Painting From Life vs. From Photos
Proposed definition of art:
Art is the visual representation of that which people find important at an emotional level.
Here is Steve‘s reaction:
If so, every snapshot of your boyfriend/girlfriend at a photo booth is art. Every representation of a car is art. Every dog or cat image ever produced by any means is art. The definition becomes so all-encompassing it’s useless.
Why useless? If a photographer or (photo booth) accomplishes the same essential function today that required a skilled artist in the past, why do we need to change the meaning of the word ‘art’? Bread once was produced with intense manual labor. Now it is made by machines. The function of the bread is the same. Why should we change the definition of the word ‘bread’?
The proposed definition of art says that art is what it always has been. If an image of what you find important is made in a photo booth, why is it less art than if it was painted by an artist? Because the artist takes more trouble to produce the image and charges more? If only that were true! But in reality, the photo serves the function of art. Why pretend otherwise? The question of importance is, is that photo any good? Can a painter make something so extraordinarily special as to justify the extra cost? If the painting costs more, it should be because it has something extra to offer, not because of some art brand label.
The power of art, if any, must be in the work itself, not the word ‘art’.
Very muddled, Karl, at least as I read it. First you seem to argue for the validity of your definition of art, then you conclude by saying the definition is irrelevant, only the work matters. I’m close to agreeing with your final statement, except for what I thought was the whole point of your previous post, namely that calling something “art” seems to confer special status in the “art world” you’re tilting at.
Since nobody has produced a visual representation that nobody finds it important to make, i.e. cares about in some way (I take caring as emotional), all visual representations are art by Karl’s definition. If that’s the case, calling such a representation art makes no distinction, says nothing new, and that’s why I consider it meaningless. I’m overstating the case, but the point should be clear.
“Art” has always been a social construction. That doesn’t mean it’s at all easy to define, especially in words. Karl has proposed a definition that I find at odds with both my general sense of the conventional meaning and my personal definition. But maybe Karl is right. All those in favor of the new definition, say aye!
Muddled is kind; I am so perplexed that I am becoming EMOTIONAL.
Muddled is kind
Well, that’s what happens when you take too long a vacation from blogging!
Let’s see, I do not conclude that the definition is irrelevant. I conclude that the power, importance of a particular work comes from the quality of the work, not the category art. The category art is too broad to convey special status. But it is not without meaning.
I do not say that all visual representations are art. For example, an instruction manual for putting together a sofa has no emotional importance, so it is not art. Also, I would argue that some abstract painting that is really no more than a painter’s version of a psychophysical demonstration is not art. A picture that is a cute trick is not art, because being neat is not the same as having power at an emotional level.
Anyway, I’ll post a photo above without any words, maybe that will distract people…
I thought was the whole point of your previous post, namely that calling something “art” seems to confer special status in the “art world” you’re tilting at.
Calling something “art” conveys a special status nowadays, yes. But I am saying this should not be so. All I am saying is that the word “art” in itself is pretty mundane. It applies equally well to a photo booth photo and to The Night Watch. If we want to distinguish between the two (and who knows, this photo booth photo we are talking about might be better than Rembrandt), then we have to look at the work. But at least the word art, under the definition that I propose, allows us to directly compare the two. We do not say, “photo booth photos are not art, therefore we cannot compare them to Rembrandt.”
Steve, history is on my side. Art was once thought of as just another craft. The magical-religious connotations of the word are a later addition. Like most magical-religious connotations, those of art are not doing us any good. Why should we accept the wishy-washy superstitious concept of art as some kind of higher form? If a particular work is sublime, then it is sublime. I’m only saying, let’s take the mystery out of the category label.
The word “art” is used to denote a broad range of activities, objects and experiences that we don’t know what else to call. It’s very general and inclusive. The word “art” is also used to suggest a high level of accomplishment or quality. So it’s confusing, because it’s one word used in two very different (and contradictory) ways.
In the first sense, I’d say art is anything anyone says it is.
In the second sense, I think that art has to capacity, in its highest form, so provide that which is missing. And “that which is missing” may change over time.
The basis of Karl’s angst seems to be that there are people who decide to call art whatever they think they can sell as art, and people who would buy it because it is called art. Perhaps so, but I’m inclined to say let ’em. I suppose I should complain because no critic or gallerist at the moment is calling my art art, and therefore I’m denied a shot at fair compensation. I’d rather figure out some responses with greater chance of success.
I can’t tell if the current London art scene described at Winkleman is good or bad in Karl’s view.
Virtually all of the stuff that gets called art serves the emotional (and other) needs of somebody. The fact that much of it may not serve Karl’s doesn’t make it bad art, much less not art at all.
