Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,223   Posts: 1,532,494   Online: 1086
      
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 114
  1. #71
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    Donald,

    Since I respect the sincerity of your post, please understand in advance that my irrepressible sense of humor sometimes creeps out at inopportune moments ... like now.. Dude! You've been watching too many Ingmar Bergman films! Ok, back to seriousness. Here are some thoughts, offered —as you put it— in the spirit of constructive dialogue:

    Basically, I in fact cannot agree that artistic expression is necessarily "an original creation of something heretofore unknown and heretofore unproduced". I would agree if you simply called it original artistic expression. I do not believe, however, that a person needs to satisfy some sort of "qualification" of pure originality in order the be seen as expressing him-or-herself.

    On your second point, that "[artistic expression] engages both the senses and the emotions of the artist and a portion of those who may view the original work", I believe you're half right. Logically, artistic expression must engage the senses and emotions of the artist —otherwise he would never bother picking up a camera ...or paint brush... or never feel the need to sit down to write music, jokes, stories, poems or letters (yes, I believe a letter can be artistic).

    For the rest —I mean, you're not "wrong", per se— one's artistic expression will only effect a portion of those who see it. I know that I'm mixing oranges with tangerines a bit, but the point is, nothing is really "Art" until someone —anyone other than its creator— appreciates it as such. Otherwise it's just a sort of non-erotic masturbation ... something the artist made to please himself.

    The creator of something has no right to call it "art". The object of one's creation become "art" only at the instant someone else is moved by it, even if that sensation is hatred. In effect, this means that artistic expression can exist without its object being called art. Think of a sculptor creating a tiny statuette which he keeps in his pocket, never to be seen by anyone else. He dies and is buried with it. It was his artistic expression, but was it "art"? Yes? How would we know? We never saw it and never will.

    ==============

    Regarding your other questions which, again, I respect because they so obviously came from the heart: I began to answer them, one-by-one, but I stopped and erased them. Your questions, by their nature, are a bit heavy and my answers, due to their concision, were coming across as being sacastic. Still, I think you'll find value in simple answers. Zen it out.

    It would be much easier if you'd come-on over to Paris and discuss this whole thing with me at the Café Flore, where Sartre used to hang out. I'll pay for the first coffee (really*). I even have one eye that wigs-out like his did ... especially when I'm tired, like now. No Gaulloise allowed after 2008 (whew... I'm a non-smoker anyway!).

    Bonne nuit,

    Christopher

    *serious offer. E-mail me if you come. Second coffee is on you!

    .
    Now let me see.

    The self-appointed "artists" (the "usual suspects" here) will scorn me if I call the above quote the bunch of crap that it is - because that will be an example of my unexaulted, non-artist, plebian status.

    So, instead, I should accept the above rant of the ridiculous as serious discussion point on what is "Art" and whether photography "qualifies"? [See OT].

    Now the best thing about the rant is the claim that it cannot be "Art" if it isn't validated by being seen and approved as such by others. Didn't we just recently have a thread that got all discombobulated after some poster claimed that it cannot be Art if it IS validated by others - because then it is a sell-out?

    What a bunch of malarkey this stuff is.

    Reading through all of these threads, and many more I'm sure will follow, I have reached the ultimate conclusion as to what (who) Art is:

    Art is the fellow a.k.a. Grt2Bart who likes to eat popcorn here!

    Oh, as to the poster, Christopher, I can assure you of one thing above all - the next time I am in Paris - I will NOT be calling on you. And, to make things's "fair", the next time you are in NYC, you don't have to call on me either!

    So we're even - and don't have to worry about who picks up the cafe billet.

  2. #72
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,305
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    There's no class war going on here on APUG. I really don't get why some folks seem to think that artist is a dirty word. Unless they feel that they have nothing to say with their images, and resent those who do. Yes, I see myself as an Artist with a capital A, but I bear no ill will toward those who practice photography as a craft or a hobby.
    Last edited by jd callow; 06-09-2007 at 08:59 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: kepping it on track

  3. #73
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Much, much, much ... sip ... much, much, much ....

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  4. #74
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPablo View Post
    I partially agree with JD that time is a poor measure of great art. But I disagree in that time is indeed a good measure of bad art, or at least mediocre art. The bad art gets filtered out. And the bad art that was popular in its time gets viewed very critically by posterity (take Soviet realism, for example). Time is a better filter for bad art than it is for great art.
    Sadly I don't see time always doing justice to the bad. It seems that many marginal, at best, artists and objects of art are given permanent residence with greater works simply because of association with a movement, period or age. Often art is marginalized because the significance of the context in time is lost or the preceding or following movement was so overwhelmingly 'better.' Some art and artists are completely glossed over because they stood alone, were out of step or followed a path that was a dead end.

    Art historians or art history can be exceedingly arrogant in its determination of what is significant.

    Meanwhile, if we constantly view art through the rearview mirror, or use what has passed as the measure we miss all the possibilities that are there in front of us. I try and see the opportunity. I love the work of some of the experimenters here on apug and elsewhere. I could not care less if their works or mine survives or meets the measure that all too often is wrong, wrongheaded or contrived. Not everything needs to be grand to have value and some value is fleeting.

    *

  5. #75
    DrPablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    796
    Images
    63
    I think there is some value even in preserving more pedestrian art from past eras. But right now, especially with the internet, there is such an overabundance of mediocrity (simply because of the abundance) that it wil take more than time to wash it away.
    Paul

  6. #76
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,543
    Images
    15
    I see George forgot to take his medication again today. Since when did the A in APUG stand for Asshole Brigade? There's no class war going on here on APUG. I really don't get why some folks seem to think that artist is a dirty word. Unless they feel that they have nothing to say with their images, and resent those who do. Yes, I see myself as an Artist with a capital A, but I bear no ill will toward those who practice photography as a craft or a hobby.
    __________________
    I am getting very close to what I believe.

    I am an Artist working in the medium of Photography.
    I call myself a Photographer.

    Similar to an Artist working in the medium of Painting.
    They call themselves Painters.

    I am also an Artist who works in the medium of Graphic Design.
    I am also a Graphic Designer.

    So I am an Artist who works in Photography and Graphic Design.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  7. #77
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    I have no issue with preserving pedestrian work or studying any and all that have come before. I take issue with time being the arbiter of what is art, when there is a big wide world of things being created everyday that deserves our attention.

    *

  8. #78
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    I am getting very close to what I believe.

    I am an Artist working in the medium of Photography.
    I call myself a Photographer.

    Similar to an Artist working in the medium of Painting.
    They call themselves Painters.

    I am also an Artist who works in the medium of Graphic Design.
    I am also a Graphic Designer.

    So I am an Artist who works in Photography and Graphic Design.
    But graphic design isn't art.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  9. #79
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    I have the highest degree of respect for those who are "artists". What I am weary of is the constant, unresolvable debate as to "who" is an artist!

    The minute one asks that question is the minute that all hell breaks loose here because it is UNANSWERABLE!

    It's just a fodder question to get folks all in a dither!

    (OMG - I live in NYC and I just used the word "dither". I may have to do time in the provinces now!).

    Now, Art, I'll try to remember your real Avatar name if you remember to put the "n" in "munch"!
    Last edited by jd callow; 06-09-2007 at 09:00 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: keeping it on track

  10. #80
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    The intention with saying: "self-appointed 'artists'" was to convey the message that no one "validates" art. Therefore no one validates "artists".

    Just do what you do and why worry what anyone else thinks?
    Last edited by jd callow; 06-09-2007 at 09:02 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: a little clean-up



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin