My photography at Deviant Art

[Jules Troy]

"(And an honest photographer essentially might say: Art-Shmart! Will you all leave me alone? I have my own purpose in capturing or depicting what I think are beautiful or significant 'slices of reality'- maybe sometimes my work can come close to "art" - but first and always, a photograph should be true to itself.) "

I never entered into photography to make a career out if it. It is just simply a joy and has become a passion of mine. It is my own subjective belief that if I went out with the sole a of making money at it I would probably starve! Lol there are billions of really good images out there. I am not opposed to making money at it and have actually sold some printed onto wrapped canvas, but that is just a bonus. Perhaps in time it may even pay for itself eventually but again I would still do it if I never made a dime.

[Jonathan]

What of the cave paintings? Is it your view that we can't say if they're art or not, since we can't ask what were the intentions of the persons producing them, or even if those persons had such an idea as "art"?

Yes, technically, we can't know for certain that the cave paintings are art.

In addition to their creators being long dead and having left behind no record of their intentions, the creators were primitive people and were quite limited in their technical knowledge of visuals and drawing, and therefore we can't know if their deviations from reality in the drawings were intentional or not. Aspects that we might see as artistic or expressive might actually be mistakes.

As for a creator not having an idea or concept of "art," I don't know that having one would be required. All that we would need is some sort of indication from him that he was intending to express/emote/affect through his work in a way which complied with our concepts of "art." He wouldn't actually have to use the word "art."

More generally, is it your view that in cases of productions which we might think of as examples of art but in regard to which we lack a statement of intentions, we just have to say, Don't know?

Purely technically, we can't claim to know that something is art if we lack its creator's statement of intentions. Fortunately, most artist do make statements of intentions in one way or another.

We also can't call something art if we can't tell for sure if it was created by a person or by nature. Certain images or patterns might evoke in us an aesthetic effect, and we then might say that if they were created by mankind and for the purpose of evoking such effects, then they are art. And if they were not created by mankind, then they have the same aesthetic effect as a work of art, but are not art.

J

[Jonathan]

Broad brush strokes -

- it appears there's the school of art appreciation that maintains that if you want to know What Art Is:

Ask the artist. i.e. intentionality of the creator is all.

So, if someone were to read We The Living without knowing in advance that it was fiction, and then, after finishing it, asked you if it was a work of art or a documentary, would you accuse him of taking the position that "intentionality of the creator is all"?

Here's a painting:

Without knowing its creator's intentions, identify whether or not it is art. Objectively prove that it is art or that it is not art.

The other "school" objects - not so:

Ask the viewer. i.e. if it has impact on myself, 'artistically', it is art (whether or not the creator of it considered it so.)

Therefore, the concept "art" lies in the consciousness of one or the other.

To be very simplistic, I think Rand maintained that art is a 'collaboration' (if I can call it so) between the consciousness of artist and that of the viewer. In so doing - by her theory- the metaphysical value-judgments of the one are conveyed to and comprehended by the other. (Of course this is prior to making any Romanticist/Naturalist assessment; also, as for its quality, an artwork falling in either category may be brilliant art or bad art.)

No, that's not accurate. Objectivism doesn't require a viewer for something to qualify as art: A work of art would still be a work of art even if its creator were the only person to ever see it.

The first category that you listed above is the position that Objectivism takes: The artist's intentions determine whether or not his work can quality as art -- a work of journalism cannot be art; illustrations cannot be art; any object which was intended to be something other than art cannot be art.

(And an honest photographer essentially might say: Art-Shmart! Will you all leave me alone? I have my own purpose in capturing or depicting what I think are beautiful or significant 'slices of reality'- maybe sometimes my work can come close to "art" - but first and always, a photograph should be true to itself.)

So, in other words, you're saying that your "honest photographer's" intentions are a determining factor in whether or not his photos are art!

J

[anthony]

I don't rightly know what you mean. I first broadly indicated the two schools of thought on art, without making judgment - except that in each, evidently the concept of art lies either in the consciousness of the artist -- or the consciousness of the viewer. Do those schools exist, would you say?

If intentionality is all, a writer then, may claim his journalism IS art; an illustrator, the same.

