... but the "business" of art is not what decides any of this. It's the artists and the art going public ultimately.

It is open to challenge and development, and I am in no way saying that the study of physics is more worthy than the study of art.

We're in agreement. I've said this all along. It IS open to challenge. There's just no challenge in forums like this other than people saying it's s**t. You're one of very few prepared to enter into an intelligent debate. Whether that's because you're one of very few intelligent people in here or not remains to be seen, but the more I see of the ignorance on display in here, the more I'm prepared to believe this is the case.

What I am saying is, by the nature of it being a subjective field, if greater credence is given to those who have 40 years experience studying the field than say a relative new-comer with only a couple of years, because there is no quantitive way for the newbie to say - 'but my way is better', there is a risk that the subject becomes irrelevant.

I have to disagree there. While a new, up and coming artist may well produce challenging work, or a recent post graduate student or PhD scholar may well also challenge, there's always going to be more credence given to those with far more experience and expertise. Art may not be a science, but experience DOES count often. It may not be the arbiter of all things art, no, but it simply can not be dismissed.

Now the system was survived because it is devised by clever people and has built safeguards in to allow accepted norms to be challenged (some would say perhaps it is very good at this), but it's dangerous for people to discount the opinion of the dirty uneducated general public just 'because'. That will only lead to the subject being less relevant over time with an ever decreasing circle of 'experts'.

I have to again disagree. You suggest that whatever criteria are used to make judgements upon art are devised by "clever" people as if there's an agenda. Art dealers certainly have agendas, but academics? They've nothing to lose or gain by challenging the accepted mores of art culture - in fact they'd probably have more to gain BY challenging it. New theories and discussions are healthy in art. It thrives on it in fact, as that's exactly why it is so flexible, and often transient in it's dictates.

The rest of your quoting is messed up - most of those are not my points.

No idea what happened there... chalk it up to single malt.

 

[sirch]

Can theory in art be incontrovertible?

There are theories about things like colour and perspective but that wasn't really my point, my point was that the things learned at say GCSE level that are accepted facts, for example that Constable and Turner are great artists in the same way that we are taught that Newton's theories hold true for most practical purposes.

 

[Furtim]

There are theories about things like colour and perspective but that wasn't really my point, my point was that the things learned at say GCSE level that are accepted facts, for example that Constable and Turner are great artists in the same way that we are taught that Newton's theories hold true for most practical purposes.

Agreed, but that's just an imposed convenience to aid teaching. As soon as you start A levels you're told "that thing we told you for GCSE's, well that was a bit of a simplistic view..."; then the same again with your degree, then the same again with your post grad studies, although by then, you're usually coming to that realisation yourself.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Agreed, but that's just an imposed convenience to aid teaching. As soon as you start A levels you're told "that thing we told you for GCSE's, well that was a bit of a simplistic view..."; then the same again with your degree, then the same again with your post grad studies, although by then, you're usually coming to that realisation yourself.

However, when you break a rule, someone, somewhere is going to ask "Why?".

 

[Furtim]

However, when you break a rule, someone, somewhere is going to ask "Why?".

Which is all for the better! It's much better than the closed statement "No. I don't agree".

 

[Furtim]

You're slightly mistaken about this idea that hard sciences are purely objective and soft sciences are not.

Fair point - the need for funding, and the ability of business to provide that funding to serve their own interests is a significant impact to objectivity. I'd not considered it in that way, but your point echoes recent stories that have hit the news in Pharma research, so rings true.

I have no interest in the "business" of art, and that's not what I'm talking about. All business has one agenda, and that is money. Contemporary art happens at a grass roots level. What is popular is very often exploited by art dealers, sure... but the "business" of art is not what decides any of this. It's the artists and the art going public ultimately.

There must be a parallel here though with the previous point. For sure art is perhaps not as dependant on large amounts of cash as perhaps pharmaceutical research is, but there surely must be some temptation from some people to follow the money?

 

[Byker28i]

It`s all pretty subjective, art in general. Whatever form or concept imho.

One of the funniest things I`ve ever heard, was a few years back, when I took my daughter to the Tate Modern, and there was a heap of tissue, creating ahem "Art". The first comment from my daughter was "that looks like my bedroom, when I have a cold". I laughed out loud, much to the disgust of the staff member overseeing the exhibit

Who was the artist? What were they trying to say with the sculpture?

 

[Paulie-W]

Who was the artist? What were they trying to say with the sculpture?