The point I am trying to make is really quite simple. It is no more or less muddled than Arthur’s “Art as World Building” concept. But what I am saying runs into resistance because it challenges some of our accepted values. Most of the comments above show almost a willful effort to misunderstand what I am saying.
Anyway, I’ll just shrug off the criticism and continue.
As I said, in the past, artists created art to fulfill certain needs. In modern times, those needs are mostly filled using high tech, and the products are not even considered as “art.” The family photo album is the perfect example.
Also in modern times, there are artists who continue to use the same materials as were used by artists in the past — oil on canvas, for example. We like to pretend that the stuff these artists make is art. The reasoning seems to be, well, if they are using the same materials as in the past, and doing apparently the same kinds of activities, then the result must be art, right? It is not an unreasonable argument. The problem comes in when the artists begin to get the illusion that the snapshots that make up the photo album, or the films in the movie theaters are not art (even though they fulfill the traditional needs that art fulfilled in the past). To get this illusion is to loose sight of what we are really competing with. Art of the past really did something for people. The photo album of today really does something for people. What service does the painter provide today? If it is not something as compelling and powerful as the snapshot, the artist should not be surprised that the work doesn’t earn a living wage.
If we want to pretend that by painting on canvas, we make art, whereas simple snapshots are not art, it might make us feel good, but it will not convince people to desire the work. Well, to a certain extent it will — this is the function of the Art World, to create the illusion that art is intrinsically valuable, something that exists for its own sake, which we should feel honored to own. But this really only fools wealthy collectors who have already satisfied all of their other material desires and are in the market to buy some prestige.
In other words, to deny the artistic function of mundane things like family photos is a kind of weakness that blocks us from thinking about what we really need to do to make art made with traditional materials something important again. What is it that we need to do? We need to look at our materials and our methods of working and ask, how are these things powerful, as compared to the digital camera or the movie camera or computer generated graphics image?
The answer to me is pretty obvious: working with a powerful medium like oil paint allows the artist, with enough concentration, to study their minds, their thoughts, their deepest feelings in a way that higher technological media do not — or at least, do not do better. Probably everyone has tried “painting” a bit in photoshop. Is this not a profoundly impoverished medium compared to oil paint?
The human mind is the most complex thing that we know of in the universe. Written language is a means to study and express what the mind, the imagination and feelings of the individual can do. Painting with oil on canvas I believe is equally powerful. Unlike writing, however, a lot of what painting can do can now be done better with automated techniques. But the most interesting things about the mind and feelings cannot be photographed. This is the arena where the artist can compete successfully with mundane devices like photo booths. But until we give up the silly notion that the photo booth cannot fulfill some of the needs that traditional art once fulfilled, how can we focus on finding that which we as artists do that goes beyond?
This may be naive of me, but it seems to me that when modern time artists put oil to canvas, they’re trying to communicate something of emotional import. They might be more or less successful, but the intent is almost always there. In other words, I think art has an ability to survive ArtTM. Not that commercialism can’t damage or obscure, but I think you simply have to learn to look beyond these things when necessary.
Incidentally, it might be worth pointing out that such things as photography, film and computer graphics are widely considered on par with painting in some contexts.
But until we give up the silly notion that the photo booth cannot fulfill some of the needs that traditional art once fulfilled
Nobody is pushing this notion. I, at least, am simply saying that I don’t define art solely according to the needs of the consumer that are satisfied. To me, that powerful thing the artist does also matters. It matters not only to nature of the resulting object — we certainly agree there — but to whether I’m willing to call it art. If someone wants to call an automated snapshot art, fine. Thinking about what a painter, say, can do differently, is a much more useful reaction in my opinion.
If someone wants to call an automated snapshot art, fine.
Warhol did.
Fine.
Karl,
At the risk of stirring the pot up even more, I feel a need to respond.
“Most of the comments above show almost a willful effort to misunderstand what I am saying.”
I was lost from the beginning myself :)
“But until we give up the silly notion that the photo booth cannot fulfill some of the needs that traditional art once fulfilled, how can we focus on finding that which we as artists do that goes beyond?”
I have given up that notion. I think anyone paying attention to art of the last 50 plus years has discarded (or at the very least questioned) the notion of certain mediums being more valid than others. You assume we are hanging onto to certain conventions and you are questioning them for us. Maybe you are hanging onto these conventions?
I guess what I feel most disturbed about is what I am perceiving as your implication that some artists are trying to “fool” collectors into thinking if they dab some paint on a canvas it is Art with a capital A. It just seems so cynical and would encompass such a tiny number of artists as to be insignificant in my mind. While artists are not immune to the seductiveness of what the market wants out of them, I think most struggle for a balance of some kind.
