Some of my many reflections, on art as in photography.

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Creativity as in Photography, Is a subjective thing of course and will vary depending on who performs and who observes what’s exhibited. Since art also is as many claim, a part of photography, I wonder who set the standards?

In Photography we have many genres and in all of them we find creativity performed by artists or rather image makers. We are all individuals and see things at times very differently, as in religions. To some, photography may even have become a religious act.

I see wonderful images, I prefer to call them that, in our club of “Real photographers.” In landscapes and all the other genres, I see abstracts that are beautiful, but yet to understand, at least by me. I try to do landscape images as I see them and in the best way to my simple ability, again very subjectively, to do so and document it as anyone would see it if they were at the same spot, would be to do it with an approximate 40 to 50 mm lens. But if one chooses to use another type of lens, zoom in maybe on details or widen the view by a wide angle, will it be art or just another form of documentation? Well, I’m out there a lot and appreciate the nature as I see it, but have never achieved the level which by some, can be named art. But then again I am not a landscape photographer and I never will be, really.

Still life then. Can that be art? One can make a wonderful creation, set light to it from different angles and at different levels of strength and make an image of it which is explicit. But is it art?

Portraits, now there’s my cup of tea. Set up in a studio with different lighting to it or even out there in nature. Wonderful, beautiful images in regard to facial expressions, light and whatever they have on or not. Great photography, creative backgrounds and environments, but is it art?

Painters up through the times, as for instance Rembrandt, was the master of really painting with light. And he and many more could create masterpieces with paint that only a photographer can dream of and never achieve. But we try.

So what is art, in image making? In photography? I remember my old father who sang songs to me and this one in particular which he repeated many times, so this I was able to remember these words to the melody of; Auld Lang Syne; “ A smile is quite a funny thing, it wrinkles up your face. And when it’s gone you’ll never find, its secret hiding place. But far more wonderful it is to see, what smiles can do. You smile at one, she smiles at you. And then one smile makes two!” Now if you can catch that in an instant, well that is art to me!!!

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Ivar. And a fine illustration - and I can imaging you beaming back!

Is it art? What a tricky question and one that I suspect fits into the, "I know it when I see it" category. Do I create art? Who can say; I certainly don't take many purely pictorial images. I like to try to capture mood or atmosphere or to invoke one (that was felt or not). Occasionally I will record for personal work (and always for professional) but mostly not.

An interesting question though.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Thank you Pete. It's as said, only reflections, but I find so much snobbery out there and in my view, so-called artists with names that get away with mediocre work at times and being praised for it. Of course all is subjective and I possibly do not see what other people do see. What in the end of it, do we do with our pictures? Well, this forum / club is a good example though, of sharing what we all have in common. The love of photography albeit how different we are. Hurray for that. And for those who make a living professionally, I hope they do good. Cheers.

 

[Tom Dunne]

Good post Ivar.
Art! Steer clear. I will until I know what it is, what it is supposed to be and if it exists. People's Work is better. I prefer to 'judge' (for the want of a better word) it on whether I like it or not, not necessarily whether I think it is good or bad. Some people are very precious about their 'art' and discussions tend to go nowhere. There is nothing more enjoyable than when people are interested enough to talk about your own work; a great compliment.
As you mentioned this Forum Ivar; it is a good forum but how wonderful it could be if more people joined in. It is interesting when you look at the number of views of an image against the number of comments. Some members only post their images for comment but never take the time to offer attention to other members work. I notice the number of new members that join from time to time but then never see a contribution.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I've no idea what art is. I've know people who refer to me as an artist (even the piss-artist type!) and some people I know hate artists. Yet, I can't say what art is or what an artist does.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a number of definitions for "art", including "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice", in which case someone on a production line might be considered an artist. But more likely they mean an artisan, someone whose skills have been honed over time.

Even though I don't know exactly what art is, I do know I need it in my life. I've worked with people who have no cultural art in their life, with no interest at all in reading, going to galleries, listening to music outwith what the receive on TV, and I honestly feel something is missing, a sensitivity, and appreciation of being alive. Yet, who am I to judge? I just know that I need galleries, literature, music, etc, in my life, otherwise it seems meaningless. Actually, I do think that life IS meaningless, but we can give it meaning - and maybe that's where the art comes in: not the meaning we give something, or the art we produce, but the "trying", engaging in our life.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Good post Ivar.
Art! Steer clear. I will until I know what it is, what it is supposed to be and if it exists. People's Work is better. I prefer to 'judge' (for the want of a better word) it on whether I like it or not, not necessarily whether I think it is good or bad. Some people are very precious about their 'art' and discussions tend to go nowhere. There is nothing more enjoyable than when people are interested enough to talk about your own work; a great compliment.
As you mentioned this Forum Ivar; it is a good forum but how wonderful it could be if more people joined in. It is interesting when you look at the number of views of an image against the number of comments. Some members only post their images for comment but never take the time to offer attention to other members work. I notice the number of new members that join from time to time but then never see a contribution.

I thank you for your very interesting views and the boldness to say what others may think but stay silent about. At least I get responses from persons who have viewpoints about it, responses I can relate to. So as a conclusion to this also from Rob whom I'll return to. Nobody really seems to be able to clarify what art really is. One likes what one sees or one does not.

 

[Pete Askew]

Like or feels enriched, moved etc by. One of my guidelines is that although ideas and concepts are important in (some) art, without skill to realise them I think they are hollow. If the idea is of sufficient value to the artist then they should work to develop the means to express it. I'm think of the likes of Tracy Emin here for whom the idea is the end product. That to me is not enough.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I've no idea what art is. I've know people who refer to me as an artist (even the piss-artist type!) and some people I know hate artists. Yet, I can't say what art is or what an artist does.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a number of definitions for "art", including "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice", in which case someone on a production line might be considered an artist. But more likely they mean an artisan, someone whose skills have been honed over time.