I have no idea mate. I was a few years ago now.

 

[Byker28i]

Art is the means by which we communicate what it feels like to be alive.
Making beautiful things for everyday use is a beautiful thing to do, making life flow more easy, but art confronts life, making it stop and perhaps change direction. They are completely different.
Anthony Gormley.

 

[Byker28i]

I have no idea mate. I was a few years ago now.

Ah only I couldn't find the work with a search.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Which is all for the better! It's much better than the closed statement "No. I don't agree".

Of course.... but I don't see much of that in this forum. I see a great deal of "I don't agree". I am presenting the argument as it currently appears to be with regard to art, and out of all the people posting a reading this thread, only a small minority are actually interested in challenging these widely held viewpoints with any rigour. As a result, those saying "contemporary art is all a load of crap that my child could do" are not to be taken seriously because such a viewpoint is clearly arrived at through ignorance and a lack of engagement with the subject - lack of knowledge. However, they then accuse the art world of elitism and snobbery because we don't take their opinions seriously. Why should we take their childish and ignorant views seriously when they amount to nothing more than "I don't like it, so therefore it's s**t". It's hardly going to convince me, or any one else in my position to reconsider is it?

There must be a parallel here though with the previous point. For sure art is perhaps not as dependant on large amounts of cash as perhaps pharmaceutical research is, but there surely must be some temptation from some people to follow the money?

Yes... of course. There are also cases where this strategy is successful too - Peter Lik springs to mind, but is that truly a measure of art? Is how commercially successful a person's work is a measure of art? I would suggest no, because Lik's work is utterly identical to most amateurs' work in every measurable way. It's pretty pictures to hang on a wall. So I'd say there's no necessity for a parallel at all. You can sell anything to anyone if you market it well enough. The i-watch.. or whatever it's called: Sure, it does loads of great things, but it relies on having an i-phone in your pocket to actually do any of them, so why not just use your i-phone? Despite this, people queue around the block on release day to get their hands on one. Develop a good brand, market it well, and there's a whole world of idiots who will buy your wares because it's becomes aspirational in nature. Sometimes artists' work does this, but it's rare compared to how many artists there are out there making interesting work and never get anywhere, but they still keep creating art.

Art is a grass roots affair.. always has been. There's the few artists who are/have been well funded, well connected etc... always. The vast majority however, do so because they feel compelled to do so. It's never a career move really is it. This is what makes it interesting, and this is why we can pretty much always assume there's a reason for the art being created. It's not designed or created to appeal to the masses. If it was, then the art market would be flooded with stuff the "man in the street" would want to buy. It's not however.. clearly... because the man in the street almost invariably hates contemporary art. The ONLY reason left for doing any of this, is the love of doing it, because you've got something to say in some way, and you use your ability as an artist to do so. A writer will write, a sculptor will sculpt, a painter will paint etc.

A photographer will make photographs.

Amateur photographers though, they make photographs with the expressed purpose of being popular. They WANT their work to be liked by as many people as possible, so they go for the lowest common denominator - popularity. This is why they all shoot the same things over and over again. They look to see what's popular, and then emulate it in an attempt to get as many people as possible to like it. That's the reason... so it's not art. It has no purpose other than to be liked. The work itself even becomes unimportant. So long as it's "liked" and people are applauding them for being a "good" photographer, the amateur is happy - even if, deep down they know their work is exactly the same as millions of others on Flickr - that wouldn't matter because it's THEIR work that's being praised. The praise is the goal. There's little concern about why it's being done in the first place because the reason is nearly always to show off skills. The work is empty. This is almost certainly why they get defensive and confrontational when their work is measured through a more critical lens.

While artists need support and praise too, what they want is not just loads of people going "Cool... that's awesome"... they want acknowledgement and discussion about their work. They want recognition for the reasons it was created. They want someone to review the work and acknowledge that it works as intended, that is is indeed doing what was on the statement or discussed in the proposal. They're interested in does it work and can it stand up to critical analysis. They'd rather have one good review from someone who is well respected for their views than a million people going "Awesome".

 

[Ed Sutton]

It seems to me that this is why artists make stuff:

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

Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness

 

[Pookeyhead]

It seems to me that this is why artists make stuff:

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

Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness

Yep.

