Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,918   Posts: 1,584,735   Online: 853
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Anupam Basu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    20
    Art*,

    Art, or anything else, has no "value" as an innate attribute. That is to say value is not a metaphysical quality of the object itself. It is a function of external, that is to say semiotic, social and therefore arbitrary constructions. Given this, your use of the word "real" becomes problematic.

    On the other hand, given the unstable connotations of this "real," your statement is not objectively verifiable and hence not problematic at all. To you that is the "real" value of art, but it does not stop anyone else from positing some other kind of value. So no problem there, unless a lack of philosophical exactitude is considered a problem (in case you meant your claim to be an absolute one).

    -Anupam


    * - ignoring for the moment the wonderful self-reflexive possibilities of your statement - "Who am I to deny that maybe God is me?"

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    994
    I think only you can decide what value means, or that's the point the way I understood it.

  3. #13
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,748
    Images
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by big_ben_blue View Post
    but what if one is a "professional" artist and has to make a living out of it? A hungry stomach can make some pretty convincing arguments of ensuring ones art has "value" for the paying others too (preferably in cold hard cash). This value for the other party might be of a financial nature (investment) or a "pleasure" value (personal enjoyment). If you take a quick look across the historical landscape of "art", you'll quickly find that most of the "great" artists put just as much economical value and value for their patrons into their works as personal artistic value for themself; I would even go as far as saying most of these artists quite happily accepted degrading themselves as "whores" to the commerce (again, ideals are fine and dandy, but they don't pay the bills). And if one tried to defy the system - see vanGogh(sp?) and his rather miserable life. The system isn't fair for sure, and if one depends on it for livelyhood, best to find a middle ground without wandering of into the extremes. Just doing it for the pleasure of others will soon degrade one's art into sterile lifeless equivalents to those dreadful velvet Elvis paintings. Now OTOH, if one does NOT depend on the public aceptance of his or her art for income, then by all means, aim for the pure ideal and free youself from the restrains. It's just that not everyone has that luxuary. Even people on various artists grants still had to first convince someone of the value to the public of their work to secure those grants.
    As Jovo had mentioned, there are different forms of "value" to consider, and if one equals "value" with the satisfaction of the creation, then the original question would be reduntant (well, maybe you have some groupies around who get excited seeing the artist at work, they might get some value out of it too).
    I'll give this thread about four and a half pages until it's heading for the soap box. That's a great many grasshopper still to squash

    Point well taken, and in fact, I'm building a part-time portrait business into a full time one this year. So... yes.. I need people beyond my family to value my photography so they can subsidize said personal work!

  4. #14
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,996
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    My photography is of worth to myself. As to its worth to others, I will leave that to the historians and the auctioneers.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  5. #15
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart View Post
    If I said something like "The only real value one's art has is to one self and no one else." How would you guys and gals respond?
    That's a very elliptical statement, and is subject to many interpretations.

    The first one would be that art is truly worthless to anyone except its maker. If anybody has ever appreciated somebody else's artwork, then this proposition does not stand. I think it is the case. I appreciate other people's artwork. I have had people appreciating my work (thank you so much, the two people who did!). Ergo, my art has a real, existing value that is not limited to what I give it. It's not much, but it's true.

    The second one, a variation on the first, would be more to the effect that the only value of my art that I can really be sure of is the one I give it myself. Like Descartes, I fear so much to be deceived by other people's appreciation, that I will rely only on my own cogito to ground my knowledge. It's a pretty shaky position, that borders on solipsism. As Wittgenstein said, the problem with solipsists is that have yet to meet another one. Give a little trust to other people, Jimmy, that will do ya good.

    The third one, the more charitable one, would be that a photographer does not need approval to pursue his goals. Genius knows itself, but not-genius seldom recognize it. If people call you crap, sham, phoney, weak, or loser, then do not listen about their devaluation, and care instead for the shred of value you harbour within your breast about your art. Not a bad position to have, but if taken in a radical way, it might just be your downfall. Art is also communication, and taking cues from audience is just another tool you can use to make your art better. YMMV.

    There are, I am sure, plenty of other interpretations. But I'm tired tonight.

    So in the end, pithy statements do not necessarily embody great wisdom. They do wreak havoc on weak interpreters, however, who will tear each other to shreds in yes/no camps.

    Art, you little provocateur, have some more popcorn!
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    13
    The experience internally generated in viewing photographs is self referential and implies Art of a sort. So the photo has a life beyond the original taker and that life is potentially artistic, even in the most crass photo.

  7. #17
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    If the phenomenon of eBay demonstrates anything, it is that there is an astounding amount of crap in the world that's of value to others.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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