Snapshot, Art, Fine Art!! What the difference??

[ajay0612]

I have noted that many of us lok down upon snapshots (which I am unable to define as of now). Please help me out where is the dividing line among all three? (The views from posters have been enriching so far.)
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612

 

[ajay0612]

And what is art?
--
Regards, Ajay

 

[J A K]

"NT" means no text.

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

http://flickr.com/groups/aaphotography/

I run this gallery on Flickr as a place for fine, realistic photography. Early on this use of postcards .. along with related issues about snaps of kids and beaus and my dogs, had to be addressed. Texdt explanations ended up in endless palaver. I found the best I could do was delete the images and then post some in threads as an example. It seems to be working.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[ajay0612]

As I understand,
Snapshot - All the photographs are snapshot initially.

Art - Result of work (by artist) on the snapshot with the sole goal of embedding his perception of the scene, so as to communicate with audience at large.
Fine Art - Working further on above to communicate with a select audience.

And value of Art depends on its uniqueness, skill perception (for its creation), the perception of integrity of creator, the consistency of individual style.
Above is what I perceive. Am I right?

 

[Arglebargle]

These would be my definitions as I understand them

Snapshot, a photo taken without serious thought, just aim the camera at what you want and take the picture straight on. The other day I saw a father taking a picture of his little girl as he towered over her. He probably would have gotten a better photo if he got down to her level. Then again if he knew what he was doing and envisioned the final photo and looking down at her would have accentuated her tininess then it would not be a snapshot, but I assume he just did not know any better.

Art: The definition of art is wacky, complex, and varies according to who is providing the definition. I looked it up once and was still just as confused after I read it than before. A few concepts I liked were that art invokes an emotion in the viewer, or it causes people who look at it to feel a spark of creativity, or art is art because some important art critic said so. My personal definition is that a certain amount of work, creativity, originality, craftsmanship and genius was used to make the final result.

Fine Art: again I've read many definitions. The one I liked the best is fine art is created with the end purpose of hanging on somebody else's wall. I have also read a more cynical definition of the term that it is just a pretentious fancy label to help sell a work at a high price. Maybe it's a term to separate something from being a popular art, for people who like to feel above the common class.

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

Good touch!

One place we disagree is in th eimportnace of HOW something is made. If someone works her butt off, adjusitng, framing, etc and ends up with another postcard of Niagara .. it is till a postcard. "Art" must be perceived, it can not achieved by any action of the maker that does not impart the je ne sais qua we call art.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[ajay0612]

These would be my definitions as I understand them

Then again if he knew what he was doing

and envisioned the final photo and looking down at her would have
accentuated her tininess then it would not be a snapshot,

what it will be then?

Art: My personal
definition is that a certain amount of work, creativity,
originality, craftsmanship and genius was used to make the final
result.

So to recognise a photograph as art, audience should have knowledge about the style of the artist else art should be accompanied with honest declaration of the feel & intent of the artist which led to its creation, alongwith the circumstances under which it was created (e.g. an otherwise scupture will be an art if made by an artist without hands & eyes). Isn't it?

Fine Art: again I've read many definitions. The one I liked the
best is fine art is created with the end purpose of hanging on
somebody else's wall. I have also read a more cynical definition of
the term that it is just a pretentious fancy label to help sell a
work at a high price. Maybe it's a term to separate something from
being a popular art, for people who like to feel above the common
class.

That ould be commercial art (if purpose is to make it for selling). Isn't it.

--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612

 

[BrianZero]

Art is in the eye of the beholder is it not ?
One mans meat is another mans poison ?

My view is that in the bygone past an artist was just painting a picture of something in life 'He / She' wanted to record
Or more likely sponsored by some 'Patron'

Only later would it become Art then Fine Art - Just labels to compartmentalise something - More probably so described to put the riiff raff in their place in far off days.
Art / Fine Art - Phrases coined to determine eleteism

I have always held the view that there is no Art without Craft

Musicians need well crafted instruments, scripts and scores.
Artists need brush, paper, canvas and coloured goo.
Photographers need cameras and all sorts of gadgets and now computers.

Dont cameras and computers bring 'Art' to the masses ?
Like everything in life, some can do it better than others.

Finally in my little rant - I know iwhenever I have made a good job of something and it doesnt matter if no one else likes it.