 

[Furtim]

Of course.... but I don't see much of that in this forum. I see a great deal of "I don't agree". I am presenting the argument as it currently appears to be with regard to art, and out of all the people posting a reading this thread, only a small minority are actually interested in challenging these widely held viewpoints with any rigour. As a result, those saying "contemporary art is all a load of crap that my child could do" are not to be taken seriously because such a viewpoint is clearly arrived at through ignorance and a lack of engagement with the subject - lack of knowledge. However, they then accuse the art world of elitism and snobbery because we don't take their opinions seriously. Why should we take their childish and ignorant views seriously when they amount to nothing more than "I don't like it, so therefore it's s**t". It's hardly going to convince me, or any one else in my position to reconsider is it?

Not being open to explore concepts from others perspectives is a mark of ignorance and perhaps deserves the label, but 'childish' emotive language that tends to illicit a playground response in return. I'm in agreement with the sentiment, but might choose less emotive language to get the message across.

Amateur photographers though, they make photographs with the expressed purpose of being popular. They WANT their work to be liked by as many people as possible, so they go for the lowest common denominator - popularity. This is why they all shoot the same things over and over again. They look to see what's popular, and then emulate it in an attempt to get as many people as possible to like it. That's the reason... so it's not art. It has no purpose other than to be liked. The work itself even becomes unimportant. So long as it's "liked" and people are applauding them for being a "good" photographer, the amateur is happy - even if, deep down they know their work is exactly the same as millions of others on Flickr - that wouldn't matter because it's THEIR work that's being praised. The praise is the goal. There's little concern about why it's being done in the first place because the reason is nearly always to show off skills. The work is empty. This is almost certainly why they get defensive and confrontational when their work is measured through a more critical lens.

While artists need support and praise too, what they want is not just loads of people going "Cool... that's awesome"... they want acknowledgement and discussion about their work. They want recognition for the reasons it was created. They want someone to review the work and acknowledge that it works as intended, that is is indeed doing what was on the statement or discussed in the proposal. They're interested in does it work and can it stand up to critical analysis. They'd rather have one good review from someone who is well respected for their views than a million people going "Awesome".

If as you suggest the purpose of the amateur is to maximise popularity by being liked, does it need to be appraised through a more critical lens? Is the purpose of the amateur photographer less worthy than that of an artist from the perspective of the individual? Of course not. If an external party comes along and threatens your ability to meet that purpose, your purpose, you start moving towards a flight, flight or freeze reaction.

If person A's purpose is to create art that externalises a particular meaning, and person B comes along and says, "That's a load of sh*t", person A will rightly feel threatened and get defensive and confrontational.
If person B's purpose is to create popular photos that fulfil their need for attention and community by being 'liked' and person A comes along and says, "That's a load of sh*t", person B will rightly feel threatened and get defensive and confrontational.

One is not better than the other; they are created for different purposes and that's fine. Apples and Oranges, and when you try to judge one by the others standards, we end up in a bit of a mess.

 

[Furtim]

Incidentally, I stumbled upon Marcel Duchamp's Fountain this while reading around this thread, which to me at least provides an example to support some of the views being put forward. The work of art is in this case a urinal; a purchased one at that, which initially I saw no merit in what so ever - the guy didn't even make it himself. It wasn't until I read the back story that it made sense to me, and I can appreciate what he was trying to achieve.

It's worth a read - http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not being open to explore concepts from others perspectives is a mark of ignorance and perhaps deserves the label, but 'childish' emotive language that tends to illicit a playground response in return. I'm in agreement with the sentiment, but might choose less emotive language to get the message across.

But it is childish. This is what children do... react to things without thought, based on nothing more than initial reactions.

Yet again, the real issues are brushed aside because of pedantic argument over language. It's the same with the word "ignorant". That's also accurately used here too. If it offends, tough. Sorry... actually, no.. I'm not sorry.. what am I apologising for? LOL

If as you suggest the purpose of the amateur is to maximise popularity by being liked, does it need to be appraised through a more critical lens?

Need? No it doesn't, but inevitably it will at some point so long as amateurs continue to portray their work as art, then it will be measured as such, and usually through a more critical lens by the art community than the amateur one.

Is the purpose of the amateur photographer less worthy than that of an artist from the perspective of the individual?

If the amateur keeps insiting that what they are creating is art, yes. Otherwise no. What's puzzling is why amateurs consistently get upset by their work not being regarded seriously as art, when most of them profess to hating art. Just get on with what you like doing, and stop giving a s**t. LOL.

Of course not. If an external party comes along and threatens your ability to meet that purpose, your purpose, you start moving towards a flight, flight or freeze reaction.

