In a recent thread , a request for critiques on a photograph of a highly stylized lighting fixture, someone responded with:

Basically it's a photograph of some else's art. With today's materials and cameras it's impossible to make a bad exposure or out-of-focus picture. What did YOU contribute to it?

At first I thought to respond by saying that an infinite number of photos could be made of a piece of art, and so a photo of it must be art too. I wondered, is a photo NOT a work of art if its subject IS demonstrably art? A photo of the Mona Lisa, straight on, as if for a catalogue or a book on art history, probably we would not call art, per se. But a funny photo of a mob of tourists in front of La Joconde behind her guards and a glass case in the Louvre, that might very well be a nice piece of art. (I'm reminded of a series of great museum photos by someone from Greece- but I can't find his post here- anyone remember?)

I feel as if the quote above implied that the subject determines whether a photograph of it is indeed art.

If John had taken a photo of a common stairwell in his own way, would it be art, whereas if that stairway were part of Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water, maybe a photo of it is no longer art...?

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002

Answers

Tse-Sung:

Excellent point, IMO. I respond by again posting a quote from Ralph Gibson in the interview referenced a few threads earlier: "I don’t have a message. Samuel Goldwin said ‘if you have a message, send a telegram’. I’m doing it for myself to make myself happy and to see how it works."

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 24, 2002.

why are you so concerned with what you call it...?

just shoot and enjoy what you do...worry not

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

hmmm... good question. Beats me.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 24, 2002.

when creating art is not the intent of the photographer and no one else deems it to be art

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), January 24, 2002.

Henri Alan Erwitt said something about that, except I forgot it. At least I think I did. What was it again? Wait a minute... no, I did forget. I really did.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 24, 2002.

Mapplethorpe's "portrait" of Michaelangelo's (spelling?) David - now there's a close call. I don't know it matters what you call it - clearly there's a distinction between photographing as a record and photographing with a creative/artistic intention - just as there's a difference between hard news photojournalism and the stuff Salgado or Ralph Gibson does. Let's say that you need at least an intention on the part of the photographer... (actually maybe this isn't even so). Isn't it a bit like that swing thing "If you need to ask you don't got it"? Looking forward to people getting really aggressive about the non-existence of art etc. People get so weird about all this...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 24, 2002.

I once went to the "philosophy of photography" web site, and it was filled with these kinds of threads. I sometimes wonder why people get so hung up about worrying about what is and isn't art, what's original, etc.. I guess most of us have a need to have our creative side recongnized by others-the fact that photo.net has thousands of images requesting critiques tells me this to be true. My response is, who cares if something is considered art or not (and how exactly is art defined anyway, and by who?), do you enjoy looking at an image or does it move you at all, or is it just a boring photo. A lot of images I take mean something to me, but would not to someone else. They are my "art" for my eyes only.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 24, 2002.

it is my belief that a photograph of another's artpiece is indeed a work of art itself due to the fact that it represents the piece both in/at a particular and unique space and time in the universe.

furthe, when you photograph something, you bring a piece of yourself to it. 1000 different people could photograph the artpiece 1000 different ways. too, photography is often interpretive. they way in which a particular photographer interprets the artpiece will vary from photographer to photographer.

-- Tristan (emulsion71@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

If you are a photographer, it's best not to worry about it. The critics--professional and otherwise--will quarrel about it endlessly.

Is Salgado an artist? Is Cartier-Bresson a journalist?

BTW, the term for a work of art depicting another work of art is "ekphrasis." Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn" is one of the most famous examples of ekphrastic art. Homer, also, has many ekphrastic moments in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Modernists like James Joyce and T.S. Eliot could not write without reference to the art of the past. Such a tradition in western literature is generally thought to be the seeking of authority from the masters of the past. By contrast, post-modern artists seek to destroy or lampoon such notions of authority. Harold Bloom and John Hollander, two academic big guns, have written extensively on these topics.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 24, 2002.

I think it depends on whom you are doing the 'art' for. If you are shooting soley for yourself it doesn't matter if it's terribly original or not - as long as you like it. But if you are doing it for someone else, whether it be commercially or to hang in a gallery, I think the buyer, expects some degree of originality. As well, there can be copywrite issues if you call something yours that is based recongnizably as someone elses work.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

When it's in focus.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), January 24, 2002.

If you photograph a work of art, like FLW's "Falling Water," you are usually seeking to comment it on it in some way and not merely record it. You have established a relationship with that work, and what you do with it is up to you.

You can also photograph an ordinary stairwell for whatever reason compells you.

The nature of the subject in your viewfinder won't determine whether your print could be considered art.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 24, 2002.

A provocative question.

...that I don't spend any time dwelling on.

BTW: I'm going to post another picture of the inside of the "RED ROOM" at the AGO. I used a unique perspective to take a picture of other people's ART. Should stir up some controversy too. Sheesh, I never said that the previous post was ART. I merely said that the arrangement of lights and the ceiling caught my attention and I took a SNAP.

