Re: [Leica] What is fine art photography?

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>just occurred to me that a better definition of "art" may be not to see
>it an independent property of an artifact or object, but as something that
>exists only in the interaction between a person and that object.  In other
>words, nothing is art, until there is someone to see, listen, or otherwise
>experience it.  (No sound of trees falling jokes, please! ;)


bingo! i entirely agree. this is the point i was trying to make.


>Consequently, the question of whether Sherman's photography is art cannot be
>universally answered.  It is art to me.  It might be (shallow) art to B.D.
>It isn't art to Nick.  To Benneton it would be an ad campaign.
>
>M


while the question cannot be *universally* answered, it is, to a certain
extent, answered by the majority. duchamp's "fountain" (the once infamous
upside-down urinal) - originally an "anti-art" statement rejected by the
salon des indépendants to which it was submitted - has since been elevated
to the status of art object and has been displayed in museums around the
world, because people's definition of art has broadened to include such
works as art.

interestingly, the "ready-made" is quite appropriate to the present
discussion since its ultimate status depends on our perception, something
duchamp cleverly anticipated. hans richter includes the following statement
on duchamp's ready-mades in his "dada: art and anti-art": [duchamp]
declared that these ready-mades became works of art as soon as he said they
were. when he 'chose' this or that object, a coal-shovel for example, it
was lifted from the limbo of unregarded objects into the living world of
works of art: looking at it made it into art!"

guy