# Becoming an 'artist'



## The_Traveler

People at the very top of their profession are often referred to as 'artists', implying that they are somehow above the technical issues of other craftsmen.

I have always been interested in this designation and it has occurred to me that, since the appellation of 'artist' is usually conferred by other people and much of the time those other people don't know much, that there are things each of us can do to speed up or optimize our path to 'artist-hood'.

I have done some investigating and these are my suggested 5 steps to being an artist.

1) external appearance is really important so, to be taken seriously, one's external appearance is crucial. Thus dress in sombre clothes, blacks greys or dark greens, even mismatching shoes are a plus. 
Never carry too much equipment, after all you are not a craftsman but an artist.
And, most of all, de-emphasize your equipment but make it clear that you are one with your tools. 
To show just how modest you are, cover all names with black tape.
Use a non-standard lens strap (because, again, you are one with your equipment and a discarding a manufacturer's strap implies something (I'm not certain what).






Never carry a camera bag, that implies either indecision about what you are going to need or a reliance on _craftman_'s tool.
If you must carry a bag, use a disheveled messenger bag or a small knapsack, preferably dirty or mended with tape.

2) Affect.  Never be cheerful or smile. 
If you must smile, affect only a rueful quick flash of a grin and then return to being serious. 
If you are naturally cheerful, external means might be necessary to banish that smile.  I have found that nipple clamps or tight rubber bands work marvels.

3) Your pictures.  First they are not pictures they are always 'images.' You do not take picture. 
In the aggregate, these _images_ are referred to as _one's body of work_ and they have been 'created' or 'conceived of' never 'taken' or 'made'.  If you can manage a French pronunciation, you can refer to them as 'my_ oeuvr_e' or carrying self-awareness a little farther '_mon oeuvre_, as it were.'
If someone approaches you about your 'pictures', take a breath, let a second or two go by and then reply in as flat a tone as you can muster, 'yes, these images (emphasis on images) blah blah blah.

4) Technical issues.
Convert everything to B&W. 
Serious people never use color. 
Children playing with puppies, circus clowns with balloons, no matter the subject, every image  is more meaningful in B&W.

Don't get anxious about technical issues. 
If someone in your audience mentions that they see some technical defects, have a good answer is along the lines of, "I don't really concern myself too, too much with technical issues, I believe that the meaning transcends any of these kinds of limitations. I leave technical nit-picking to pixel-peepers. I don't shoot for those who can see only technical issues."

If someone has the effrontery to bring the subject up again, a short 'I already dealt with that,' and pointing to someone else with a more appropriate question works well. 

5) Artist's statement
If you have successfully handled all the previous steps, eventually you may worm into a show and you will need an artist's statement.
Most artist's statements read, to me, like French poetry in that I can read the individual words but I can't winkle out the meaning so the meaning obviously can't be too important. I have found that I a customized artist's statement generated for my tastes works great.

Here is my latest artist statement (generated at 500 Letters - Generate your artist biography
I think it really works.



> Lew Lorton (°1949, United States) makes conceptual artworks and photos. By demonstrating the omnipresent lingering of a ‘corporate world’, Lorton tries to create works in which the actual event still has to take place or just has ended: moments evocative of atmosphere and suspense that are not part of a narrative thread. The drama unfolds elsewhere while the build-up of tension is frozen to become the memory of an event that will never take place.
> 
> His conceptual artworks are on the one hand touchingly beautiful, on the other hand painfully attractive. Again and again, the artist leaves us orphaned with a mix of conflicting feelings and thoughts. By putting the viewer on the wrong track, his works references post-colonial theory as well as the avant-garde or the post-modern and the left-wing democratic movement as a form of resistance against the logic of the capitalist market system.
> 
> His works demonstrate how life extends beyond its own subjective limits and often tells a story about the effects of global cultural interaction over the latter half of the twentieth century. It challenges the binaries we continually reconstruct between Self and Other, between our own ‘cannibal’ and ‘civilized’ selves. By manipulating the viewer to create confusion, he often creates several practically identical works, upon which thoughts that have apparently just been developed are manifested: notes are made and then crossed out again, ‘mistakes’ are repeated.
> 
> His works are given improper functions: significations are inversed and form and content merge. Shapes are dissociated from their original meaning, by which the system in which they normally function is exposed. Initially unambiguous meanings are shattered and disseminate endlessly. Lew Lorton currently lives and works in Baltimore.



Now, that you have the blueprint for success, go ahead out these and be an artist.


----------



## qleak

Hmm I'm sure I'll take some flak for this,  i debrand my cameras. But that's about as close to an artist as i am.

I just don't like looking at the logos all the time and don't like being a walking advertisement.

I'm not really convinced that it gives me any other advantage


----------



## tirediron

qleak said:


> Hmm I'm sure I'll take some flak for this,  i debrand my cameras. But that's about as close to an artist as i am.
> 
> I just don't like looking at the logos all the time and don't like being a walking advertisement.
> 
> I'm not really convinced that it gives me any other advantage


 I will admit to using after-market straps, but that's mainly a comfort think.  NIkon's straps (IMO) are miserable.  That said, I still have the OEM gold-thread original on my F5 just because that strap is so garrish that taking it off would be a crime.


----------



## Fred Berg

Ah, but it's all hopeless unless you use film. Artist is a term that is exclusively analogue (note the spelling).


----------



## The_Traveler

Clearly you two have wandered from the true path.
I bet you smile occasionally also.

How disappointing.

In regards, using film.
It is not the actual using of film that is important but the appearance of using film.
So, if you are going to be in an area populated by _cognoscenti, _you could sling a little light vintage camera around your neck along with your digital, then beat the hell out of any resulting digital images with PS, add a fake film border and you have the advantages of seeming to use film but really doing it the easy way.


----------



## bribrius

people are just in general so full of chit i find them amusing..


----------



## The_Traveler

I don't mind their being full of it so much but when they underestimate me by thinking that I'll buy their line of crap, that does irritate.


----------



## pgriz

But Lew, you know that many people inhabit a fictional world of their own creation.  These people spend a lot of time trying to convince the rest that "their" version or reality is the "correct" one.


----------



## JustJazzie

So what you're saying is, I was a true artist in high school, and then I somehow lost my way?

