Photos of rocks etc. Where's the art?

[Andy K]

To paraphrase 'art is in the eye of the beholder'.

I see no art in Tracy Emin's MyBed, just opportunism in the search for a fast buck, but some looked at it and saw art.

[rhphoto]

I remember a quote by Cartier-Bresson (I think). I paraphrase: " The world is falling apart and Weston and Adams are taking pictures of rocks!".

[Joe Lipka]

It's all in the selection of the rocks.

Now you know.

[Ed Sukach]

... Is there some sort of bias against rocks here? Any landscape, in the last analysis, reduces to "a pile of rocks" - even sand dunes ... many, many teeny rocks. Even the Parthenon ... lots of (all right, modified) rocks.

Why are we - or rather, some of us - so paranoid-sensitive that we immediately assume the position that someone is trying to "cheat - that they are automatically trying to swindle us into thinking that their undeserving work is really fine, when it isn't?

There are "phonies" in this game. From what I've seen, a fair number of them actually do have "reputations" and are accepted as Fine Artists. Anyone who dares say, " ...But ... but ... the Emperor doesn't have ANY clothes on!" stands a fair chance of being beaten towards submission.

Interesting ... we have struggled with the question, "What is Art". Let us contemplate another; "What IS a phony?"

[Magnus]

The Art in Art as it goes, is the Art to try and get your work of Art sold, that my friend is the real Art of, and in Art..... Your not an artist until you can live of the Art you produce as an artist.... every other discussion on what art is, and what art isn't is so to speak, is superficial, subjective and overall very personal.

[livemoa]

The Art in Art as it goes, is the Art to try and get your work of Art sold, that my friend is the real Art of, and in Art..... Your not an artist until you can live of the Art you produce as an artist.... every other discussion on what art is, and what art isn't is so to speak, is superficial, subjective and overall very personal.

I have been following these "art" threads lately. I have so far resisted taking part (been to busy working on a show), anyway thought I might throw something in, especialy as people seem to be saying that art s all about getting your work sold for lots of money and conning the public.

Hmmmmm.....

Well I am an artist. And I use a camera (well several actually) to create art and I, like most of the artists I know create because we are driven to do it, not because we want to either sell it (that would be nice, and I do sell work), to annoy people (though I some times do with my work) or to make my living at it (that would be good, but leads to other problems, such as thinking about what is going to sell).

Not all, in fact very few artists make their living directly from there art. Some teach, some work as postal delivery people, others sell insurance (Charles Ives springs to mind) others do contract HR (well, me anyway).

But I am an artist, I push boundaries, but no way do I make my living from my art. Rant ends.

[jnanian]

I see the image, I like it or not!
Is it art or isn`t?
To be honest, I really don`t give a s***!
It`s photography!

Cheers

André

what he said ...

[Magnus]

Hi Livemoa ...

like I said:

superficial, subjective and overall very personal.

[joeyk49]

I see it as that he was getting the rocks to pose for him...much the same as a bowl of fruit or a bag of bones..(oops, I mean a person)...

In some cases, the rocks are a whole lot easier to work with...

He creates the work and you get to decide if you like it.

[Jim Chinn]

In the example of rocks I would have to say the composition, selection, and color of the rocks would be 75% of the art. The question is if you saw the actual 3D still life in front of you would it have the same or any impact on you?

Then again, at some point the lighting, depth of field, film choice, paper, developer, printing technique and the understanding of how a 3D object will be translated and transformed by the technical into a 2D print comes into the equation. So maybe you have to flip the numbers, 75% the technical skill of the phtographer and 25% everything else.

A successful print in the eyes of the viewer is probably closer to a 50/50 proposition. If the values skew one way or the other (brilliant composition, poor technique or the other way around) it would lead to less then satisfactory experience for the viewer.