Likewise, a viewer will claim "I don't know what art is, but I know it when I see it".

In Objectivism, I'd venture that 'art-never-viewed' equals 'value-without-valuer', which is intrinsicist by nature.

Nowhere did I imply that this imagined photographer makes pretentions to art, quite the reverse.

[Jonathan]

Tony,

I think you'd have a better chance of understanding what I'm saying if you were to take into account what I wrote in post #93: "No, my claim is that a creator's statement of intentions is necessary but not sufficient to determining what is art versus non-art. Something could fail to be art or journalism/nonfiction despite its creator's intentions."

Also, the one part of my last post that you didn't address is a key to what I'm saying.

I'll repeat it here:

Here's a painting:



Without knowing its creator's intentions, identify whether or not it is art. Objectively prove that it is art or that it is not art.

J

[anthony]

Nice rendition of an autumn leaf.

"Objectively prove"? You know as well as I, it doesn't meet any criterion of representing the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, if that's what you mean. As a good illustration I'd hang it on my wall.

[BaalChatzaf]

What is Deviant Art? There are only three kinds of art: Art you like, Art you dislike and Art you don't care about one way or the other.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

First, my compliments on your post #102. I think it's excellently clear and to the point.

Second, I think it brings out a difference in your and my respective views on what qualifies a work as being "art." I.e, I think we have a difference of definition.

Here are key wordings in that regard:

Aspects [of the cave paintings] that we might see as artistic or expressive might actually be mistakes.

As for a creator not having an idea or concept of "art," I don't know that having one would be required. All that we would need is some sort of indication from him that he was intending to express/emote/affect through his work in a way which complied with our concepts of "art." He wouldn't actually have to use the word "art."

I don't think of art as primarily defined by expressiveness, emotiveness, desire to affect, although in many cases those are present, but instead by the characteristics of form, the type of structure and organization. Langer's term "presentational form" might cover what I mean. I'm not sure, since it's been a long while since I read Langer's books, but I thought her distinction between "discursive" and "presentational" form was on target when I read her books. In this way of looking at the essential feature of art, there doesn't have to be any "message" or "meaning" property to the work, something being "said," for the work to qualify as art. This is quite different from Rand's view, wherein the expression of "metaphysical value-judgments" is the point and the qualifying requirement.

Tony takes Rand's approach, hence says no to the maple leaf's drawing being art.

You say you can't tell without knowing the intention of the person who drew it.

I say it's art, doesn't matter why it was drawn.

I only have your word for it that the image is a drawing. Best I can tell on my screen, the image might be a photograph. I'd still call it art if so.

However, I would agree with the requirement that it be done by something conscious, not a happenstance of nature.

Thus I'm on board with the first sentence of this paragraph (substituting "conscious being" for "person"), but not with the rest:

We also can't call something art if we can't tell for sure if it was created by a [conscious being] or by nature. Certain images or patterns might evoke in us an aesthetic effect, and we then might say that if they were created by mankind and for the purpose of evoking such effects, then they are art. And if they were not created by mankind, then they have the same aesthetic effect as a work of art, but are not art.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

So, if someone were to read We The Living without knowing in advance that it was fiction, and then, after finishing it, asked you if it was a work of art or a documentary, would you accuse him of taking the position that "intentionality of the creator is all"?

The question was addressed to Tony, but I want to answer it.

I'd say that either the someone was extremely poor at reading whatever language in which the person was reading We the Living, or that the person was reading so incredibly poor a translation as not to be Rand's book.

--

And a question for Tony:

No, that's not accurate. Objectivism doesn't require a viewer for something to qualify as art: A work of art would still be a work of art even if its creator were the only person to ever see it.

In Objectivism, I'd venture that 'art-never-viewed' equals 'value-without-valuer', which is intrinsicist by nature.

So is it your view that if someone writes a novel but then puts it "in a drawer" unread by anyone else, the person hasn't produced an art work?

Ellen

[anthony]

And a question for Tony:

No, that's not accurate. Objectivism doesn't require a viewer for something to qualify as art: A work of art would still be a work of art even if its creator were the only person to ever see it.

In Objectivism, I'd venture that 'art-never-viewed' equals 'value-without-valuer', which is intrinsicist by nature.