How sad. I really thought I was getting somewhere in life only to open this thread and discovered I've backtracked. :-/

Doesn't this just top off my week! ;-)


----------



## bribrius

The_Traveler said:


> I don't mind their being full of it so much but when they underestimate me by thinking that I'll buy their line of crap, that does irritate.


but that is how i feel about you lew with these long blogs and diatribes. 












make me want to come up with my own pile of chit just to irritate back


----------



## fjrabon

I hate the default straps for the most part, mostly because I hate the traditional sort of strap that goes around your neck and puts the camera on your chest.  Typically, I will either use a wrist strap or a black rapids strap that puts the camera off your hip and crosses your body like a messenger bag.

I have camera backpacks and wheelie bags, for when I need to cart around the entire system, but in general if I'm just going out shooting I'll put my camera in a regular old small-ish canvas messenger bag.  

Being picky about calling things images seems just as weird to me about noticing if somebody calls them images.  

I do personally find technical things boring, but I get that newer people need that discussion.  But If I'm looking at a picture that tirediron posted, for example, I'm not going to say "you underexposed this" I'm going to ask "why did you think a darker exposure worked here?"  They're both addressing the same issue, but one is based on an assumption of technical lack of knowledge, the other based on an assumption of artistic choice.

Why the heck would I care one way or the other if somebody covered their camera up with gaffers tape?  It does give better grip than most anything else.  People may not like paying thousands of dollars to be a walking advertisement?  People may want to be more inconspicuous, where most logos are by design made to draw attention.


----------



## rexbobcat

You forgot to put that you have exhibited internationally (IE: You displayed prints at an art festival in Barcelona, once, along with 300 other people)

EDIT: Also Lew, your last line is much too coherent. It needs to be more vague; gotta keep the reader guessing.


----------



## fjrabon

rexbobcat said:


> You forgot to put that you have exhibited internationally (IE: You displayed prints at an art festival in Barcelona, once, along with 300 other people)


well, people from all over the world view TPF, so posting stuff in the forums here could be called having work exhibited internationally.


----------



## Fred Berg

The_Traveler said:


> PS, add a fake film border and you have the advantages of seeming to use film but really doing it the easy way.



Mon Dieu, thé man is a genius!


----------



## minicoop1985

I think you forgot the part about contracting a mental illness. All TRUE artists need to be somewhat crazy and unpredictable. Thankfully I have that covered. The rest though... Wow, I fail at being an artist. My boss does always wear black though. Not sure if it's just his style, or if he's just that odd. Smiles way too much to be an artist though.


----------



## bhop

My camera bag has loose threads and some holes, and is pretty dirty (domke canvas), I never use the stock camera straps, I painted my Leica dot black, I shoot b&w film, smiling's for suckers.... I'M AN ARTIST!!


----------



## The_Traveler

Well, it is clear that some people here are well on the way towards being seen as artists.
I hadn't thought to mention the mental disease as everyone here seems to have passed that particular barrier already.


----------



## runnah

The_Traveler said:


> I hadn't thought to mention the mental disease as everyone here seems to have passed that particular barrier already.



You'll have to narrow it down a bit.


----------



## The_Traveler

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't thought to mention the mental disease as everyone here seems to have passed that particular barrier already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to narrow it down a bit.
Click to expand...



Whatever the diagnosis, there isn't any cure so it doesn't make any difference.


----------



## runnah

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't thought to mention the mental disease as everyone here seems to have passed that particular barrier already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to narrow it down a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the diagnosis, there isn't any cure so it doesn't make any difference.
Click to expand...


I've heard large doses of reality and perspective, in equal measures, can work wonders.


----------



## pixmedic

I was not going to even touch this one...'cause of my feelings on "art"...
but damnit Lew, that was so close to my heart it hit me right in the feels man.
So, here we go.

Artists....Pfffffffft.

yup. Pfffft.

It is often the battle cry of the photographer who doesn't think they need any lighting equipment or posing techniques, or processing skills and then cant take critique. they didn't make "mistakes", it was their "artistic choice", and the hell to everyone who doesn't agree with them....they obviously just don't understand "art".

I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.
I consider most photography as "art" in the same way i consider a piece of driftwood plucked from the beach and placed directly on the wall as "art", or a white piece of paper with paint randomly splashed on it.
They might all be pretty. They all might sell for tons of money. but I don't consider them real "art".
Some random person photographed outside on train tracks or against a  brick wall (and probably converted to B&W) just doesn't count as "art" to me. 

I think too many people hide behind the vestige of "artist".
I would much rather be considered a craftsman than an artist.


----------



## rexbobcat

pixmedic said:


> I was not going to even touch this one...'cause of my feelings on "art"...
> but damnit Lew, that was so close to my heart it hit me right in the feels man.
> So, here we go.
> 
> Artists....Pfffffffft.
> 
> yup. Pfffft.
> 
> It is often the battle cry of the photographer who doesn't think they need any lighting equipment or posing techniques, or processing skills and then cant take critique. they didn't make "mistakes", it was their "artistic choice", and the hell to everyone who doesn't agree with them....they obviously just don't understand "art".
> 
> I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.
> I consider most photography as "art" in the same way i consider a piece of driftwood plucked from the beach and placed directly on the wall as "art", or a white piece of paper with paint randomly splashed on it.
> They might all be pretty. They all might sell for tons of money. but I don't consider them real "art".
> Some random person photographed outside on train tracks or against a  brick wall (and probably converted to B&W) just doesn't count as "art" to me.
> 
> I think too many people hide behind the vestige of "artist".
> I would much rather be considered a craftsman than an artist.



On the same token, though, I think a good portion of man-made post-modern art meets your criteria of non-art as well. I take it on an individual basis, because I think it's difficult to distill a craft/art down to whether its principles and practices are or aren't art.


----------



## pixmedic

rexbobcat said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not going to even touch this one...'cause of my feelings on "art"...
> but damnit Lew, that was so close to my heart it hit me right in the feels man.
> So, here we go.
> 
> Artists....Pfffffffft.
> 
> yup. Pfffft.
> 
> It is often the battle cry of the photographer who doesn't think they need any lighting equipment or posing techniques, or processing skills and then cant take critique. they didn't make "mistakes", it was their "artistic choice", and the hell to everyone who doesn't agree with them....they obviously just don't understand "art".
> 
> I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.
> I consider most photography as "art" in the same way i consider a piece of driftwood plucked from the beach and placed directly on the wall as "art", or a white piece of paper with paint randomly splashed on it.
> They might all be pretty. They all might sell for tons of money. but I don't consider them real "art".
> Some random person photographed outside on train tracks or against a  brick wall (and probably converted to B&W) just doesn't count as "art" to me.
> 
> I think too many people hide behind the vestige of "artist".
> I would much rather be considered a craftsman than an artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the same token, though, I think a good portion of man-made post-modern art meets your criteria of non-art as well. I take it on an individual basis, because I think it's difficult to distill a craft/art down to whether its principles and practices are or aren't art.
Click to expand...


I absolute agree. 
which is why i mentioned the "white paper with paint just splashed on it". 
I find a _*huge*_ portion of post modern art to be tacky, ugly, and devoid of any real artistic talent. 
It seems to be mostly comprised of people whose sole artistic repertoire consists  of an amazing ability to perfectly imitate a monkey flinging poo.


----------



## The_Traveler

pixmedic said:


> I absolute agree.
> which is why i mentioned the "white paper with paint just splashed on it".
> I find a _*huge*_ portion of post modern art to be tacky, ugly, and devoid of any real artistic talent.
> It seems to be mostly comprised of people whose sole artistic repertoire consists  of an amazing ability to perfectly imitate a monkey flinging poo.



You do have to accept, because it's fact, that every change in the concept of art and its execution was met with mass public disapproval.
So there is a good possibility that in some cases your judgement is just plain wrong.

Without discussing religion, I quote Jude 1:10: " Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand".

and Andrew Smith (author of Dr Who)
“People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer.”


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolute agree.
> which is why i mentioned the "white paper with paint just splashed on it".
> I find a _*huge*_ portion of post modern art to be tacky, ugly, and devoid of any real artistic talent.
> It seems to be mostly comprised of people whose sole artistic repertoire consists  of an amazing ability to perfectly imitate a monkey flinging poo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to accept, because it's fact, that every change in the concept of art and its execution was met with mass public disapproval.
> So there is a good possibility that in some cases your judgement is just plain wrong.
> 
> Without discussing religion, I quote Jude 1:10: " Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand".
> 
> and Andrew Smith (author of Dr Who)
> “People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer.”
Click to expand...


by the same token, you have to accept, because its fact, that even tho something might be accepted by mainstream culture as "art", it does not mean any particular person has to like it, or even feel it is based on talent.  I don't have to understand something to decide whether i find it visually appealing or not.

"I dont know art, but I know what I like"  James Thurber.

see, I can quote people too.

actually, I think Orson Welles said pretty much the same thing too.


----------



## The_Traveler

Right, you don't like it - and that's quite different from the fact that it isn't art.
I don't like Scotch but I don't think, and wouln't presume to say, that people who say they do like it are crazy, stupid or fakes.

Perhaps if you knew more then you would  appreciate more - and even like some.
Just like hard liquor, cigars, mushrooms, wines, etc.


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> Right, you don't like it - and that's quite different from the fact that it isn't art.
> I don't like Scotch but I don't think, and wouln't presume to say, that people who say they do like it are crazy, stupid or fakes.
> 
> Perhaps if you knew more then you would  appreciate more - and even like some.
> Just like hard liquor, cigars, mushrooms, wines, etc.



I dont believe I ever said that it wasn't art, as in a factual statement. 
I also dont believe i ever said anything about people who _*do*_ like art.
i think i only made statements concerning my own personal opinion. 
while you might not presume to speak of people who drink scotch, you _*have*_ presumed an awful lot about what you _*think*_ I do and do not understand. 
there is plenty of art I like. and plenty of modern artists that produce great work. 

perhaps your own conceptions of art , or your perception of the artistic value of your own work have simply given you artistic "tunnel vision"

I find craftsmanship to be _*far*_ more beautiful than artistic license.


----------



## The_Traveler

You're the one who was so outraged about 'art' that you had to rant about modern art.
Relax.


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> You're the one who was so outraged about 'art' that you had to rant about modern art.
> Relax.


I was just responding to your rant. 
Chill.
I assume that's what you were looking for people to do. That was far from outrage. 
Not sure what gave you the impression I was angry.
Maybe your just projecting.

Steady on son, steady on.


----------



## minicoop1985




----------



## minicoop1985

I'M ARGUING WITH YOUR ARGUMENT


----------



## pgriz

I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title.  "You're good"  carries much more weight than "I'm good".


----------



## bribrius

pgriz said:


> I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title.  "You're good"  carries much more weight than "I'm good".


ummmm....   I have been called a artist. Have you seen my work?  Does it look like art to you? I sure don't think of it that way, or me that way.  I almost spit out my coffee the last time i heard it.


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


> I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of *when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.*



I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.

What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.

Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'


----------



## minicoop1985

That's far more artistic than anything I've come up with. It took way more work than I'm ever willing to put in


----------



## pixmedic

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of *when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.
> 
> What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.
> 
> Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'
> View attachment 97298
Click to expand...


Well....
I'm not going to go into a whole thing on "what is art", because honestly,  it's mostly semantics.  What i will say tho, is that I think the term "artist" is way overused. Everyone is an artist now.
When you think if a landscape artist,  what comes to mind? Oil paints and canvas?  That's what I think of. Different from when I think of a landscape photographer. How about this...if you setup a shot.... the pose, backgrounds, settings, framing....everything...and someone else walks up and actually takes the shot with the camera? who's picture is it? Legally I think it's theirs right?  Who's "art" is it? 
if I set up a painting, I choose the subject, material, paints, brush,  everything....and someone else comes over and paints the picture, who gets credit for that?  Pretty obvious, I think. 

Maybe it's just because I find the term "artist" in the photographic community so overused that I have just become numb to it. I'm not saying there isn't artistry in photography, but i tend to think of photography as more of a craftsman skill than an artistic one. We learn equipment and how to use it.

  there's a bit of artistic vision in everything, but when a woman knits a scarf from a roll of wool she has crammed up her who-ha  and calls it art...i mean...come on.  My wife knits. And quilts. She's made some beautiful pieces, but has never once called it her "art". 