Yes.. so why do amateurs put themselves into that situation. If you're going to use instinctive and evolutionary behaviours as an analogue, then one questions why they keep putting themselves in harm's way.

If person A's purpose is to create art that externalises a particular meaning, and person B comes along and says, "That's a load of sh*t", person A will rightly feel threatened and get defensive and confrontational.

No... most artists will just ignore that because it's a childish reaction based on nothing more than ignorance and whether they "like" it. I'd not be remotely interested in the opinions of those who dismiss art from a position of ignorance.

If person B's purpose is to create popular photos that fulfil their need for attention and community by being 'liked' and person A comes along and says, "That's a load of sh*t", person B will rightly feel threatened and get defensive and confrontational.

In reality though, in this scenario.... Person A wouldn't do that, because person A would take the time to explain why this is so. Furthermore... person B could always take a leaf out of person A's book, and also not give a s**t.

The reality is though.... it's always person B that asks these questions in here.... and always persons of B persuasion that wade in with both barrels saying how s**t art is.

Persons B are displaying ignorance and a childish reactionary behaviour akin to school yard behaviour as you say.... it's the adult equivalent of "You smell!"

One is not better than the other; they are created for different purposes and that's fine. Apples and Oranges, and when you try to judge one by the others standards, we end up in a bit of a mess.

Of course they are created for different reasons, but the elephant in the room is person A creates work to be art because they've got something to say, and person B creates it to be popular and merely because they enjoy it and doesn't give a damn what it means. So why do persons B get upset when persons A suggest it;s not art? Why not just shrug and say "I couldn't give a s**t"... after all, it would be in keeping with their usual response to person A.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Incidentally, I stumbled upon Marcel Duchamp's Fountain this while reading around this thread, which to me at least provides an example to support some of the views being put forward. The work of art is in this case a urinal; a purchased one at that, which initially I saw no merit in what so ever - the guy didn't even make it himself. It wasn't until I read the back story that it made sense to me, and I can appreciate what he was trying to achieve.

It's worth a read - http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573/text-summary

I've read huge amounts on Duchamp as any art scholar would have, but I urge others to give it a go... although the Tate's public facing blurb is a bit wishy washy. If you want a hard read. give this ago...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...WyAIVxTwUCh1cLQYc#v=onepage&q=duchamp&f=false

If you want to come at this as a student, then give this a go...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...WyAIVxTwUCh1cLQYc#v=onepage&q=duchamp&f=false

If you can't be arsed with any of this... just STFU and get on with what you enjoy and perhaps stop asking "What is art" when you're not really interested in the reply. (not you personally David... just speaking generally)


So you are now seeing the point in art is not necessarily the craft skills that are utilised to create it, yes? So you therefore must see why I find it both amusing and frustrating that people still say things like "It's just an unmade bed" yes?

I'm not fishing for your complicit agreement... I hope you realise that there is merit in what I (along with the academic community) are saying, and that the very academic community accused of nepotism and intractability are actually well up for a debate, any time you like. We love it... it's the life blood of art. Just ensure your opening gambit isn't "it's all s**t" or you'll quite rightly get a door slammed in your face, or directed to the children's section of the library

 

[Pookeyhead]

@Furtim Perhaps to simplify: Person A is saying, "It's s**t art (not just s**t)" and then offering an explanation as to why that may be. Person B is saying "It's s**t" full stop, as a definitive, objective statement of fact that invites no further conversation. Using the school yard analogy, Person B is saying "You smell", sticking their tongue out and running away, whereas person A is saying, "You smell... have you considered bathing more or washing your clothes more regularly?" The reality is often the case however, that Person B will still punch person A in the face, so... (shrug).

 

[Byker28i]

I can also suggest a good book, for some
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Five-Year-Could-Have/dp/0500290474

It picks on various artworks (including Duchamp) that has attracted hostility and explains, at times passionately, against the usual disparaging remarks.

Quite a valid subject for this discussion actually, as Duchamp was challenging the accepted view at the time of what was art. It was rejected for exhibition on the grounds of indecency and plagiarism (as it was the work of a plumber and not of an artist). Should art appeal primarily to the eye or to the mind?

 

[woof woof]

I read the first couple of pages of this thread and almost gave up

I've wondered about fine art too and mostly dismissed the term as twaddle. This caught me eye and is an example of my problem with it...

