Rhetorical Question: When does a photograph become "art?"

"Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available" (whoistheleader2) 02/17/2020 at 10:00 • Filed to: art, question, photography, Lego

0

28

**NOT CAR CONTENT**

I took this photo on a whim. I placed the Lego set (not my own creation) by the window on a bright day and photographed it through the removable roof. However, due to the tricks of the light, the photo is sufficiently different in form from its subject that it is difficult to identify without study.

By most accounts, it is transformative, and therefore meets a loose definition of “art.” However, the subject was built from prefabricated bricks and the organization is of someone else’s design. Is it then “original art?” I have never seen (though surely it exists) micro scaled Lego photography apart from stop motion animation. Is it then my (hasty) artistic vision that defines the piece or its rigid adherence to a mass produced design that is out of my domain?

This photograph is much less clear, and defines the principle difficulty in judging the subjective. Is it even art at all? It has none of the striking features of symmetry and contrast that blur your understanding of the former. The sole interest is its micro perspective. The composition is once again the primary action on my part, but this much more illustrative.

So, what do you think? Are any of these “art?” If so, are they “original?”

notsomethingstructural > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 10:07

5

Photos are art as soon as they’re printed/published/shared. Attempting to identify a bar for art strips the agency from the artist. In other words, it’s art because you said it is. Congratulations to oppo’s newest artist!

Note: not all art is good

Aremmes > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 10:30

1

Have you asked the art decider ? That could help.

ttyymmnn > notsomethingstructural 02/17/2020 at 10:31

1

Note: not all art is good

That’s a rather subjective observation, and I find it’s best to stay away from that sort of thing. I teach middle schoolers how to play trumpet (I play professionally myself). Whenever I ask them to critique their playing, they almost invariably say, “That was bad.” Or some such statement. I implore them to be critical without criticizing. In other words, their playing was either too loud or too soft, unfocused, displayed unclear articulation, chipped too many notes. These are all critical observations that give us information that we can use to make the playing better. “Bad” or “awful” give us no information at all. Neither does “good.”

I once asked an epicurean friend, “What is a good bottle of wine?” He said, “A good bottle of wine is one that you like.” Therefore, I would argue that the goodness or badness of any piece of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Now. All that being said, yes, not all art is good. But then again, all generalizations are lies. 

ttyymmnn > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 10:32

0

You would first have to define the word “art.” Good luck. 

Nibby > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 10:34

2

when it has a ford tempo in it

Nibby > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 10:34

1

you are art

ttyymmnn > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 10:35

2

Actually, I’m Tim, but I once knew a guy named Art. 

Nibby > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 10:45

1

ttyymmnn > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 10:57

0

Now that is art. I think.

Nibby > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 11:01

1

what about this

ttyymmnn > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 11:07

0

Definitely art. 

DipodomysDeserti > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 11:22

1

Obviously you don’t tell a kid their playing is bad, but playing too loud, too soft, out of key...etc does create technically “ bad”  music. 

My wife is an art teacher and the same is true for visual arts. There are certain technically aspects to visual arts which can make something objectively bad. However, a creation can be technically good, but aesthetically displeasing, depending on the tastes of individuals. That’s where subjectivity comes in.

Nibby > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 11:24

0

thank you

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 11:26

0

Definitely avant garde art, which is displeasing to prove a point

ttyymmnn > DipodomysDeserti 02/17/2020 at 11:27

0

I just really hate the word “bad.” I’ve got one student who is so convinced that everything he does is bad that he is unable to see when he plays well. I f a student plays something well I would probably say, “That was good!” so I suppose it would be acceptable to tell them it was bad if it were warranted. Still, as I said, saying something is bad doesn’t give us any information on what to do to make it good. One might say that a work of art is bad, but then I would expect that person to be able to tell me why.

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 11:27

1

Actually, I saw a very clean Ford Tempo yesterday. Sadly, there was nothing artist ic about it.

ttyymmnn > Nibby 02/17/2020 at 11:28

0

Is that a Nibby original? 

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > Aremmes 02/17/2020 at 11:30

1

Hmmm, good suggestion but I don't have a Twitter

Aremmes > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 11:36

1

Neither do I, I know the feels.

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > Aremmes 02/17/2020 at 11:39

2

The way it should be, since there are enough Twitter twats in the world

Aremmes > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 11:41

1

Stupid Kinja, I keep clicking on the star but it won’t increment past 1.

Nibby > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 12:02

1

yes sir

Nibby > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available 02/17/2020 at 12:03

1

all tempos are art

notsomethingstructural > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 13:04

1

The absence of good is not an abundance of bad; I didn’t say bad. I t was also meant primarily as a joke. I think the first photo is actually very good. IMO the divide between good and bad art is that it resonates with its intended audience. That it evokes what its intended to, from who it’s intended to evoke it from, even if that’s rage or confusion. Ironically, under that definition, something could still be considered good art if it intended to make a given audience believe it is bad art.

Not here nor there but you’re also lumping all forms of criticism under a single umbrella, and that’s not reasonable. Criticism as a means of coaching is not the same as criticism of a finished work. The former is intended to make it more likely someone will produce “good” art; the latter is a referendum on the success or failure of the effort. If you pay to go to the Philharmonic it’s a little late to say “OK but we need more from the violas for next time ”. There is no next time to the people who already paid! You just say the violas were noticeably too quiet in the second movement and it impacted the performance . It’s a pples and oranges to coaching kids through self-confidence woes.

ttyymmnn > notsomethingstructural 02/17/2020 at 13:14

0

I was not my intent to sound like I was lecturing. I was j ust trying to expand the conversation.

IMO the divide between good and bad art is that it resonates with its intended audience. That it evokes what its intended to, from who it’s intended to evoke it from, even if that’s rage or confusion. Ironically, under that definition, something could still be considered good art if it intended to make a given audience believe it is bad art.

Very well said. I would suggest that the very fact that we are discussing the photograph (or any work) makes it art. I often wonder, though, what puts , say, a Jackson Pollock, into the pantheon of great art. F or Pollock, I would argue that timing had a lot to do with it. But if I were to fling/dribble a bunch of paint on a canvas, however intentionally I did it, it would not come near to what Pollock did.

Criticism as a means of coaching is not the same as criticism of a finished work.

You are correct, and I understand and appreciate your argument. Having just done a performance of Pictures at an Exhibition (Funtek, not Ravel), I have to ask, “There were violas in it?” You can always use more viola, but when the brass is letting loose, they are so much window dressing.

/apologies if you are a viola player...

notsomethingstructural > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 13:32

1

former brass player, all good

notsomethingstructural > ttyymmnn 02/17/2020 at 13:41

1

Oh - and also - like I said, it’s really art if he wants it to be art or says it’s art . I think if we’re discussing it then it’s more likely to be good art. I think it’s good art because of its work with perspective and focus - e.g., at first glance it’s not clear if you’re looking at a wall, floor, or ceiling - and that there’s sort of an illusion where there’s obvious light coming through the bigger windows but there’s still a scattering on the floor you have to look for the source. I think the balance of colors is good and the hues of pink through the smaller light source that aren’t visible anywhere else create a lot of visual interest.

ttyymmnn > notsomethingstructural 02/17/2020 at 13:46

0

Agreed on all points. I didn’t know it was Lego until he said it.