Re: [Leica] What is fine art photography?

[Nick Poole <nick.botton@camphill.org.uk>]

>Nick Poole jotted down the following:
>
>>  Taken at face value, it merely reduces Sherman's photography to 'a
>>  commentary onŠ' or a 'critique of'.  I have to admit I'm not an
>>  admirer of her work, but that isn't the point - the original question
>>  was whether or not it is art. That her work is a very personal
>>  expression of her feelings about the world is beyond question, but
>>  does that make it art?
>
>The problem with this discussion is that no-one has offered a definition of
>"art".  So far, we are arguing about the meaning of a sound, presumably all
>with diffuse, incomplete, and differing understandings of what that sound,
>"art", represents.
>
>I myself am aware that I do not have a clear, unambiguous understanding of
>what "art" is.  I have no problem of seeing "a commentary on" or "a critique
>of" as attributes or characteristics which a piece of art can have.  I
>disagree that "it mearly reduces Sherman's photography", but I don't
>understand what you mean by "taken at face value".
>
>I agree that "art" is something more than simply critique or commentary, but
>am unsure of what exactly this "more" consists of.  I *think* I recognize it
>when I see it, but I'm not sure.
>
>And yet, at some level, the question is meaningless.  Does it matter if it
>is art?  Perhaps art lies in the intentionality?  If it was created with the
>intention of being a piece of art, then it is art.
>
>Or, perhaps art lies in absence of utility.  If it cannot be used for
>anything else except as an aesthetic experience, then it is art.  Could we
>sell clothes with Sherman's photography?  (Well, Benetton probably could ;)
>No?  Well, then it must be art.
>
>M.
>
>--
>Martin Howard              | "Computers let you make more mistakes faster
>Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU| than any other invention in human history,
>email: howard.390@osu.edu  | with the possible exception of handguns and
>www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ | tequila"                -- Mitch Radcliffe.
>                            +---------------------------------------------
Martin,

I did say I knew of no workable definition for what constitutes art! 
And I suspect there is none, or none that we'd all agree on, simply 
because perceptions and values change with each age. The musical 
interval of the second was once thought evil and medieval composers 
studiously avoided it. But today?

That you feel we are arguing about the meaning of a sound is a 
problem we always face when entering the realm of semantics - nothing 
can be defined without reference to something else, for which another 
sound stands proxy. So what are we to do? Like you, I do not know 
what the *more* in art should be, so perhaps the question is finally 
beyond resolution.

However, if we define art only in terms of intentionality, then any 
construct (no matter how apparently meaningless) becomes art simply 
because its creator intended it so. I have difficulty accepting such 
a reduction. Nor do I think art lies in the absence of utility, 
unless one narrows the term to mean an everyday item having some 
prosaic use. In my view, the utility (usefulness) of art lies in its 
ability to enhance/elevate human experience, whatever you may feel 
that means! ;-), and I made a stumbling attempt to explain it in my 
earlier post.

I meant no disrespect to you in my phrase 'taken at face value', only 
that I felt the meaning of art photography to be wider than its 
relevence as social commentary, and I hoped to broaden what is for me 
at any rate a topic of abiding interest. (Actually, I hate theorising 
about art for I believe it appeals to far more than the head, but I 
know you never suggested any such thing!)
Nick.