On Sep 14, 2007, at 12:49 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The question you posed is indeed "What is a good picture?" >>>>>>>>>>> a sibling >>>>>>>>>>> to "What is art?" ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :o) that, and "does a good subject make a good picture?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's >>>>>>>> the compositon that makes a shot memorable. But a fascinating >>>>>>>> subject can achieve that as well. And of course sheer beauty >>>>>>>> is always worth a second look. In truth, there is no single, >>>>>>>> narrow definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is "sheer beauty"? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. >>>>> >>>>> The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of >>>>> art, or >>>>> beauty, that is not entirely subjective. >>>>> >>>>> Is that qualitative judgment, "in the eye of the beholder", a >>>>> product >>>>> of nature or nurture? >>>> >>>> There are many definitions of art, and all of them are in some way >>>> subjective. But there can be a consensus. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Your choices are far too limiting. It's a product of many things: >>>> environment, experience, nature, nurture and more. It's quite >>>> simple >>>> really. If it's pleasing to the eye, it's beautiful. To one >>>> individual, that makes it personal art. If the consensus of opinion >>>> finds it beautiful, it can be said to be art. But that is still >>>> somewhat subjective. Because we are unique individuals, the >>>> subjectivity of these kinds of judgments can never be eliminated >>>> completely. However, over time, the consensus can become very broad >>>> and far reaching. >>> >>> Consensus does not change whether something is subjective or >>> objective. Words mean certain things due to a consensus on their >>> meaning, not because a given symbol or utterance has an a priori >>> meaning. >>> >>>> Your choices are far too limiting. It's a product of many things: >>>> environment, experience, nature, nurture and more. >>> >>> The shorthand of "nurture or nature" means "is it something a >>> part of >>> the animal (genetics, physiology, atomic structure, what have >>> you) or >>> a learned behavior (which includes experience, environment, >>> teaching, >>> etc)". There are no other choices to these two classes of kind other >>> than possibly the supernatural, which we have yet to see a proof of >>> existence for. >>> >>>> It's quite simple really. If it's pleasing to the eye, it's >>>> beautiful. To one >>>> individual, that makes it personal art. If the consensus of opinion >>>> finds it beautiful, it can be said to be art. But that is still >>>> somewhat subjective. Because we are unique individuals, the >>>> subjectivity of these kinds of judgments can never be eliminated >>>> completely. However, over time, the consensus can become very broad >>>> and far reaching. >>> >>> Your statement presumes that pleasing equals beautiful, that things >>> considered beautiful are art, and that a consensus of opinion on the >>> beauty of something defines it as art. By your definition, >>> everything >>> can be art, because nearly everything can be pleasing to someone's >>> eye. >>> >>> There is plenty of work out there that is considered art which is >>> not >>> considered beautiful or pleasing to the eye, from virtually every >>> major recognized artist. That would seem to make your definition >>> insubstantial. >>> >>> How do you account for this conflict between consensus of art and >>> your definition of same? >> >> I said no such thing. You're cherry picking. Go back to my original >> post. > > No, I disagree. All your posts are in sequence above. > >> I said that there is no single path to successful photography. > > You said that good pictures come in all shapes and sizes, and in > addition: "... And of course sheer beauty is always worth a second > look. ..." > > I asked "What is sheer beauty?" > > Your response was a circular, subjective support of beauty being > something that you know either by yourself or by consensus with > others, and then you went on to assert that pleasing equals > beautiful, which makes it personal art, and agreement on what is > beautiful by consensus also defines something as art. > > I assert that there is work created by recognized artists and > considered by consensus not to be beautiful which is considered art. > And that this is in contradiction to your definition. > >> The paths >> to great photography are unlimited. That is why it's impossible to >> develop rules or precise measurements. In regard to subjectivity, >> nearly all critics of artistic pursuits — whether the genre be >> painting, music, literature or even that fledging art known as >> photography — agree that consensus -- or the test of time -- is a >> valid measure of artistic merit. It's a basic tenet of criticism in >> all the arts. > > It's you who went down the path of defining art as representing > something recognized as beauty, not I, and deviated from the original > question of "what makes a great picture" when you tossed in that > notion of recognizing sheer beauty. > > How do you define sheer beauty and why is it special? > What is the criteria by which it is recognized? > Why does art have to be beautiful? > Are you asserting that art is ONLY defined by consensus? and that the > only criteria of its definition is consensus on 'something pleasing > to the eye', which is by definition 'beauty'? > > Are Diane Arbus' photographs beautiful? pleasing to the eye? art? > Annie Liebovitz ...? > How about Jackson Pollock's paintings? > or ... ? > > Art has nothing to do with beauty, with "pleasing to the eye", with > consensus.... The criticism and appreciation of art might have a lot > to do with consensus but is not itself art. Art criticism is > judgement, art appreciation is allowing art to enter your senses and > affect you which can have a basis in cultural consensus. > > I posit that: > > 1: Art is intentional and has affect. > > 2: Great photographs capture a likeness, are executed with technical > expertise, express emotion, or convey information. > > 3: There are many great photographs in the world. Most of them are > not art, but some are. How they differ is in how they are conceived > and how they exhibit affect or influence the viewer. > > 4: Likewise there is much great art in the world. Most of it is not > photographs, but some is. Of that subset of art which is photographs, > many are not great photographs by the definition above, but that they > are art can be discerned on the basis of their intent and affect. > > Godfrey > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
