Is photography art?

[greedy123]

Fundamentally, photography is a science. What people choose to do with it is the art, as everyone will have their own unique result. Whether people choose to call their results art or not is their choice.

Agreed, it's the same principle as with music. All sound is is changes in air pressure, without the element of human interaction is it still music? It's like the old proverb about the tree falling in the woods with no one around. Is it still art without an audience?

Art is the expression of the human experience. Art does not exists solely in the piece of art but in it's perception by an audience. Therefore art can be created with any method available to the artist.

 

[peps1]

Art does not exists solely in the piece of art but in it's perception by an audience.

So what is it before the audience anoint it as art?

Is it like Young's double-slit quantum physics experiment!?!?!? the property of matter changing when being observed

Therefore art can be created with any method available to the artist.

is that not at odds with your last statement, should it not read "Therefore art can be created with any method excepted by the audience"

 

[Dj_Jestar]

"The audience" can and does include the artist. Therefore it is art from the very moment it is (urgh, I hate this following word) conceptualised.

 

[sbi5ar]

I think photography is art but some "art" isn't art in my opinion...

Does it come down to interpretation? I don't know...

 

[greedy123]

So what is it before the audience anoint it as art?

Is it like Young's double-slit quantum physics experiment!?!?!? the property of matter changing when being observed

It depends if you include the artist within the equation. The art exists within their mind before it is created (typically). The physical object is just a representation of the concept which an artist has generated. Without an audience/artist all you have is an object in space, no different to a grain of sand in a desert.

Young's experiment is slightly different. By observing the object, the object physically changes, with art it doesn't. The change occurs at the interface between a person's senses and their thoughts. It is the human brain which both creates and interprets art.

is that not at odds with your last statement, should it not read "Therefore art can be created with any method excepted by the audience"

This:

"The audience" can and does include the artist. Therefore it is art from the very moment it is (urgh, I hate this following word) conceptualised.

The audience isn't a fixed entity with a singular view of a piece of art. Everyone will experience it in different ways depending on each person's individual experiences.

Why don't you like the word 'conceptualised'? Words are merely tools to convey concepts themselves. Do you dislike the concept of generating concepts or merely the people who have overused/misappropriated it?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

It's a word that sounds all too American for my taste.

Btw, that was entirely my point regarding the audience - hence the quotation marks

 

[peps1]

"The audience" can and does include the artist. Therefore it is art from the very moment it is (urgh, I hate this following word) conceptualised.

How can you possibly be considered a member of the audience in something you have created?

by its very nature "audience" is purely reactive, unlike the proactive action of creation!

No one can tell a artist their work is not art, it has bugger all to do with them!

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Because you are observing it.. just like the rest of audience.

Many artists create pieces of art purely for their own display, and no one else ever sees them. They're still pieces of art.

To say anything else is just semantic ridiculousness.

 

[greedy123]

How can you possibly be considered a member of the audience in something you have created?

by its very nature "audience" is purely reactive, unlike the proactive action of creation!

Are you saying an artist cannot enjoy their own work/be inspired by it? The thing about creating art is it's unlikely the produced piece will be exactly as it was envisaged. There may be new perspectives which can only be discovered from observing the physical object. Architecture is a prime example of this. A great deal of famous architects describe serendipitous moments within their own buildings.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Likewise for car designers, fashion designers, sculptures, prototype modelling etc.

 

[peps1]

Because you are observing it.. just like the rest of audience.

Calling a artist a member of the audience is the semantic ridiculousness here!

Same as calling actors in a play members of the audience.

Many artists create pieces of art purely for their own display, and no one else ever sees them. They're still pieces of art.

Yes, and its the fact the art was created by them, not the passive observation of the work that make it Art.......observing the art, be it by the artist or critic has no impact on the work, its the opposite, the work produces a response, the response has no effect on the work.

Are you saying an artist cannot enjoy their own work/be inspired by it?

No, where did I say that? I'm saying only the artist can say if there work is Art.

This underpins a whole field of contemporary art (objet trouvé) based around found objects that often already have a non-art function.

The thing about creating art is it's unlikely the produced piece will be exactly as it was envisaged. There may be new perspectives which can only be discovered from observing the physical object. Architecture is a prime example of this. A great deal of famous architects describe serendipitous moments within their own buildings.

As always Greedy123, fair point!

But the artist/architects are not observing the work like the audience in a passive manner, they editing the work.

audience and editor both view the work, but they are far from the same thing!

Likewise for car designers, fashion designers, sculptures, prototype modelling etc.