I am reminded of criticism Whistler received for his “Nocturne in Black and Gold” painting. John Ruskin wrote,”I have seen, and heard, much of cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.” The suspicion of Turner as trying to trick or fool the public with this work feels similar to what you are accusing the ArtistTM of doing.
I am reminded of criticism Whistler received for his “Nocturne in Black and Gold” painting.
My favorite part of the ensuing lawsuit (Whistler vs. Ruskin) was when Whistler was asked how long the painting took him to do. He answered (paraphrased) “it only took an hour to paint, but it took a lifetime to become the artist who could do so.”
Wikipedia says that Ruskin had bouts of mental illness already five years before wrote his scathing review of Whistler.
It does not strike me as highly intelligent of Whistler to fight Ruskin in a lawsuit.
The real risk in this argument is trying to put a definition on art. As Arthur said, all artists, to some degree or another, are trying to forge an emotional connection. The method and medium for that connection can vary wildly, of course, but the premise is that for something to be art there must be an emotional investment. However, even that broad definition falls into the trap of including things that most would not consider art: snapshots, postcards, etc. So here we begin along the aforementioned rhetorical cul-de-sac. The only acceptable escape is to allow that every bit of visual information that exists to be viewed has the potential to be art.
With that condition as the starting point, it becomes very easy to see that the artists we associate most with tearing down the wall between “high” and “low” are really just adept at framing the debate. You can be fooled by Warhol’s affected boredom if you like but no slacker could achieve what he did without true emotional commitment to the work. It comes down to what the artist can induce you to believe; if the artwork needs no sales pitch, then you call him/her a visionary or a master or discuss their place in the art-historical canon. However, if you must be told why the work is important then the artist is not concerned with technique or composition but rather with purely manipulating perception (even as you debate their place within the art-historical canon).
That seems a bit rambling as I go back over it. The point is this: context is everything. At the end of the day, everything we perceive visually is essentially just light bouncing around. Does it really matter whether or not it’s bouncing off art?
…context is everything
I couldn’t agree more.
Leslie,
I can see how you get the interpretations you do form my words, but these interpretations are not really the direction or emphasis I am making at all. No doubt, long ago we accepted that a medium like photography can be art. That’s not my point, of course.
Everyone:
I think this is a great discussion, but I also feel we are about at the limits of what blogging can do, or at least, what I can do with blogging. I just can’t seem to get my point across. I realize that some of you are getting annoyed with me, but you are not getting annoyed about the things I am really trying to say. This is my failure, I realize. Maybe I’ll try again another day.
Geoff,
Bravo! Down with definitions!
To be fair, I think Karl is trying to use his hypothetical definition as a tool to illuminate the difference between making art and framing the debate. To be unfair, he’s cast a lot of dark on the question so far. Or I have.
Steve,
I agree. I think it is a distinction that needs to be explored. Though it’s true that everything can be art, not everything is.
Karl,
To me, the crux of your position is this:
“The power of art, if any, must be in the work itself, not the word ‘art’.”
Please correct me if I have it wrong but I believe you are saying that the medium and message are somewhat irrelevant. What is essential is that the artist just work, period. Emotional connection, blah blah blah…none of it matters if the artist does nothing. Even spending all day theorizing is working to some degree. An artist must be consumed with art for the work he/she produces to be labeled as such. This work ethic and devotion are what defines the distinction between art and simple nostalgia.
You could be the greatest painter in history but if you never painted no one would know.
I, at least, am simply saying that I don’t define art solely according to the needs of the consumer that are satisfied.
Steve,
This is a very interesting statement. Let’s think of it from the buyer’s point of view. The buyer will say, “Why should I pay extra for something that is supposed to fulfill some needs that are not my own, just because it is art?”
If the art is doing something beyond satisfying the needs of the consumer, then who should be paying for that? One side argument I have been making is that in fact the art is satisfying the needs of the consumer, but that the consumer today tends to be the artist him- or herself. That is, the artist is both creator and patron. This might seem like trying to put a happy frame around a lot of unsold work. Alternatively, it might be the right way to look at what the art world is really about today. Imagine the we as artists really are the art world. It is a scary and wonderful thought. It implies that we have much greater responsibilities than we realized.
Geoff,
I like what you are saying. It is not really a summary of what I wrote above, or even an interpretation, but it is very much where I wanted to go in the discussion.
If we are willing to accept that art is a very broad category, we are faced with the reality of our difficulty, and also our opportunities. We are not only competing with other “artists” but with people who make magazines and movies.
How can an individual with a canvas and a paintbrush possibly succeed in such a competition? The answer, what we have seen from the past, is that an artist with a paintbrush can do miraculous things, almost create miracles. But to do this will require an intense level of devotion. Let’s not get stuck on the issue of the number of hours per day. It is more the depth of the commitment. How to find that and use it is the key question.