I know when iI have done something that is technically or aesthetically satisfying - Although I much prefer the elements of 3 dimensional craftsmaship - [Call it Art if you must]

 

[Duwane Huffaker]

Defining art, like defining God, puts limitations on it. Can art be limited??? Can it really be defined?
--
thezero

 

[john9001]

snapshots you give away.

art photos you charge money for.

fine art you charge lots of money for, have gallery shows, and get awards.

 

[tex]

and not particularly constructive. i almost passed this one by, but i hereby, through my actions, to publically admit to being too stupid to just walk away.

so here are several points:

1. what is art? well, philosophers and artists have been debating this point for many many centuries, and a great deal has been written about it both in general and specific terms. the list of excellent commentary is so vast that i truly don't know where to begin to start recommending things. but it's very clear neither you, the original poster, nor any of the follow up posters so far have read deeply [or at all!] on this subject. the material is certainlly out there. perhaps you can start with plato? you have a great deal of work to do....but why anyone should be searching for these answers[actually, more a series of nesting questions and crtiques] on a photography forum that is far better set up to answer technical questions about gear than issues that have pretty deep roots in philosophical issues never ceases to amaze me.

i also find it quite extraordinary that supposedly intelligent people will accept without question the fact that a true understanding of, say, modern physics requires great study and rather advanced math skills, yet seem to assume that the most un-studied, gross opinions on the arts are all equally valid. it's a ridiculous premise on its face. and don't start in with 'subjectivity' and 'eye of the beholder' jazz. there is a very great deal of objective analysis that goes into the proper appreciation of the arts, and a great deal more intuition and speculation in the advanced sciences than most people recognize.

2. so what makes art art and other things not art? in the simplest of terms, either intent OR general[informed] assessment and preferably both. with regards to intent, this is often what separates craft from art: is the utilitarian pupose of the object 'foregrounded' or the aethetic issues? imagine a typical shovel. clearly a mere tool. now imagine a silver plated, beautifully hand engraved shovel used for a cermonial pupose. the difference is plain. it should also be plain that there's a contnuum involved here, and that things get tricky in the middle. objects like duchamp's readymades were 'created' NOT to thumb a nose at the viewing public, but partly[only partly] to make one THINK about these very issues. yes, some art's main purpose is not sensual pleasure but a launching point for thought.

we also have numerous examples, particularly among ritual objects, where the object was not intended as art by the maker, but has been absorbed into the art milieu by general assent inasmuch as they are cultural artifacts that carry a significant 'load' of aesthetic information/underpinnings. think african or south pacific masks and ritual objects[among examples too numerous to count!], or even a great many archaeological artifacts from virtually all cultures.

so, there's acouple of quick points for :

THINKING !

 

[willowD]

Instead of defining what is art, I'd comment on the common confusion between art and technique.

People often consider a picture artistic simply because it entails a high level of technical skill or perhaps it was created with some original technique. I admire these pictures as much as anybody else. But does it automatically mean these pictures are artistic?

To me, an artistic picture embeds some profound idea or insight that the photographer effectively expresses in the picture. Technical excellence on its own is insufficient. On the other hand, an artistic picture may not pass the scrutiny of pixel peepers.

It's interesting to note that, in figure skating, the judges assign separate scores to the technical and artistic merits of a performance. One does not collapse into the other.

In photography, I believe in a similar concept, i.e. considering both the technical and artistic merits of a picture, although I'm reluctant to assign a numerical score to each picture. The technical aspect tends to be mostly objective. The artistic aspect often has a universal dimension, but is inevitably influenced by cultural and personal experiences.

Does this mean a picture with low artistic merit is not worth my attention? Not necessarily. It depends on my purpose. In my opinion, a picture that effectively depicts the suffering of a child in a war is more artistic than a picture of a beautiful flower. But I'd have the flower rather than the suffering child on my living room wall.

 

[ajay0612]

tex wrote:
the original poster, nor any of the follow up posters so far

have read deeply [or at all!] on this subject.

True. But I asked the question in context of photography. How else I could have got u to respond ;-)

i also find it quite extraordinary that supposedly intelligent
people will accept without question the fact that a true
understanding of, say, modern physics requires great study and
rather advanced math skills, yet seem to assume that the most
un-studied, gross opinions on the arts are all equally valid.

Knowing what people think/perceive is also useful. As that influence the commercial aspect of it. Also general assessment.