So is it your view that if someone writes a novel but then puts it "in a drawer" unread by anyone else, the person hasn't produced an art work?

Ellen

You mightn't believe me - but I have done just that!

Would you accept also that I have a complete symphony in my head?

(Could you believe I keep an elephant in my garden, but only I have seen it?

Uh-uh, I think you'd demand "Show me the evidence!")

Anyway, I thought this was your expressed point of view?

That,(essentially) art needs a viewer to be qualified as art - that the word of an artist is not enough...no?

However: This underscores quite beautifully the sometimes narrow path which Objectivists have to negotiate between subjectivism and intrinsicism.

[anthony]

Ellen, Any time I go near one of these conversations (art, Rand on art) I sense the same thing, which is that it horrifies some respondents that art (as was Rand's thrust) should have anything as expedient, down-to-earth -hell, "real" - as a PURPOSE. It doesn't matter what type of art (here), all honest artists themselves KNOW they have a purpose in what they painstakingly produce. They equally want their works to be known for what they wanted to convey. No less, no more. One cognizant viewer to them is worth 100 admirers who do not fully understand their work. Ask Jonathan, whatever our differences he is one honestly purposeful artist.

Just saying.

[Jules Troy]

What is Deviant Art? There are only three kinds of art: Art you like, Art you dislike and Art you don't care about one way or the other.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

Deviant art is about the worlds largest repository of all forms of art. Some of it is amazing, 99% is crap.

[Ellen Stuttle]

And a question for Tony:

[....]

So is it your view that if someone writes a novel but then puts it "in a drawer" unread by anyone else, the person hasn't produced an art work?

You mightn't believe me - but I have done just that!

Would you accept also that I have a complete symphony in my head?

I can believe that you've done as your say re the example of a novel.

I wouldn't believe you if you said that you had a complete symphony in your head. I'd believe Mozart if he said he did. He sometimes had complete symphonies in his head which he hadn't written down. There are others from whom I'd believe such a report. I have some small compositions in my head which I haven't written down.

Anyway, I thought this was your expressed point of view?

That,(essentially) art needs a viewer to be qualified as art - that the word of an artist is not enough...no?

No, it isn't my view that art needs a viewer to be qualified as art - and the word of an artist is irrelevant to my classifying a work as art. My view is that it's characteristics of a form, a structure, which make something art.

Neither is it my claim - see your post #111 - that people have no purpose in producing art. Instead, that one doesn't have to have a statement of intention from the producer of a work to classify the work as art. Also, more narrowly, contra your view, that one needn't be able to identify "metaphysical value-judgments" in a work to classify the work as art. The large majority of works which I classify as art are works which I don't think are expressing "metaphysical value-judgments," to the extent to which (not a big extent) I take that term to be naming something real.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

"Objectively prove"? You know as well as I...

That's a typically Objectivish mindset: Begin with the completely unwarranted assumption that your limits of knowledge and aesthetic response are necessarily shared by me and everyone else.

...it doesn't meet any criterion of representing the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, if that's what you mean.

The fact that you, Tony, can't experience or identify something in any given work is not proof that no one else can.

I've tested Objectivists many times. When deprived of "outside considerations" (such as titles, names of the artists, biographical information, etc.), Objectivists are incapable of identifying "metaphysical value-judgments" in any work of art, and often times they can't even come up with their own subjective interpretations of subjects or meanings, let alone objectively identify the "artist's meaning." I've never seen even a single Objectivist succeed in meeting the Objectivist criteria for allowing something to qualify as art. I've seen many fail.

With a track record like that, I think it's time for you and them to stop pretending to be the absolute limit of aesthetic sensitivity. If Objectivists insist on lowering standards by appointing themselves the limit of aesthetic sensitivity, the result will be that nothing will qualify as art.

As a good illustration I'd hang it on my wall.

Then apparently you didn't grasp Rand's position on a painting of an apple qualifying as art. Or perhaps you've confused yourself into believing that an image of an apple is somehow totally different from an image of a leaf, and therefore paintings of apples can convey enough information to you that they qualify as art, but paintings of leaves cannot? Or perhaps you're just so obedient to Rand that you'd need her to personally demonstrate to you how an image of leaf can be just like an image of an apple, and to patiently explain to you how an image of a leaf might be idealized and romanticized?

