What is the PRIMARY reason you photograph?

[Jeff Biscuits]

It is extraordinarily difficult to find a definition of what art is that would satisfy everyone.

I tend to favour the mischievously circular one that goes “anything is art as long as an artist says it is”

 

[paulraphael]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

 

[DavidMillier]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

 

[Doppler9000]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

 

[Greg7579]

The only "art" I buy is oiI on canvas. Teresa let's me buy camera gear. I let her buy art to hang on our walls.

We have no wall space left.

 

[paulraphael]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

I don't think it presumes that. I think they're just asking the wrong questions.

 

[Doppler9000]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

I don't think it presumes that. I think they're just asking the wrong questions.

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

 

[paulraphael]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

I don't think it presumes that. I think they're just asking the wrong questions.

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

It's just such an abstract idea. I'm sure there's all kinds of art that any one of us will say we don't like, don't connect with, don't understand, don't care about, etc., so unless this ambition to make art is purely professional or driven by external ambitions ("my life will not be complete until I have a show at MoMA!") it seems strange to worry about it so categorically.

How about starting with the work you care about. What does it do? What does it mean? How does it make meaning? What are the qualities about it that you admire? Why do you think it matters? Does it help you look at the world — or at looking — in fresh ways?

This is a non-exhaustive list of questions that has a fighting chance of pointing you toward doing work that means something and matters to someone. At least to you.

But the "is it art" question was pretty much beaten to death by the 20th century. Duchamp hung a snow shovel from a gallery ceiling in 1917. And this wasn't even the start of modernism. More like a closing exclamation point; it just took some people a while to figure out what was going on. "Is it art" doesn't really mean anything anymore—not the way it did in ancient Greece. Curators aren't asking this. They ask things like "does this matter?" "Does this show us something new about the world, or about the medium, or about our relationship to art, or about the current cultural conversation?"

These kinds of questions are about something. "Is it art" is about fussy and limiting and obsolete standards, typically made by old Eurocentric white men who have a status quo to defend.

 

[Greg7579]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

I don't think it presumes that. I think they're just asking the wrong questions.

I think you guys are getting carried away....

New DPR rule. For every 3rd post about art and / or searching for a style, you have to post an actual image.

How would you describe art is like asking about the true meaning of life, or why are we here and is the Universe infinite and is there life on other Planets in other Solar System or maybe even ours....

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

New DPR rule. For every 3rd post about art and / or searching for a style, you have to post an actual image.

A sound plan, but the fundamental problem is that it presupposes that there would be any space left on the internet for those images after the introduction of a similar rule about posting an image after every third post about resolution, sharpness, equivalence, AF speed, yada yada…

 

[Macro guy]

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

Art, just like music is emotional communication. If it touches the viewer, it's art to that viewer.

 

[Doppler9000]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

I don't think it presumes that. I think they're just asking the wrong questions.

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

It's just such an abstract idea. I'm sure there's all kinds of art that any one of us will say we don't like, don't connect with, don't understand, don't care about, etc., so unless this ambition to make art is purely professional or driven by external ambitions ("my life will not be complete until I have a show at MoMA!") it seems strange to worry about it so categorically.

How about starting with the work you care about. What does it do? What does it mean? How does it make meaning? What are the qualities about it that you admire? Why do you think it matters? Does it help you look at the world — or at looking — in fresh ways?

This is a non-exhaustive list of questions that has a fighting chance of pointing you toward doing work that means something and matters to someone. At least to you.

But the "is it art" question was pretty much beaten to death by the 20th century. Duchamp hung a snow shovel from a gallery ceiling in 1917. And this wasn't even the start of modernism. More like a closing exclamation point; it just took some people a while to figure out what was going on. "Is it art" doesn't really mean anything anymore—not the way it did in ancient Greece. Curators aren't asking this. They ask things like "does this matter?" "Does this show us something new about the world, or about the medium, or about our relationship to art, or about the current cultural conversation?"

These kinds of questions are about something. "Is it art" is about fussy and limiting and obsolete standards, typically made by old Eurocentric white men who have a status quo to defend.

I agree that the question is impossible and not particularly useful. My point was that the exercise is, well, pointless.

 

[Greg7579]

New DPR rule. For every 3rd post about art and / or searching for a style, you have to post an actual image.

A sound plan, but the fundamental problem is that it presupposes that there would be any space left on the internet for those images after the introduction of a similar rule about posting an image after every third post about resolution, sharpness, equivalence, AF speed, yada yada…

Well, I guess you got me there. Except I don't care so much about AF speed!