I hate it when I'm misquoted.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

Perhaps the issue of whether the viewer percieves an image as Art depends on if the image reinterprets the subject. For example, a person standing nude isn't Art. A person standing nude but representing a theme could be a dancer (Artist) or performance Artist. A photograph of a nude for a medical journal would probably not be considered Art unless the image were reinterpreted with a different meaning (irony, humor, pathos). A photograph af a posed nude by an Artist would be considered Art, but it's success as Art would depend on if others caught the meaning. The success of the artist is measured by the number of people who find the photo's meaning worthwhile. An artist who doesn't care what the public thinks is what we call a "starving artist" because he or she doesn't modify the message of the Art to have meaning to more people. A "successful" artist creates images that have meaning to others. Wright's "Falling Water" reinterprets how we percieve a house. A photo of Fallingwater will either interpret it as Wright's Art or reinterpret it in a new way. The best architectural photography perhaps adds some insight seen by the photographer beyond the architects intent. I feel that the question of whether or not a photo is Art depends both on the artist AND the viewer. What's more important: is it Art or is it GOOD Art? Cheers, Pat.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 24, 2002.

Personally I'm more interested in whether it's a good _photo_, which is not a requirement for art.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 24, 2002.

And let's not forget the great line in the movie "The Year of Living Dangerously" when a press photog. is shown a photo of a nude and asked if it's pornography or Art. Without even looking at the photo, he said, "If it's in focus, it's porn; if it's out of focus, it's Art." ;^) Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), January 24, 2002.

When is photography NOT art?

When it's a clock.......or a fish.

-- Salvador Dahli (philkneen@manx.net), January 24, 2002.

This is actually quite a serious topic because in some cities here (Cincinnatti comes to mind) they tried to ban an exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe's images as being gentrified porn.

There's another artist (Wegman? I forget the name) who photographs children, sometimes in the nude, and a lot of people consider these to be kiddie porn.

One thing's for certain, this debate will never end.

My definition of art is, "whatever I like," so in the end it is a subjective matter, and indulging in groupthink ends up reducing acceptable art to whatever Disney tells us is art, or whatever the highbrow art critics tell us is art. In either case a losing proposition because the bottom line is that *I* am not the one making the choice. For example, I don't think any art is worth $50,000,000 or whatever the French impressionists command these days, but then again I don't have $50,000,000 in my bank account. That's another dimension to this question. Whatever Christie's (or Sotheby's) says is art, is art.

As I said to an old boss of mine while semi-drunk during dinner, "I don't know anything about art but show me a good looking woman in a tight pair of jeans any day."

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), January 24, 2002.

This topic is getting too complicatad for me:

Where is the matching photo by Mike Dixon? Please show us something to go with this ...

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 24, 2002.

There's another artist (Wegman? I forget the name) who photographs children, sometimes in the nude, and a lot of people consider these to be kiddie porn.

Wegman photographs his dog (yawn). So no naked beasts there except for the canine variety. Sally Mann does nudes of children, so does Jock Sturges. Both are highly respected in the art world, but get into a lot of trouble.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002.

He might be thinking of David Hamilton as well.

Regarding the initial topic of whether ". . . the subject determines whether a photograph of it is indeed art," I'd say no. The viewer determines whether a photograph (or whatever) is art.

I agree that the useful question is "Is it any good?" Even that gets a bit tricky since a photo that works well for a particular application may suck in a different context.

And to make K.G. happy, illustrate my point, and engage in yet another round of shameless self promotion, I present the following set of photos. Is it glamour? Is it fine art? Is it erotica? Is it soft porn? Is it just a series of drunken snapshots? (These questions are purely rhetorical.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 24, 2002.

it's spelled "Michelangelo" (no "a" between "h" and "e").

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

Hats off to Pat Dunsworth for a truly satisfying answer.

I'd have said, photography is not art when a paintbrush is not art, or when welding isn't; in other words , when the tool or the process is considered separately form the way in which it's used.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 24, 2002.

I don't know what art is, but if Mike Dixon's photography is an example, I do like it!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), January 25, 2002.

... as you can see, Mike, you are not only making me happy! Thank you once more for a stunning example of your art.

But try to be honest, you are the one to be proud and happy, to be able to present the results of your art to us. The most happy person in this round is the artist, IMO.

Good shooting

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 25, 2002.

Actually, I object to calling photography "art." Photography is something more immediate, more vital--and infinitely less pretentious: quite simply, a record. When photography becomes "art" it becomes safe, sterile and predictable: the lifeless "fine-art" photography genre.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 25, 2002.

Peter

Is your shot self-consciously "non-art"?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Pete - excellent picture. All that sterile stuff is just sterile stuff (no matter who calls it what). Your picture is more than just a record. Maybe we could decide on "photograph" as opposed to "snap shot" to mark our appreciation..? A.A. used to say he "made" a photograph rather than "took" it but that always struck me as a bit awkward/self-concious/pretentious etc.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 25, 2002.

I'm with Peter -- whenever I hear the term "fine art" applied to photography, I start getting drowsy. I'll take my art "rough," not "fine." Hell, let's just dispense with the word "art" altogether, since there's no widely agreed-upon definition, and much of what is called art is just crap, IMO.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), January 27, 2002.

Sorry Dexter, but it's spelled "Mikedixonangelo".

-- Hil (hegomez@aol.com), January 28, 2002.