2. so what makes art art and other things not art? in the
simplest of terms, either intent OR general[informed] assessment
and preferably both. with regards to intent, this is often what
separates craft from art: is the utilitarian pupose of the object
'foregrounded' or the aethetic issues? imagine a typical shovel.
clearly a mere tool. now imagine a silver plated, beautifully hand
engraved shovel used for a cermonial pupose. the difference is
plain. it should also be plain that there's a contnuum involved
here, and that things get tricky in the middle. objects like
duchamp's readymades were 'created' NOT to thumb a nose at the
viewing public, but partly[only partly] to make one THINK about
these very issues. yes, some art's main purpose is not sensual
pleasure but a launching point for thought.

we also have numerous examples, particularly among ritual objects,
where the object was not intended as art by the maker, but has been
absorbed into the art milieu by general assent inasmuch as they are
cultural artifacts that carry a significant 'load' of aesthetic
information/underpinnings. think african or south pacific masks
and ritual objects[among examples too numerous to count!], or even
a great many archaeological artifacts from virtually all cultures.

so, there's acouple of quick points for :

THINKING !

Thanks for these points. I wish to keep the photography as a context. And fine Art?

--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612

 

[ajay0612]

Instead of defining what is art, I'd comment on the common
confusion between art and technique.

People often consider a picture artistic simply because it entails
a high level of technical skill or perhaps it was created with some
original technique. I admire these pictures as much as anybody
else. But does it automatically mean these pictures are artistic?

To me, an artistic picture embeds some profound idea or insight
that the photographer effectively expresses in the picture.
Technical excellence on its own is insufficient. On the other hand,
an artistic picture may not pass the scrutiny of pixel peepers.

So that means it is upto artist to declare it as Art? Else how one knows!
Shouldn't general perception matter?

It's interesting to note that, in figure skating, the judges assign
separate scores to the technical and artistic merits of a
performance. One does not collapse into the other.

In photography, I believe in a similar concept, i.e. considering
both the technical and artistic merits of a picture, although I'm
reluctant to assign a numerical score to each picture. The
technical aspect tends to be mostly objective. The artistic aspect
often has a universal dimension, but is inevitably influenced by
cultural and personal experiences.

Shouldn't it be necessary to put a title/brief commentary by artist on proclaimed art! Normally I find myself in a bind to appreciate it fully otherwise. Please enlighten me.

Does this mean a picture with low artistic merit is not worth my
attention? Not necessarily. It depends on my purpose. In my
opinion, a picture that effectively depicts the suffering of a
child in a war is more artistic than a picture of a beautiful
flower. But I'd have the flower rather than the suffering child on
my living room wall.

So here seems two category of it. Is that difference between Art & Fine Art?
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612

 

[Wayne Larmon]

i also find it quite extraordinary that supposedly intelligent
people will accept without question the fact that a true
understanding of, say, modern physics requires great study and
rather advanced math skills, yet seem to assume that the most
un-studied, gross opinions on the arts are all equally valid.

Possibly, the reason why civilians think this way is that they've seen what tenured experts and major galleries have proclaimed to be "art", and they aren't impressed.

Snapshots and art:

Snapshots are latent memories.

Snapshots can be art.

And art can be a snapshot.

Wayne

 

[willowD]

I deliberately avoid defining what is art, because I don't believe it is possible to draw a sharp line between art and not art. In my previous post, I only alluded to some aspects of what I consider to be artistic characteristics. I'd say some photos exhibit more of these characteristics, some less. So there is a continuum.

One analogy I can think of right now is to describe whether a person is nice or not. Most of the people are nice in some way but not nice in other ways, no matter what we consider "nice". It's impossible to divide the world into two categories of people: nice and not nice. Similarly, it is futile to divide any type of human creation, such as photos, into two rigid categories: art and not art.

We tend to have some general agreement on what kind of human behavior is nice (for example, helping others). But the agreement is never absolute. Some people are bound to disagree in one way or another. That does not mean there is no such thing as being nice. So there seems to be some sort of community standard, although we cannot define it precisely. The same holds for "art".

It is possible that a person considers himself nice but not recognized as such by others. In this case, is the person in question truly nice? I have no answer to that. By the same token, if a person thinks her work is art but is not recognized by others, is this piece of work truly art? I have no answer to that either.