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

New DPR rule. For every 3rd post about art and / or searching for a style, you have to post an actual image.

A sound plan, but the fundamental problem is that it presupposes that there would be any space left on the internet for those images after the introduction of a similar rule about posting an image after every third post about resolution, sharpness, equivalence, AF speed, yada yada…

Well, I guess you got me there. Except I don't care so much about AF speed!

Oh… it wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[paulraphael]

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

Art, just like music is emotional communication. If it touches the viewer, it's art to that viewer.

I think that's too limiting. I'm thinking of Schoenberg's 12-tone music, Jonathon Keats' conceptual art (not the poet), Bernd and Hilla Becher's photo topologies. These are examples of whole areas of art that engage people on some level besides the emotional.

"Communication" is also kind of limiting. It suggests the artist has some control over a message that's getting transmitted. 20th century critical theory has demonstrated that this is, at best, unreliable.

I'm not trying to pick on you; it's just that this is a question that has defied simple answers since before Socrates. And the previous century has made it mostly irrelevant.

 

[Macro guy]

If not, then by what standard or metric could one determine whether or not one’s creations qualify as art?

Art, just like music is emotional communication. If it touches the viewer, it's art to that viewer.

I think that's too limiting. I'm thinking of Schoenberg's 12-tone music, Jonathon Keats' conceptual art (not the poet), Bernd and Hilla Becher's photo topologies. These are examples of whole areas of art that engage people on some level besides the emotional.

"Communication" is also kind of limiting. It suggests the artist has some control over a message that's getting transmitted. 20th century critical theory has demonstrated that this is, at best, unreliable.

I'm not trying to pick on you; it's just that this is a question that has defied simple answers since before Socrates. And the previous century has made it mostly irrelevant.

If you admire a work intellectually and you appreciate it without being moved, it's not art to you. It's most likely craft.

The artist tries to communicate a certain feeling, which may get reinterpreted, but the art is in the hands of the audience, not the artist. Once the work is out there, it's out of the artist's control, just as once we say something, it's out of our control and our intended meaning may get misinterpreted. It is the audience who decides what art is by gauging the work's emotional impact.

 

[Amadeus21]

I think that the RPS distinction programme has provided some insight into what form to output my pictures so I actually have some art (good or bad) to show in a viable format.

Yes, that's exactly it! (As far as I can tell from the distance). And if you follow such a time-honored society, the first thing you probably learn is that it's better to be humble, watch - and learn! And not walk in the door with a proudly swollen chest and proclaim "I make art!".

 

[Amadeus21]

You nailed it There is a name for this phenomenon but it evades me right now.

It's the very well known and dangerous: DUNNING-KRUGER-Effect.

Oh yes...

 

[DavidMillier]

I think that the RPS distinction programme has provided some insight into what form to output my pictures so I actually have some art (good or bad) to show in a viable format.

Yes, that's exactly it! (As far as I can tell from the distance). And if you follow such a time-honored society, the first thing you probably learn is that it's better to be humble, watch - and learn! And not walk in the door with a proudly swollen chest and proclaim "I make art!".

In effect, that's what i did, though. I ignored the standard route to my distinction and went it completely alone. I was confident enough to do that, not because I consider myself a (over)proud artist, but because I read the rules very carefully and figured out what I needed to do. And I was right, first time.

I'm approaching the next level distinction in the same way: understand exactly what they are looking for, and give it to them. Basically, give them no excuse to reject me. The next level is a different challenge, much more a personal concept of photography than the 'L' level. Should be more interesting.

However, I don't expect to succeed at first, because few people do; you submit something, listen to the criticism and improve it until the judges are satisfied. That seems to be the course for most people. But once again, despite all advice, I shall be going it alone. I've explored the club scene once again, and I just can't bring myself to stomach it (despite the nice people I met), it's not for me. No help there, down to me alone once more.

But none of the above is what I meant. What I meant was that the process of complying with the RPS requirements made me think very carefully about what forms of photographic output I want to make (previously, I was lost and dissatisfied about what to do with my photography). I now think I have a handle on a way/ways forward for me and that is much more important than any Distinction programme.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

"Is it art?" is only the first of many questions, and it's by far the least interesting.

It might be very interesting to someone who longs to make art but isn't sure whether their work qualifies...

This would presume there is a clear, objective standard, which wouldn’t seem to be the case.

Of course there isn't, it's not an A-level history exam. That doesn't do anything to remove an artist's doubts about their own work, though.