Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Eric / Jim / Francesco / Andy Warhol & Arthur Felig
From: George Huczek <ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:37:29 -0600

At 09:01 PM 09/04/98 EDT, you wrote:
>  Eric - Do you draw a distintction between "art photos" like Francesco's,
>  "arte photos"  like Andy Warhol & Man Ray's and " fine arts photos like
>  Jim Brick's ?  Or do you lump them all together and consider your photo-
>  jounalism in the same class as Arthur Felig's?

What are you talking about?  To suggest that there are "art photos", "arte
photos" and "fine art photos" only muddies the water.  It's just more
shaving cream, applied to make people think that such distinctions really
mean something. Smokescreens.
   There is no problem trying to classify photographs by genre ... nature,
sports, portraiture, etc., or to classify according to content or intended
use ... journalism, commercial, editorial, highschool yearbook, or
whatever, recognizing that there are areas where some of these categories
overlap.
  (Hopefully we can agree that art is some creative form of expression
involving technical, physical and emotional discipline and skill, being
both practical and aesthetic, then perhaps we have some common
understanding for further discussion.  An art work, whether is happens to
be appreciated by the public or by any individual, should make some
significant statement which is of some particular significance to a certain
time and place. Using this definition, photography certainly qulaifies as
art.)
   Since you identify certain recognizable and distinguishing photographic
styles, it seems clear that we do have as a starting point of discussion at
least some agreement that we are talking about a legitimate form of art.
Fine.  Main point follows.
   In other forms of art, it is quite clear that when we talk about things
like impressionism, cubism, surrealism, pop art, and so on, we have some
common basis of understanding.  We are on terra firma.  Where are we though
when we use terms like "art" and "arte" to try to make differentiations?
Is there some common use of such terms?  If so, I would like someone to
explain what "arte" is, and how it is different from "fine art" within the
context of art.  I suspect that these terms are not used in the
photographic arts with any common frame of reference at all.



- -GH