Design is no art.....hence "Art and Design"

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Actors are the subject. A piece of art is not the artist.

You really are talking our of your back end now, seemingly just to keep up this straw man argument.

 

[greedy123]

Design is no art.....hence "Art and Design"

Lmfao!

So architecture isn't designed?

You completely disproved your own argument:

Same as calling actors in a play members of the audience.

observing the art, be it by the artist or critic has no impact on the work

So if one of the actors jumped off stage and sat down that wouldn't change the play? Being part of the art is different to creating art as an object.

Besides, the actor isn't the artist in the metaphor, the director/playwright is.

But the artist/architects are not observing the work like the audience in a passive manner, they editing the work.

Do you know what an editor is? I am an architect. If I walk round a building I have designed, how am I editing it?

You really are talking our of your back end now, seemingly just to keep up this straw man argument.

+1

 

[peps1]

Actors are the subject. A piece of art is not the artist..

You really are talking our of your back end now, seemingly just to keep up this straw man argument.

Actors are a component, not a subject.

LOL talking out my ass, keep believing that designers, fashion designers, prototype modelling are the same thing as Fine Art.

Craft, design, Art.......very different things mate.

So architecture isn't designed?

No (where did I say anything near to that???), its always design, and seldom Art.....I think there are very few architects call themselves artists, or there work Art.

So if one of the actors jumped off stage and sat down that wouldn't change the play? Being part of the art is different to creating art as an object.

Besides, the actor isn't the artist in the metaphor, the director/playwright is.

Oh, I wonder why they are called performance artists?

Yes this would change the art, in the same way part of a sculpture braking changes the art.....but non of that has ANYTHING to do with the audience.

both of you have yet to explain how the audience has any relevance to if the work is Art or no (the actual topic here).....without this semantic "the artist is the audience" rubbish.

Do you know what an editor is? I am an architect. If I walk round a building I have designed, how am I editing it?

I would assume you observe your building long before its built in the form of 3D Modelling and are able to make changes or EDIT the design....in the same was a painter will step back to observe and EDIT.

Nothing changes about your building due to the opinions of an observer, the same is true for a work of Art.

At the end of the day its not up to you to decided if a work is Art, its unto the artist.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Synonyms: art, craft, expertise, knack, know-how, technique

You just keep telling yourself what you want to hear. The rest of us will carry on with the facts.

 

[peps1]

Oh no!!!

I spent all that money of academic art theory books at college, when I could have just looked at thefreedictionary.com to get my diploma!

 

[greedy123]

I think there are very few architects call themselves artists, or there work Art.

LMAO you know a lot of architects then? Well I am an architect and your statement is just pure speculative fiction. You realise architecture is classed as a fine art right?

Oh, I wonder why they are called performance artists?

They aren't... that's something different. You're mixing up performance art with the performing arts. Different things.

Yes this would change the art, in the same way part of a sculpture braking changes the art

How many pieces of art invite you to break them?!

both of you have yet to explain how the audience has any relevance to if the work is Art or no (the actual topic here).....without this semantic "the artist is the audience" rubbish.

Yes I have, maybe you should re-read the thread. At no point have I written "the artist is the audience".

I would assume you observe your building long before its built in the form of 3D Modelling and are able to make changes or EDIT the design....in the same was a painter will step back to observe and EDIT.

Nothing changes about your building due to the opinions of an observer, the same is true for a work of Art.

At the end of the day its not up to you to decided if a work is Art, its unto the artist.

What on earth has that got to do with being able to enjoy my own building once it is built?

 

[peps1]

LMAO you know a lot of architects then? Well I am an architect and your statement is just pure speculative fiction. You realise architecture is classed as a fine art right?

A: Yes, like ANYTHING architecture can be Fine Art, but you saying all architecture is Fine Art?

B:Yes I know a few, but non that consider themselves a Artist, maybe a small sample, but far from speculative.

C: Do you consider yourself a Artist, and all your building Fine Art?

They aren't... that's something different. You're mixing up performance art with the performing arts. Different things.

again, this is a distinction only they have the right to make.....as the Artist.

How many pieces of art invite you to break them?!

I dont see how that has anything to do with the discussion???? (but off the top of my head, a few of the Flux movement artists played about with these theme)

Yes I have, maybe you should re-read the thread. At no point have I written "the artist is the audience".

Sorry, guess I missunderstod the context of you comment above

It depends if you include the artist within the equation.

And regards:

What on earth has that got to do with being able to enjoy my own building once it is built?

???? nothing ???? I don't get why you even asked that?