J

[Jonathan]

First, my compliments on your post #102. I think it's excellently clear and to the point.

Thank you!

I don't think of art as primarily defined by expressiveness, emotiveness, desire to affect, although in many cases those are present, but instead by the characteristics of form, the type of structure and organization. Langer's term "presentational form" might cover what I mean. I'm not sure, since it's been a long while since I read Langer's books, but I thought her distinction between "discursive" and "presentational" form was on target when I read her books.

My understanding of Langer is that discursive and presentational forms are just different means of experiencing/sharing/conveying meaning.

In this way of looking at the essential feature of art, there doesn't have to be any "message" or "meaning" property to the work, something being "said," for the work to qualify as art.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that Langer's view is that presentational forms have no meaning, but that they are a different means or route to meaning. They acquire meaning via our emotional responses to our experiencing structural compositions. Instead of dealing in denoting concepts, they deal in the feelings or intuitions that we experience in the forms -- thus my use earlier of "express/emote/affect."

I agree that there need not be a "message," i.e., a specific intended meaning that is translatable to something akin to bluntly concise and artlessly philosophical Randian literary terms. We don't need to experience what the artist may or may not have intended.

This is quite different from Rand's view, wherein the expression of "metaphysical value-judgments" is the point and the qualifying requirement.

Tony takes Rand's approach, hence says no to the maple leaf's drawing being art.

Well, the problem is that Rand had a couple of approaches. In discussing the example of a painting of an apple, she began to explore visual art from a visual arts perspective instead of from a purely literary perspective. She began to understand just some of the ways in which an image of any object could affect viewers, and therefore take on potential meanings. Tony is apparently so "concrete-bound" that he didn't learn anything from Rand's comments on painting an apple, and apparently can't apply the principle to leaves (or any other object) without her direct assistance. He doesn't grasp the principle that Rand was discussing, but instead seems to think that she was talking only about apples. So, apparently, to him, only images of humans and apples can qualify as art, because they are the only specific objects in paintings that Rand identified as qualifying!

You say you can't tell without knowing the intention of the person who drew it.

I say it's art, doesn't matter why it was drawn.

I only have your word for it that the image is a drawing. Best I can tell on my screen, the image might be a photograph. I'd still call it art if so.

I'll do some more thinking on the subject and get back to you.

J

[anthony]

I think, Jonathan, a little less about me, and a little more about art would be useful.

It would seem that your enjoyment is to set aesthetic traps for we Objectivists: less, to explain your position candidly, and much less to totally and comprehensively oppose Rand's position on art. Which in its fundamentals you can't do.

Start helpfully. Seeing you're insisting on me assessing this leaf portrait by Objectivist standards ("proof", whatever that means) why don't you begin by explaining its artist's metaphysical value-judgments -- as you see them. Compare with Rand's statements. And so on.

I see a leaf. An Autumn leaf. Does it signify to the artist the coming of Winter. Does he wish to convey the bleakness of existence? Or Death? Its beautiful -natural- form and structure could be a paean in reverence of the Creator, for all I know. Guessing.

Art - to Objectivism - is a concretization of values, of concepts. If his value-judgments are somewhere buried in the artist's mind, which the viewer has to ambivalently guess at, well then Ellen's view is correct: one makes of an artwork whatever one wants. The work is anything, to anybody.

This discussion stems from my neutral observation earlier that very simply, it seems two broad schools consider either that an artwork is in the consciousness of the artist, or it lies in the consciousness of the viewer. This was highlighted by the difference of opinions between you and Ellen.

I suggest instead that it is both. That its value IS that it has purpose to both.

You guys want to insist that art is largely subjective - be my guest. But then how will you be able to explain it in objective terms?

The purpose of the artist is to convey 'something'(that's implicit) To whom? Why bother? I think this concrete, stylized work is then 'received' by the viewer whose purpose is to find sustenance from that artist's concepts of truth and existence.

Without purposefulness to 'his' truth (however he perceives it, even wrongly) and wishing it to be clearly recognized in his art, the artist has little honesty and integrity. Little honesty, little credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Approach my points impartially, please. If you're looking for someone to lord it over, it isn't going to be me.

