Re: what makes a photograph art...

[Paul Stenquist]

That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works 
hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. 
It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or 
straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between 
personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it 
is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, 
it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other 
layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different 
pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work 
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great 
art: a classic.
Paul
On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote:

Background: I bought Bill Fortney's "Great Photography Workshop" book 
a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called 
"Developing  The Creative Edge in Photography" by Bert Eifer. That 
book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes 
a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and 
are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions:

art pleases the eye
art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony
art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life
art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these 
definitions. Do you disagree with any of them?

Tom Reese