So to summarize, I'm not drawing any lines as to what qualifies as art because frankly,  there is no line. Much in the same way there is no true defining factor for someone to call themselves a "photographer" except in the sense that they take pictures. Anything past that is simply in the eye of the beholder. why does it seem to upset people?  I'm not offended or insulted In the least for people to say I'm not an artist, but some people really seem to nitpick over that title.  They can keep it, I've no use for such trivial things.

I have been told that paramedic is only a job, not a profession. That a true "professional" has an occupation that requires a college degree. Now, how many people subscribe to that theory, I have no idea,  but I've  heard it many times.
I guess I won't get to be a professional until I finish nursing school. 
This is why I don't care much for meaningless titles. Everyone draws their line somewhere different. Even the definition of those titles is different from person to person. Everything is art as much as nothing is art. I think we all create art by someone's definition, so we are all artists. Just don't call me one to my face.


----------



## Torus34

The OP's a delightful put-down of photography snobs.  You know the type well: "You bought _that_ camera?  You should have asked _me_ first."

That said, the photographer trying for something beyond a snapshot would do well to examine the rules he/she thinks are absolutes.  Chances are, they aren't.

Cases in point:

While striving for good technique [and it's worth the effort,] remember that impact overrides it.  Your technique need only be good enough so that it doesn't get in the way.

The 'right' equipment for a particular photograph is what you have on hand at the time.  There's a limit to what you can lug around.


----------



## runnah

These days art is defined by art critics, art buyers and artists (in that order). So it's a parasitic/symbiotic relationship that perpetuates it's self for that sake of it's own survival.


----------



## pgriz

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit im biased. I just don't find 95+% of photography to be all that "artistic", and i mean that in the sense of *when I think of "art" I think of something more "hand made" than a picture. I think of sculptors, or painters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and I want to make clear that though it's my work, I am in no way emotionally invested in the way you answer.
> 
> What do you think this is? I'm not asking if you think it's good or bad. It started life as 5 instant film pictures (Land Camera 100, Fuji peel-apart instant film). I lifted the emulsion and used gel medium to create the collage on a canvas. So it's hand-made, but it's also photography.
> 
> Again, I'm not invested in whether or not you think it fits into your definition of art. I'm just fascinated by where some people draw the line between what is or isn't 'art.'
> View attachment 97298
Click to expand...


I'll wade in where smart people don't venture.  As far as I'm concerned, your piece is "art".  It's creative, shows a subject in a (to me) novel way, is presented in an attractive way, and contrasts the impermanence of the subject (the tree with its broken branches) to the apparent fragility of the medium.  It works on several levels, conceptual, perceptual, physical.  We have something of the same nature on our walls - a collage of overlapping images by one of our local artists.  

I think the problem with "artists" as painted by Lew, is that many people mistake the process of "being" an artist (various accouterments that should signal one is an artist) for the actual artistic creativity where imagination coupled with technique gives us something out of the ordinary and touches our emotions and/or our minds.  It's like a person putting a toolbelt on, wearing work boots and a hard-hat and thinking that because they look like a carpenter, that they become one.  In some ways, arguing about who is an "artist" is a bit silly, as the term, as used colloquially, is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.


----------



## Fred Berg

It is very difficult to clearly define what visual art is, and it is often very subjective. It should probably contain a cognitive element and not be merely ornamental or decorative: something to think about as well as to look at. For me, it isn't enough that I like the look of something and find it visually appealing; if it doesn't provide me with food for thought, it isn't art. 

N.B.
Being art doesn't make something good, not being art doesn't make something bad.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.

It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.

The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...


Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.


----------



## qleak

pgriz said:


> I know (I think) Lew wrote the piece tongue-in-cheek, but from my perspective, a self-proclaimed artist is a fraud (or at least an optimist), but a person proclaimed by others to be an artist deserves the title.  "You're good"  carries much more weight than "I'm good".


Especially given this:

Dunning Kruger effect - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## W.Y.Photo

W.Y.Photo said:


> People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.
> 
> It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.
> 
> The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...
> 
> 
> Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.



Also, this: Fountain Duchamp - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## KenC

runnah said:


> These days art is defined by art critics, art buyers and artists (in that order). So it's a parasitic/symbiotic relationship that perpetuates it's self for that sake of it's own survival.



If by "these days" you mean the history of art at least back to the Renaissance I agree completely.  Perhaps at that time the buyers were first instead of the critics.  It's interesting that sometimes when an artist, whether a musician, painter, or anything else does some work for a corporation some consider them to have "sold out."  Most of the art we see in museums or on buildings was created because a wealthy family funded it.  I'm not saying that's a great system, but that's the way it was.

As for the terms, I personally don't see how it helps me to define "art" or "artist" because whatever definition I came up with would not change what I do or my opinions of what I see.


----------



## The_Traveler

Regardless of external definitions, attempting to be an artist is difficult - and easily painful.
Trying not to copy, trying to be original, to  create something with whatever media you choose and have that be 'good' (whatever that is) is difficult and sometimes painful.

It is painful because one has to confront one's own limitations and see them in real terms compared to others.
I don't have much patience with people who adopt the outside trappings of being an artist without actually going through the effort. 

I also don't have much patience with those who adopt the other stance, say all art is crap and fake, thus by implication, all artists are poseurs.
Doing things over and over by rote, conquering small problems with lighting or subjects may be small triumphs but it is essentially copying what other people do and have done. 
It may be comforting in that one can achieve the same desired level of craftsmanship but for some people, like me, that isn't satisfying.

Trying to create is difficult, it is infinitely harder to create than it is to just do.
And, even more, it is really putting yourself out there, taking a chance.
And because one is trying to create, the failures are that much more painful because there isn't technique to fall back on.