[anthony]

And a question for Tony:

[....]

So is it your view that if someone writes a novel but then puts it "in a drawer" unread by anyone else, the person hasn't produced an art work?

You mightn't believe me - but I have done just that!

Would you accept also that I have a complete symphony in my head?

I can believe that you've done as your say re the example of a novel.

I wouldn't believe you if you said that you had a complete symphony in your head. I'd believe Mozart if he said he did. He sometimes had complete symphonies in his head which he hadn't written down. There are others from whom I'd believe such a report. I have some small compositions in my head which I haven't written down.

Anyway, I thought this was your expressed point of view?

That,(essentially) art needs a viewer to be qualified as art - that the word of an artist is not enough...no?

No, it isn't my view that art needs a viewer to be qualified as art - and the word of an artist is irrelevant to my classifying a work as art. My view is that it's characteristics of a form, a structure, which make something art.

Neither is it my claim - see your post #111 - that people have no purpose in producing art. Instead, that one doesn't have to have a statement of intention from the producer of a work to classify the work as art. Also, more narrowly, contra your view, that one needn't be able to identify "metaphysical value-judgments" in a work to classify the work as art. The large majority of works which I classify as art are works which I don't think are expressing "metaphysical value-judgments," to the extent to which (not a big extent) I take that term to be naming something real.

Ellen

Ellen, There is no link between having "to have a statement of intention" [by the artist] --

--and his "intentionality". The very word 'artist' (or builder, or mechanic etc) presupposes intentionality. Of course, a man is not going to explicitly affirm every day: "I am a builder, so I produce buildings."

The novel in a drawer, never to be read by anyone, has no value to anyone because it doesn't (in actuality) *exist*.

The very fact of creating art presupposes a dual purpose, for both artist and art-viewer; it is a purpose which will never be realised if never communicated to a single living being. Therefore, is it "art"?

Frankly, I understand your viewpoint since you have long made it clear. I disagree, but I can at least understand your premises. I'd suggest that it is possible that what you see and appreciate in some art is actually the artist's personal "view". Simply stated, that IS his "metaphysical value-judgement" - isn't it?

[To reiterate just in case, this is all well apart from Naturalism vs. Romanticism.]

[Ellen Stuttle]

If his value-judgments are somewhere buried in the artist's mind, which the viewer has to ambivalently guess at, well then Ellen's view is correct: one makes of an artwork whatever one wants. The work is anything, to anybody.

That isn't my view. Maybe if you'd back up and read again what Jonathan and I respectively have said. Your description of "two broad schools" isn't accurate to what either of us has been saying.

Ellen

[anthony]

"I say it's art, doesn't matter why it was drawn". [Ellen]

#108

[Ellen Stuttle]

In this way of looking at the essential feature of art, there doesn't have to be any "message" or "meaning" property to the work, something being "said," for the work to qualify as art.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that Langer's view is that presentational forms have no meaning, but that they are a different means or route to meaning. They acquire meaning via our emotional responses to our experiencing structural compositions. Instead of dealing in denoting concepts, they deal in the feelings or intuitions that we experience in the forms -- thus my use earlier of "express/emote/affect."

I agree that there need not be a "message," i.e., a specific intended meaning that is translatable to something akin to bluntly concise and artlessly philosophical Randian literary terms. We don't need to experience what the artist may or may not have intended.

By "meaning" I was meaning a specific identifiable referent or point or theme. Presentational forms evoke meaningfulness but not a specific identifiable something being said - although in literature there are aspects of the work which are saying something specific, but the over-all work doesn't state, like an essay would.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"I say it's art, doesn't matter why it was drawn". [Ellen]#108

Tony,

Here's an analogy to what I was saying there:

It doesn't matter why a tree is planted, it's a tree.

Ellen

[anthony]

"I say it's art, doesn't matter why it was drawn". [Ellen]#108

Tony,

Here's an analogy to what I was saying there:

It doesn't matter why a tree is planted, it's a tree.

Ellen

Is that not begging the question, Ellen?

I might say: it's not a tree, but a bush.