Yes, I do sound elusive. But elusiveness is part of the nature of art. Science aims at precision; art doesn't.

 

[wmsson]

A snapshot is the work of a snapshooter. Art is the work of an artist.

What's the difference between a snapshooter and an artist? Their perspective when they're taking a picture. A person can be both, just not during the taking of a single photo.

You're out hiking with your kids. You get them to pose for a photo. All that really matters is that they're in the frame and the camera is set up to have the photo exposed properly. you don't even notice the background.Then you click the photo and carry on hiking. Later, you see a very nice scene, set your camera up on the tripod, spend several minutes viewing the scene looking for the best compostion. Spend some time making sure the camera adjustments are just so. You take several photos experimenting with exposure, field of view, framing of the composition. The kids are getting bored and start complaining. You don't even hear them because you're focused on creating something unique and special. When you get home, you look at the Jpeg of the kids and spend a few minutes making some adjustments. It looks great so you send a copy to your parents. The other photos, you pick the one you like the most out of the 10 or 15 photos you took of the scene and begin the task of processing the raw file (you certainly wouldn't use a jpeg for art if you dind't have to, now would you?) and spend as much time as is needed, even if it means hours, to get it just the way you want it.

I'm sure it's obvious the difference in this person between being a snapshooter and an artist. What the person produces in the second example may not be art to others, but to him it will be art. And really, only the artist is the one qualified to judge their work as art as only they know what their perspective was when creating it.

Like the Typewriters in Jail (in another recent thread) I wouldn't call it art. But the artist who created it sure believes it is. So it is art to someone, just not me.
Art is whatever you think it is. And no one else can question it.

Art and Fine Art? As long as no one has ever definitively agreed on what art actually is in a way that evryone woulf agree with, I think the addition of the word Fine doesn't really change anything. If we don't know what Art actually is, then we don't know what Fine Art is either.

 

[Stephen Schwartz115733]

You state your ideas elegantly, yet something is missing. That something may be a primitive as the origin of speech about 100k yrs ago. How do we know the date? Around that time three c hanges occured: 1. there is a choke point in our genomes implying that something changed for a few humans. 2. linguistic analysis suggests that all languages converge about the same time. 3. human remains become associated with decorated objects.

This near biblical confluence suggests that with speech came religion, that is the belief that objects have some properties that are not merely physical. Put another way, with words came the ability to elaborate on the objective world and the ability t create objects with properties that were not simply objective. A simple example is object history. We began not only to remember that a certain rock was found in a river but to be able to tell our mates about this .. and to imagine more properties we could talk to others about.

I think this was the origin of art. We see beauty everywhere as we see ugliness, but when the beauty is created by man we recognize this and calk it art ... and tell others of our discovery,

OK?
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com

 

[tex]

i also find it quite extraordinary that supposedly intelligent
people will accept without question the fact that a true
understanding of, say, modern physics requires great study and
rather advanced math skills, yet seem to assume that the most
un-studied, gross opinions on the arts are all equally valid.

Possibly, the reason why civilians think this way is that they've
seen what tenured experts and major galleries have proclaimed to be
"art", and they aren't impressed.

that's one surmise. another has to do with how poorly educated the general public is in matters cultural. most 'civilians'---an interesting term [and i'll continue that analogy in a sec]---in my experience have little contact with art on a regular basis[ except in fleeting ways associated with general media saturation]. they see a few things they find outrageous and then it colors their entire thinking.

with regard to the analogy of civilians : many civilians don't fully comprehend battle, either, yet many have opinions about it. i think it's safe to say that only those who have either experienced battle [and even perhaps at different levels of command] or those who have extensively studied military history can speak with any real authority on said matters, and the rest of us are usually wise to defer to those who have this knowledge---holding our perhaps valid doubts in abeyance until our own knowledge is more fleshed out. but this doesn't seem to happen in the arts. a pity.

and to ajay, photography is not separate from the rest of the visual arts. it's a medium among numerous others. i believe firmly that everyone would benefit from better conceptual integration here, as opposed to keeping photography as some odd segregated subset of the visual arts. speed of image capture has tricked people into an unproductive and dead-ended mindset in this case. this goes to the heart of the snapshot issue---the apparent off-handedness of snapshots made possible by rapid image capture masks many other aspects of image capture in general: intent, skill, context, formal issues, etc.