A mediocre artist who knows that he or she is mediocre is a sad person because they are trying with every part of their being to do and be something - and failing.
And when someone who has never tried, never put themselves on the line, denigrates even the effort at creativity out of ignorance, jealousy or fear, I lose interest in anything that person has to say.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> People go on and on about how art is undefinable or how it is so hard to classify but there is a reason its so hard to define art.. it's because of what people think of when they see art compared to what art's actual use and purpose for existing is. Everyone gets stuck in these loops like "Art is this because its got a craftmanship to it" or "This isn't art because it was too easy to make or had no thought to it" but really that's not the point at all.. Art has a simple explanation. Art is expression of emotions, thoughts, and any other thing someone may want to express. Art is expression.
> 
> It may be hard for artists to admit to this simplicity of art because.. if that's all art is.. then everyone is an artist. Suddenly that makes those who have spent a long time training and working to create their art feel less significant. It destroys their egos. Suddenly the smile on a person's face or the swing of an angry fist are just as much works of art as a painting that took 12 years for an expert to create.
> 
> The people that can't except that art is such a simple thing either have too much invested in the idea that they are "special" as an artist or are somehow above the masses, or they think too much of art as a craft rather than a form of expression.. and you can understand why if you take a good hard look at how society treats artists and art in general...
> 
> 
> Craftsmanship and art are two entirely different things that tend to get blurred together in the world of art. Art is simple and crafts are not. Crafts require skill and practice, art just requires ideas and feelings. Everyone is an artist, but not everyone can be an expert craftsman.


i like buildings for a example. A craftsman can put up a ugly square box that can excel in building standards. A artist can put up a beautiful period like building or one with great design, but may mis use floor space or sacrifice elements of the structures integrity.  However the greatest buildings might be the combination of both craftsman and artistry. Engineering and artistic masterpieces.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.

Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.
> 
> Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.


Most people i know involved in art have very little to do with photography. Not to say they don't, but it isn't their primary choice of a medium.  Being a artist in photography is difficult. Not only are you attempting to circumvent the copying or record nature of the medium but the long term learning and skill level is high. You can spend many years learning photography. As i had a discussion with someone else a few weeks ago. The problem with learning the craft of photography (camera, lenses, gear talk, processing, basically gear and tech talk) is it is easily a creativity killer. The more you attempt to learn and get caught up in the technical, the more creativity is sucked out of you. Why some of the more knowledgeable photographers may be considered great craftsmen but zero for artists.  Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art. As you mentioned they are very different.  And balancing the two sides of that coin is exceptionally difficult. I can't speak for others, but when i read through about a lens, pick up a book for a while, look at stats or lighting diagrams. It pretty much sucks the creative life right out of me. Why i still reduce myself down to a simple point and shoot sometimes and stop thinking. But to achieve great art in photography it takes the vision and the skill is my thoughts. That is a huge amount on ones plate to balance and digest. why it is such a difficult medium for artists, not to mention the nature of the medium itself (record) has to be surpassed also. There are other mediums that lend it much more easily for someone to explore their creativity and express themselves.


----------



## qleak

bribrius said:


> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.



Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?

Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.

Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. The whole discussion about people not being artists or being artists because of this and that is kind of like telling someone they don't have a job because they work at Wal-mart rather than being CEO at a Fortune 500 company. Sure, there are lots of differences between the two jobs, one can be considered better than the other, and one most likely takes a lot more time and effort to get and keep.. but they are still both jobs.
> 
> Telling a person who works at Wal-Mart "You work at wally world?? That's not a job!" would be extremely rude and degrading.. but for some reason people don't see it that way when they say it to an artist.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people i know involved in art have very little to do with photography. Not to say they don't, but it isn't their primary choice of a medium.  Being a artist in photography is difficult. Not only are you attempting to circumvent the copying or record nature of the medium but the long term learning and skill level is high. You can spend many years learning photography. As i had a discussion with someone else a few weeks ago. The problem with learning the craft of photography (camera, lenses, gear talk, processing, basically gear and tech talk) is it is easily a creativity killer. The more you attempt to learn and get caught up in the technical, the more creativity is sucked out of you. Why some of the more knowledgeable photographers may be considered great craftsmen but zero for artists.  Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art. As you mentioned they are very different.  And balancing the two sides of that coin is exceptionally difficult. I can't speak for others, but when i read through about a lens, pick up a book for a while, look at stats or lighting diagrams. It pretty much sucks the creative life right out of me. Why i still reduce myself down to a simple point and shoot sometimes and stop thinking. But to achieve great art in photography it takes the vision and the skill is my thoughts. That is a huge amount on ones plate to balance and digest. why it is such a difficult medium for artists, not to mention the nature of the medium itself (record) has to be surpassed also. There are other mediums that lend it much more easily for someone to explore their creativity and express themselves.
Click to expand...


I get what you're saying but I also think that the general lack of absolute control over the medium is something that forces artists to push the boundaries when it comes to photography. A painter or drawer can imagine something and with enough skill bring that imagination to life on a two-dimensional plane. If I want to draw a Walrus with a lions head or a fictional creature I can. I can't photograph those things, because they don't exist. This brings a sort of realism to the medium that isn't present in some other mediums. It forces the person to work with what they've got in front of them rather than whatever their imagination can come up with. I think that the creative process in photography is therefore much more demanding and complex in certain ways. While its certainly harder and less forgiving(creatively speaking), its also much more rewarding when you get it right.

That's not to say that other mediums lack their own problems or their own special rewarding feelings. I'm sure painters find the completion of a single painting very rewarding compared to a photographer who may have captured their image in a fraction of a second. But for photographers getting it right is more like making that game winning basket at the last second rather than pushing that big rock down a sheet of ice and getting it to land perfectly on a target. Both are rewarding in their own right, but one took skill and reflexes while another took skill and deliberate thoughts paired with subtle action.

(Yes I did just compare photography and painting to basketball and curling, wutcha gunna do about it?! )


----------



## limr

qleak said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
Click to expand...


This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?

Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while


----------



## bribrius

limr said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
Click to expand...

Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus.  But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus.  But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.
Click to expand...


Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. It took a lot of creativity for mathematicians to come up with mathematics in the first place, and don't get me started on how creative scientists had to be to come up with relativity and quantum physics...


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know about anyone else. But in school we seemed to have a pretty distinct divide between those following a art path and those following a business path. Two entirely different mentalities. Not only was much of the courses different for the degree programs i didn't see many art majors lined up and beaming with smiles to take calculus.  But in the most simplest terms. Just look at the differences in classes required for the program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. It took a lot of creativity for mathematicians to come up with mathematics in the first place, and don't get me started on how creative scientists had to be to come up with relativity and quantum physics...
Click to expand...