It really is simple. It is thus:

Fine art is concept driven.. it's in response to something. It communicates an idea, or even ideology. It is often designed to challenge or question popular opinion. It's designed to be controversial and make people think. The dictionary definition is quite simply wrong. Dictionaries are not flexible or responsive enough to keep up with the words they are defining usually, and this is one such case.

Decorative art is designed to be an example of craft skill. It is designed to be pretty or attractive, or appreciated for aesthetic values alone, and the subject is not particularly important (although it still can be a factor).

If a piece we think of as fine art because it asks challenging questions was produced because the artist thought it was simply pretty or an artists deep and challenging question is seen by others as simply pretty what are they? The answer must be in the intent of the artist or the opinion of the viewer, it must be subjective but do both viewer and artist need to agree? Probably not. Maybe an elephant can produce fine art.

I think it's a waffle term of no real value. Just MHO. No more.

Sorry if this has been said before but I flagged whilst reading the thread.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If a piece we think of as fine art because it asks challenging questions was produced because the artist thought it was simply pretty or an artists deep and challenging question is seen by others as simply pretty what are they?

In all likelihood that person would never produce another work that did the same thing, so no one cares, and also, no one would have seen it in the first place because it would never have been put before those that could appreciate it as art even if there was anything to appreciate. It would be shown at a camera club or on Flickr. Also.... I think it's unlikely any way. Amateurs and hobbyists find themselves in situations to create imagery that has potential to discuss things every day, but they just don't see the same way and miss the opportunities left right and centre, or worse still, see them as "photo opportunities" and are far more concerned with taking cool shots that gets them praise for being "good". Basically... I think what you suggest is such a rare occurrence that it's not really adding anything to the debate other than a hypothetical question. Interesting perhaps, but not really that relevant. Every now and then someone will purposely just produce a load of old crap though, and try and fool those who just like to wax lyrical about art. It's amusing when it happens.

As for accidentally producing amazing art, do you have any examples in mind?

The answer must be in the intent of the artist or the opinion of the viewer, it must be subjective but do both viewer and artist need to agree? Probably not. Maybe an elephant can produce fine art.

Of course they don't need to agree. This is exactly what Barthes was saying in The Death of The Author. However, seriously now.... go trawl the threads in here.... how many images do you see that you can seriously see anything that's clearly making a valid point about anything at all? They're in a small minority. There's only the projects forum, and the only reason that was created was because a small minority wanted a place to discuss serious work without being harrassed by people who take great delight in taking the p1$$ out of things they can't comprehend.. like schoolyard bullies. There was even a suggestion by some that they hijack the forum and start posting 365s and 52s in there as some kind of protest. What??


If you've no interest in art, why are you all so bothered?

I think it's a waffle term of no real value. Just MHO. No more.

Thanks for your input.

Sorry if this has been said before

yeah... amateur thinks any discussion about art is waffle.... it's been said before.

Thanks.

 

[woof woof]

Pooky, I thought you added me to your ignore list when I questioned you on your ridiculous proclamation that you can't print images taken with a 12mp camera?

At that time and on balance I decided not to ignore you as I find you good for a laugh if in the words of an artist long past I find you... Inebriated with the exuberance of (your) own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination.

Maybe I am an amateur, you're a teacher I believe. I've met plenty of bad teachers.

Shrugs and goes to make some tea...

And one last note... before I held a camera I produced other art and regard myself as an artist first and a photographer second and as people have asked me to produce art for them I know that my view of myself as artist is not a delusion. Your view that you are the arbiter of all things is a delusion.

 

[Pookeyhead]

At that time and on balance I decided not to ignore you as I find you good for a laugh if in the words of an artist long past I find you... Inebriated with the exuberance of (your) own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination.

Maybe I am an amateur, you're a teacher I believe. I've met plenty of bad teachers.

(sigh) Thanks for contributing to the thread.

Love the last minute edit to give your post some hint of legitimacy BTW... nice touch. I'm not rising to your bulls**t. Not once in here have I tried to be the arbiter of anything. If you want to debate it, then do so in a civil manner, otherwise I'll put you back in your box.

 

[kelack]

How about you pack it in with the personal jibes and getting round swear filters. We're getting really fed up with it all now

 

[woof woof]

There's no need to thank me Pooky as there's a like button and an ignore button and both take less effort than your overly dismissive and critical responses to me and others but of course these options don't allow you to express your (IMO) misplaced self importance.

IMO fine art is a waffle term and I say this as an artist who has art hanging on walls I don't own.

You have a differing opinion and that's ok, I've read your thoughts and I've decided I'm right