It is the ~identity~ of art - and who does the identifying, and by what standards - that's at question here.

[Jonathan]

I think, Jonathan, a little less about me, and a little more about art would be useful.

I wrote quite a bit about art. How did you miss it?!!! Specifically, I referred to Rand's comments on paintings of apples qualifying as art, and the same principle applying to images of leaves. Why didn't you respond to those comments? It's as if you want to avoid the substance while trying to distract readers from that fact by playing victim.

It would seem that your enjoyment is to set aesthetic traps for we Objectivists: less, to explain yourself, and much less to totally and comprehensively oppose Rand's position on art.

Here we have yet another very typical Objectivist tactic: After claiming, in post # 106, to know what I'm thinking, you whine that I'm picking on you and that you're a poor little victim when I address the fact that you don't know what I'm thinking and that I and everyone else are not limited to your thoughts and judgments!

Start helpfully. Seeing you're insisting on me judging this leaf portrait by Objectivist standards ("proof", whatever that means) why don't you begin by explaining the above artist's metaphysical value-judgments: As you see them. Compare with Rand's statements. And so on.

Tony, if I were to use Rand's method to explain to you what I see in the leaf painting, you will dismiss my comments as "guesses" and as "making things up," etc., because I am not Rand.

It's all a game of let's pretend. Objectivists pretend that they can look at a stylized image of an apple, and see, with absolute certainty, the artist's "metaphysical value-judgments" in it. Because Rand told them what they were supposed to see. But when asked to identify the artist's "metaphysical value-judgments" in an image of any other object, suddenly the "conceptual language" of visual art is completely foreign to them. They can make no sense of the image at all. They can only "guess" because, they say, the art is so bad. It's so bad and meaningless that it's not even art!

The truth is that, when tested in reality, they can make no sense of any work of art which hasn't been explained to them ahead of time by Rand.

I see a leaf. An Autumn leaf. Does it signify to the artist the coming of Winter. Does he wish to convey the bleakness of existence? Or Death? Its beautiful -natural- form and structure could be a paean in reverence of the Creator, for all I know. Guessing.

Why are you so fixated on death and bleakness when looking at an image of a leaf which is "brighter and firmer" than one in reality? You're failing to apply Rand's method of judging the apple. Did you not notice that Rand's comments on a still life of apples -- plucked, dead apples -- did not focus on death?

The problem is that Rand isn't around to judge this painting, which is precisely why you can't be certain about it. You would need her to hold your hand and explain why it's just like the image of the apple that she described. Anyone else's attempt to do so will fail with you. Everyone else, including you, is "just guessing." Only Rand had the authority to speak with "objective" certainty.

If his value-judgments are somewhere buried in the artist's mind, which the viewer has to ambivalently guess at...

Which viewer? All viewers? If you have to "ambivalently guess," but everyone else doesn't, which of us is "the viewer"? What if it turns out that Rand didn't have to guess, but you didn't know that she had commented on a painting which you had to guess about?

The purpose of the artist is to convey 'something'(that's implicit) To whom? Why bother? I think this concrete, stylized work is then 'received' by the viewer whose purpose is to find sustenance from that artist's concepts of truth and existence.

Rand's answer was that she wished to convey it to herself. You seem to have a problem with that.

J

[Jonathan]

In this way of looking at the essential feature of art, there doesn't have to be any "message" or "meaning" property to the work, something being "said," for the work to qualify as art.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that Langer's view is that presentational forms have no meaning, but that they are a different means or route to meaning. They acquire meaning via our emotional responses to our experiencing structural compositions. Instead of dealing in denoting concepts, they deal in the feelings or intuitions that we experience in the forms -- thus my use earlier of "express/emote/affect."

I agree that there need not be a "message," i.e., a specific intended meaning that is translatable to something akin to bluntly concise and artlessly philosophical Randian literary terms. We don't need to experience what the artist may or may not have intended.

By "meaning" I was meaning a specific identifiable referent or point or theme. Presentational forms evoke meaningfulness but not a specific identifiable something being said - although in literature there are aspects of the work which are saying something specific, but the over-all work doesn't state, like an essay would.

Ellen

I think that we're largely in agreement, but that I need to rethink a few things.

J