Please don't. I actually despised math.  I only signed up for calculus myself as it was a core course requirement. Pretty much struggled to get through all math ( little interest). I much preferred the social atmosphere of classes like "creative writing" or anything religious or cultural for studies LMAO. Some people like math. For me it was a small version of hell. And even since then i have spent much more of my free time reading and contemplating religion to the point of Aramaic translation and hebrew studies but have yet to find a need to review my calculus text after all these years. Seeing the Isaiah scroll would be something i like. Quantum physics probably not.


----------



## pgriz

I probably flunked more math courses than most people will ever take.  The analogy of math to be like a language is apt.  The basic formulas are the letters.  The transformations and substitutions are phrases.  The problem descriptions are the sentences.  In learning to read, we have to move beyond the letter by letter reading, to recognizing words as units, and then to whole phrases.  In doing math, my weakness had been to not practice the forms enough, so I was doing the equivalent of reading by spelling out the individual letters.  Once I realized that I really had to go beyond that to the "phrases", it became much easier and more useful.

In relation to photography, our "letters" are the individual settings that we combine to get what we want.  The higher-order thinking is about the visual phrases and sentences which are in the realm of timing, framing, composition and lighting.  Whether it is photography, or math, or science or writing, there are sets of elements that tend to go together, and it is the learning and eventual mastery of those combinations that allow us to move our skill level to the point that we can look for something novel or interesting.


----------



## The_Traveler

coincidental email just received


----------



## runnah

Umm...


----------



## The_Traveler

W.Y.Photo said:


> *Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. *.



What an insightful sentence - and it applies perfectly to coding, mathematics and photography.
What is interesting beyond that is that only in photography is there the phenomenon of people who have attempted only the technical learning who then try to denigrate those who go further.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

The_Traveler said:


> coincidental email just received
> View attachment 97313



While I find this almost hysterical. I know many people who would be proud that coding and its intricacies have reached that level of respect. It's all about perspective. Like you said earlier.. The less you know about something the more likely you are to dismiss it.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

The_Traveler said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well just because there is a lack of creative thinking in learning something doesn't mean that that something isn't a creative process in and of itself. *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an insightful sentence - and it applies perfectly to coding, mathematics and photography.
> What is interesting beyond that is that only in photography is there the phenomenon of people who have attempted only the technical learning who then try to denigrate those who go further.
Click to expand...


I'm sure its happened in other places. It seems to be human nature for some people to respect technical perfection over creative vision. The art world was historically closed off to all non-classical ideas for a long while. Many artists who people think of as classical now were scoffed at for painting things like dark shadows or using creative brush strokes.

The history of art is essentially a bunch of technical and ideological snobs beating down new ideas until one of those ideas decides to take over and then a repetition of that process occurs. Kind of like the history of mankind in general now that I think of it..


----------



## qleak

limr said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
Click to expand...


I'd be happy to chat with anyone who wants to listen to my thoughts on the matter. I decided I didn't want to post the vast mathematical treatise that was my original response.


----------



## The_Traveler

As support to qleak.
Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft. 
Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.


----------



## The_Traveler

from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum  a thread started by Runnah


----------



## bribrius

qleak said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to chat with anyone who wants to listen to my thoughts on the matter. I decided I didn't want to post the vast mathematical treatise that was my original response.
Click to expand...

I would be a bad student. Last thing i studied other than photography was the Canaanite God head and sub gods "council of gods" and the development of Yahweh and ashera from potential Egyptian origins..


----------



## W.Y.Photo

The_Traveler said:


> from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum  a thread started by Runnah
> 
> View attachment 97314



I like how @sm4him described artists in her first response to that thread. That's the way I see it.


Also, bacon.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> from Do you consider yourself an artist Photography Forum  a thread started by Runnah
> 
> View attachment 97314
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how @sm4him described artists in his first response to that thread. That's the way I see it.
> 
> 
> Also, bacon.
Click to expand...

screw the artist meme. All this talk now i am thinking of going to another theology or  religious history lecture. Or a lecture on early Chinese pre history could be interesting. Anything prehistorical i find fascinating because if it prehistorical how do they know anything about it? Clearly conjecture but it makes your mind wonder. "we believe" opens ones mind to all kinds of possibilities.  Then you contemplate discovered artifacts and it is like trying to assemble a puzzle.


----------



## waday

The_Traveler said:


> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.


I'll second this.

As an engineer, I spend a fair amount of time with calculations/equations/mathematics, as well as reviewing other's work. You can tell when someone fully understands what they're doing--their calculations are easy to follow, succinct, and make sense. The calculations are _composed_ well.

However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.


----------



## pgriz

The_Traveler said:


> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.



Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.

And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.


----------



## photoguy99

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematicians-Apology-Canto-Classics/dp/110760463X/

Or check your local library. This is most cogent discussion of Mathematics, What It Is And Why We Do It ever written. And it's pretty OK.


----------



## qleak

waday said:


> However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.



Spoken like a true engineer  (Just joking with you ) 

I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science 

The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra)  and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions. 

The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here


----------



## qleak

photoguy99 said:


> A Mathematician s Apology Canto Classics G. H. Hardy C. P. Snow 9780521598934 Amazon.com Books
> 
> Or check your local library. This is most cogent discussion of Mathematics, What It Is And Why We Do It ever written. And it's pretty OK.



Holy crap that's by  Hardy! Looks good, thanks for the pointer


----------



## waday

qleak said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true engineer  (Just joking with you )
> 
> I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science
> 
> The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra)  and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.
> 
> The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here
Click to expand...

No offense taken.  I find myself saying "about" and "approximately", providing answers with safety factors, and giving SWAGs and WAGs way too often. 

Why is the answer multiplied by 4? Safety. That's why.  

Oh, I completely understand. (Although, I can't say I was particularly happy with my calc 1 and diff. eq. classes--bad professor.  I liked calc 2.) Going from a class where you are given the equation and told how to use it varies considerably from a class where you have to develop/derive the equation.


----------



## bribrius

pgriz said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
Click to expand...

Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

qleak said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true engineer  (Just joking with you )
> 
> I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science
> 
> The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra)  and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.
> 
> The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here
Click to expand...