Even though I don't know exactly what art is, I do know I need it in my life. I've worked with people who have no cultural art in their life, with no interest at all in reading, going to galleries, listening to music outwith what the receive on TV, and I honestly feel something is missing, a sensitivity, and appreciation of being alive. Yet, who am I to judge? I just know that I need galleries, literature, music, etc, in my life, otherwise it seems meaningless. Actually, I do think that life IS meaningless, but we can give it meaning - and maybe that's where the art comes in: not the meaning we give something, or the art we produce, but the "trying", engaging in our life.

Thank you Rob, your answer is much appreciated and as to the quote in regard to the Oxford English Dictionary, I can truly say we are all artists here at Real Photographers Forum. What a relief, again according to the mentioned book. I'm delighted, at last I can call myself an artist.
And as you say, we all need something more than just eat, sleep and fill our basic needs. I shall not comment much on what you say about life being meaningless other than I disagree in regard to what pleasure you are able to contibute with, in order to make other people happy. That in itself is not meaningless and that I know that you do.
So again I thank you for the response and as Tom says, albeit it does not go for the lot responding here, that I also wish people would contribute with more comments explaining why they like or feel what they see or should be different, sort of a positive but constructive critisism, for us all to maybe learn from viewpoints of others. After all we who receive are the ones to judge whether it is sane or not..to us.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Like or feels enriched, moved etc by. One of my guidelines is that although ideas and concepts are important in (some) art, without skill to realise them I think they are hollow. If the idea is of sufficient value to the artist then they should work to develop the means to express it. I'm think of the likes of Tracy Emin here for whom the idea is the end product. That to me is not enough.

Well said Pete.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Ivar, when you start a new post, there is the option to choose a prefix, one of which is "Critique welcomed". Unless someone chooses this I tend to be reserved in my comments. I imagine others might be also.

I don't think life has meaning because you can make people smile. I think you can choose to say there is meaning when you do so, but there is no proof that that is why we exist.

 

[Davie Hudson]

I put photography into 2 categories ... Photojounalism and Fine Art. The first is the portrayal of the scene or situation as it was, you change or alter the photo in any way it becomes creative and that to me is art. IMO it really is that simple and I have had people say to me that the photos i take are not art and with digital cameras etc anyone could produce the same .... my usual response is, go on then. We as photographers portray life as we see it, want it or need to believe it and that makes it art, pure and simple

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Ivar, when you start a new post, there is the option to choose a prefix, one of which is "Critique welcomed". Unless someone chooses this I tend to be reserved in my comments. I imagine others might be also.

I don't think life has meaning because you can make people smile. I think you can choose to say there is meaning when you do so, but there is no proof that that is why we exist.

Well Rob.

I am aware of the prefix and I see your point and it’s quite understandable. Now I believe I said; “making people happy,” and as one provides for happiness of others, provides a happy home and good environment for one’s love ones and contributes in a good way in society, I certainly would not call that meaningless. The greatest gift of all is to give. Now that being said, as it is a deviation from the initial remark of mine, I’ll get back to what I started with. Who sets the standard of what is art and what is art, for example in photography. And you have actually answered that quite excellently for you. And as Tom said it, and may I ad? Why use the word art, that is quite meaningless, but call it if one finds it so; Outstanding work. In other words, nothing common. Have a wonderful day you all.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I put photography into 2 categories ... Photojounalism and Fine Art. The first is the portrayal of the scene or situation as it was, you change or alter the photo in any way it becomes creative and that to me is art. IMO it really is that simple and I have had people say to me that the photos i take are not art and with digital cameras etc anyone could produce the same .... my usual response is, go on then. We as photographers portray life as we see it, want it or need to believe it and that makes it art, pure and simple

I do respect people's perception of art Davie, 'cause after all it seems to be an individual perception and yours is quite direct and simple for anyone to understand, and least of all snobbish. I guess we all strive for the achievement of outstanding work and probably would like to be praised for it too. We all have a stint of vanity I suppose

 

[Pete Askew]

I quite like that, 'Nothing Common'.

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

I take a simple approach. Art being something done to the highest standard, an artist is someone who can achieve those heights, in whatever they do

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Ivar, I never said that making people happy is meaningless. It has great and profound meaning. We need more of it.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Whatever definition we choose for art, there are always artists who do the opposite. We might say art must be meaningful, some say their art is meaningless. We might say art is our expression, while others avoid expression at all costs, yet it is still considered art.

Art, like life, is a blank canvas - choose your meaning.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

I take a simple approach. Art being something done to the highest standard, an artist is someone who can achieve those heights, in whatever they do

I guess you are right about that Julian, but in that case, you are the one who sets the standards in each individual case. Others might deviate from that view in the same incident and do not agree. So the perception in each case will be individual.

 

[Davie Hudson]

I do respect people's perception of art Davie, 'cause after all it seems to be an individual perception and yours is quite direct and simple for anyone to understand, and least of all snobbish. I guess we all strive for the achievement of outstanding work and probably would like to be praised for it too. We all have a stint of vanity I suppose

As i stated when I started on here, I get praise but I don't necessarily believe it. I came here for criticism .... i believe that lol

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

Ivar, I never said that making people happy is meaningless. It has great and profound meaning. We need more of it.

No Rob, you did not say that making people happy is meaningless. You said life is meaningless, but I feel that you have contributed here as well as in life from what I can see, that life is not at all meaningless. Maybe comunication is the greatest means of art? If we were better at it in this world, this same world would have been much better.