Guy

I have always internally defined this to myself as a “walk up and click” type of shot, with no consideration of the light, no consideration of arrangement of elements in a scene, it is a pure transfer of the scene that was witnessed, the typical snapshot. Naturally, some things are just going to be beautiful given the right time and place.

Conscious choice of inclusion or exclusion is where this becomes blurrier to me in your meaning. It is not always obvious in the end result. It seems like you are saying unless it is obvious, and unless you have a clear idea of the emotional connection of the photographer, that it is just another piece of found beauty. Is an elegant composition intrinsically more artistic if I tweak it more to my liking in post processing just to make it look different than reality? Is a composition that utilizes Fibonacci’s Ratio inherently more artistic than one that doesn’t? If you would argue yes, then isn’t such a thing merely applying a formula? If no, then would some of the famed historical artwork (paintings, etc) that rely heavily on this ratio be simply representational?

I don’t claim to have answers to any of this. The more I think about it, the more questions I develop.

Art also is often not logical, thus an intellectual discussion about it, has its limitations and can eventually wind up going in circles, or at least into circular logic. Though I do feel that many of the points made by Guy and others above are important. Guy, I notice that in this post you clarified your own thinking, which can help others do the same. I feel it also is beneficial to remember that our thoughts are not necessarily worth believing absolutely or holding exactly the same over time.

We are each individual and our definitions of art will vary. I still say that in some contexts, it’s all art. In other contexts, only a small amount of the photography, painting, sculpture or any other genre produced today, or in any age, is art. How do I differentiate between what is and is not art? I know it when I see it. Also, I reserve the right to change my mind later.

As far as process, I feel Jim Bullard’s description of his approach to photographing is the closest to how my father looked at it. Edward Weston said, “I am not trying to express myself through photography, impose my personality upon nature (any manifestation of life) but without prejudice nor falsification to become identified with nature, to know things in their very essence, so that what I record is not an interpretation—my idea of what nature should be—but a revelation or a piercing of the smoke-screen artificially cast over life by irrelevant, humanly limited exigencies, into an absolute, impersonal recognition.” I feel it would be an error to consider that Edward Weston’s photography is NOT art because of his approach to it.

Joe, I agree with your assertion that sometimes only the photographer knows. My intent is not to arrive at a legal binding definition, but to frame the discussion so all of us can be more clear about how we represent our own work without prejudice.

Despite some philosophies (e.g., Miksang) suggesting that creative photography can be completely instinctive, I respectfully disagree. Instinct and intuition may play the key role in forming the concept for an image (see my definition in Rethinking Visualization) but I contend that this concept will never assume a tangible form if instinct doesn’t give way to conscious, technical considerations at some point in the process.

I’d also like to suggest that photography that uses instinct or intuition is not necessarily non-artistic, even if we accept the Webster’s definition of “conscious use of … creative imagination.” The reason – in my opinion, instinct and intuition can be developed by a well-seasoned photographer who practices their creative imagination such that some compositions and exposure settings are learned enough that they become instinctive to that photographer. In that regard, the instinct can be a product of creative imagination. I’m not suggesting a photographer should rely solely on their instinctive creativity, though in certain circumstances (like rapidly changing light conditions) this instinctive creativity will get a shot where conscious creativity may not.

I think ‘conscious use of .. creative imagination’ is a continuum though. And my question is to what degree, how do we delineate that, to define something like art? Even in the examples you mentioned, I’d propose that those photographers are deliberating, somewhat. Likely not to the extent of some others, but I don’t think that is necessarily a key component.

Art isn’t a mathematical problem, which is kinda where this rationale seems to point.

The photo looks wonderful here on the site, I’m sure the print is a real treat.

Cheers

Carl