Certainly. That parallel is eerily familiar to me having recently graduated from photography school. I found myself utterly underwhelmed for my entire freshman year, learning next to nothing that I didn't already know, halfway through sophomore year I got hit over the head with "meaning" "concept" and "narrative". At the time it tripped me up quite a bit. I thought "why is this necessary?" "This doesn't pertain to my work..."and plenty of other negative things about it until I finally gave in and really attempted to understand it. Now its all I think about. I can't even see a photo without thinking about the concept, the ideas, and the narrative of an image. Technical precision is just a nice doorway to a much larger mansion of possibility.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
Click to expand...


I think your overarching idea in this post is a good one.. but I have to interject on one thought. While the physics of making a clay pot are not art in and of themselves (unless you believe in a god which created them).. the movements of the persons hands in order to shape the pot by using physics are.

Code may be about the end result, but so is a poem or a novel. The lines are just as artistic as the whole story. I think what they are saying is the same goes for code. And sure there are technical aspects to coding that must be learned but there is also room for an individuals own creative input.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your overarching idea in this post is a good one.. but I have to interject on one thought. While the physics of making a clay pot are not art in and of themselves (unless you believe in a god which created them).. the movements of the persons hands in order to shape the pot by using physics are.
> 
> Code may be about the end result, but so is a poem or a novel. The lines are just as artistic as the whole story. I think what they are saying is the same goes for code. And sure there are technical aspects to coding that must be learned but there is also room for an individuals own creative input.
Click to expand...

If you want to consider something even deeper. And now i am reaching. Consider if photography really has to be a communication or visual art. As we are suggesting photography to be a art.  Seems a lot of art in history had no communication purpose. some utilitarian in concept. Others religious in nature (communicating only to their god, give reverence to, or perhaps to protect themselves from seasons or astrology reasons).   Much of art was not about communicating from one person to another. It was steep in culture, utilitarian concept, or religion.  It seems people consider something a visual art both from seeing it and its communication. However a statue to a God has little to do with communication between one person to another but often in reverence to the God they believed in.  Some of that pottery we claim to be artistic they made to eat out of or had utilitarian concepts.. The languages as art, more to avoid grunting. A necessary vehicle for basic communication. Is language really a art? Or a utilitarian vehicle?

When we take a photo, it seems assumed it is a visual art communication designated for certain individuals.  To say "something".  However i wonder if that is necessary. As how does a statue considered art have the main purpose of giving a God reverence with little purpose of communication among other individuals? You can see both. Some statues and artifacts were individual or customs based. Little to do with communication (except for a god or to the dead perhaps, spirits). In fact a different peoples or tribe would not even know what the statue might represent. Some art, even visual. Was never meant to be seen. When they entombed someone it wasn't expected it would one day be unearthed so people could look at the art. It was put there for a different purpose.  So now we have to differentiate the difference between paintings for different purposes, photography, and wall carvings figurines and statues. Were all monuments created for communication?. All can be considered somewhat a visual art. Or at least you can see it at least. But some were not meant to communicate to people of this world anyway. And some were not meant to communicate at all but give reverence to someones deity. All are visual. So on this forum i see repeatedly that photography can not only be considered a art, but it is a purposeful one for visual communication. Which in and of itself i question.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your overarching idea in this post is a good one.. but I have to interject on one thought. While the physics of making a clay pot are not art in and of themselves (unless you believe in a god which created them).. the movements of the persons hands in order to shape the pot by using physics are.
> 
> Code may be about the end result, but so is a poem or a novel. The lines are just as artistic as the whole story. I think what they are saying is the same goes for code. And sure there are technical aspects to coding that must be learned but there is also room for an individuals own creative input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to consider something even deeper. And now i am reaching. Consider if photography really has to be a communication or visual art. As we are suggesting photography to be a art.  Seems a lot of art in history had no communication purpose. some utilitarian in concept. Others religious in nature (communicating only to their god, give reverence to, or perhaps to protect themselves from seasons or astrology reasons).   Much of art was not about communicating from one person to another. It was steep in culture, utilitarian concept, or religion.  It seems people consider something a visual art both from seeing it and its communication. However a statue to a God has little to do with communication between one person to another but often in reverence to the God they believed in.  Some of that pottery we claim to be artistic they made to eat out of or had utilitarian concepts.. The languages as art, more to avoid grunting. A necessary vehicle for basic communication. Is language really a art? Or a utilitarian vehicle?
> 
> When we take a photo, it seems assumed it is a visual art communication designated for certain individuals.  To say "something".  However i wonder if that is necessary. As how does a statue considered art have the main purpose of giving a God reverence with little purpose of communication among other individuals? You can see both. Some statues and artifacts were individual or customs based. Little to do with communication (except for a god or to the dead perhaps, spirits). In fact a different peoples or tribe would not even know what the statue might represent. Some art, even visual. Was never meant to be seen. When they entombed someone it wasn't expected it would one day be unearthed so people could look at the art. It was put there for a different purpose.  So now we have to differentiate the difference between paintings for different purposes, photography, and wall carvings figurines and statues. Were all monuments created for communication?. All can be considered somewhat a visual art. Or at least you can see it at least. But some were not meant to communicate to people of this world anyway. And some were not meant to communicate at all but give reverence to someones deity. All are visual. So on this forum i see repeatedly that photography can not only be considered a art, but it is a purposeful one for visual communication. Which in and of itself i question.
Click to expand...


I agree that these differences are important and should be considered when viewing a piece of art, as the context can explain a lot about any type of work. But everything you mentioned besides the pot made for utilitarian purposes alone is still a form of expression. Even if its not made for anyone at all, if it was made to express an idea about something then I'll consider it art. You also have to consider that a person making a pot because they need it is still going to craft that pot to look a certain way that they find pleasing, which is expressing some thought process or subconcious idea of what a pot is to them, therefore making it art.

The hardest thing to consider here is language, language is some sort of collaboratively made form of communication, which in essence is a creation of the human race as a whole. Whether it is art in and of itself or simply a medium to be used to create art is hard for me to wrap my head around though.


----------



## waday




----------



## bribrius

waday said:


> View attachment 97316


nope. The theory of the red dot, the concept of if you should try to catch it, and what it means if you did or didn't catch it. Is much more interesting to consider. And is the red dot really even there? That is a matter of perception as well.


----------



## Fred Berg

W.Y.Photo said:


> The hardest thing to consider here is language, language is some sort of collaboratively made form of communication, which in essence is a creation of the human race as a whole. Whether it is art in and of itself or simply a medium to be used to create art is hard for me to wrap my head around though.



Words in and of themselves are mostly arbitrary and have little or no meaning. The word cat doesn't purr, hasn't got a rough tongue and shits not in my garden. On the other hand, the associations connected with the word cat are very real and at least one of these stinks to high heaven!


----------



## W.Y.Photo

waday said:


> View attachment 97316


----------



## bribrius

just to further confuse the subject...

"Art schools made a distinction between the fine arts and the crafts, maintaining that a craftsperson could not be considered a practitioner of the arts."

Visual arts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## otherprof

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolute agree.
> which is why i mentioned the "white paper with paint just splashed on it".
> I find a _*huge*_ portion of post modern art to be tacky, ugly, and devoid of any real artistic talent.
> It seems to be mostly comprised of people whose sole artistic repertoire consists  of an amazing ability to perfectly imitate a monkey flinging poo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to accept, because it's fact, that every change in the concept of art and its execution was met with mass public disapproval.
> So there is a good possibility that in some cases your judgement is just plain wrong.
> 
> Without discussing religion, I quote Jude 1:10: " Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand".
> 
> and Andrew Smith (author of Dr Who)
> “People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer.”
Click to expand...

I once read that when Beethoven's 7th Symphony premiered, the audience rushed to the box office during the performance demanding their money back. They claimed they were listening to noise, not music.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> just to further confuse the subject...
> 
> "Art schools made a distinction between the fine arts and the crafts, maintaining that a craftsperson could not be considered a practitioner of the arts."
> 
> Visual arts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



But those schools were full of snobby artists who thought they were better than other craftsmen because they studied art.

from the same article:
"The current usage of the term "visual arts" includes fine art as well as the applied, decorative arts and crafts..."


----------



## limr

Fred Berg said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hardest thing to consider here is language, language is some sort of collaboratively made form of communication, which in essence is a creation of the human race as a whole. Whether it is art in and of itself or simply a medium to be used to create art is hard for me to wrap my head around though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words in and of themselves are mostly arbitrary and have little or no meaning. The word cat doesn't purr, hasn't got a rough tongue and shits not in my garden. On the other hand, the associations connected with the word cat are very real and at least one of these stinks to high heaven!
Click to expand...


The thing that ties these seemingly disparate fields together is the use of symbols for communication or expression. Like Fred said, words are generally arbitrary. What gives them meaning is the agreement that we make that when we utter the sounds "cat" they will refer to the furry little creatures that are not dogs or ferrets. We use these symbols to communicate and express, but they go beyond just basic communication. Language also allows us to _think _of these real world objects and concepts.

Math is communication and numbers are symbols for real world referents as well, but in every day life, we're more likely to interact with those objects or behaviors or phenomena rather than with the symbols. Other than basic functions like arithmetic or maybe even some algebra, we don't go around using equations to communicate. But those versed in the 'language' can do so with each other. Some will use the code more elegantly and some will be hacks, even if the end result is more or less the same.

Ernest Hemingway and Danielle Steele were both writers. Only one of them was an artist, however. The tool itself was the same, the symbols were the same, but the way they used those symbols differed greatly.

When one understands the symbols - the tool - that well, one can use them more efficiently, more beautifully than those who don't understand. That's why I feel that even craftmanship can be considered expression and art. There are a lot of architects. There are a lot of good, even great architects. But someone like Frank Lloyd Wright knew his medium and knew his message so well, so thoroughly, that he was able to create buildings that speak to people decades later. I consider that art as well.


----------



## fjrabon

bribrius said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
Click to expand...


I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?


----------



## fjrabon

I think part of the problem is that it seems like we are trying to define art v. not art in a binary manner.  to me it's much more of a spectrum.  A thing can have artistic aspects of it, and those artistic aspects can be more or less "art-y."  A Ferrari can have many aspects: utilitarian, artistic, status, etc.  I think the question is confused right off the batt if you're trying to say something is or isn't exclusively art or exclusively not art.  Almost everything produced has some aspect of it that is artful, and almost all "art" has aspects that are about things that aren't art; status for much art is much more the point than actual artistic value.


----------



## qleak

pgriz said:


> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.



This is terrific 

How do you feel about Fast Inverse Square Root?

Fast inverse square root - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The comments on the above code are comical (and justified) to say the least.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

I Just Realized


----------



## limr

Actually, language and art run very similar paths in a sense. The more hackneyed the art, the more tortured the commentary on that art.

"With regard to the issue of content, the internal dynamic of the purity of line threatens to penetrate a participation in the critical dialogue of the 90s."

Generate your own Critical Response to Art Product (CRAP) here: PIXMAVEN - The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator


----------



## fjrabon

To me, a great example of math being able to be art, and the purpose of something not being the sole determinant of art is the quipu.  Some are quite stunningly beautiful.  If you had no idea of their purpose, you may easily think they are quite the work or art.  Splendidly colored, interestingly patterned, no readily apparent utilitarian application.  Wouldn't that be clearly art?  But they were extremely utilitarian.  They often did things like record tribute payments, debts, give directions and any number of topics.  Today we have basically no way of decoding them, so they stand, as more historic works of art, even though we have knowledge that they did have a utilitarian purpose.  If someone made one today, with obviously no purpose in making a record of a trade route and exchange, would it not be art?  Why does the reason for its' creation in the first place determine if something is art?  That means that two identical objects, one produced to record something, the other made because it's beautiful, one would be art, one wouldn't, even though they were identical objects.  That doesn't make much sense to me.  

To me, as soon as choice in production is introduced, you have art.  2+2=4 is not art, because there simply isn't another way to do that operation, there's no choice.  But proving the incompleteness theorem?  Lots of choice in how to go about that, and both Gödel and Turing's proofs are considered works of art (especially Gödel's) by people who understand them.  I think it's very easy to say advanced math and advanced code isn't art.  Just like the works of shakespeare probably don't seem very artistic to someone who doesn't understand English and is just listening to seemingly unintelligible garbling.    

I think there's also an aspect of complexity theory required for art.  Something has to be in some way relatable, but in some other way surprising to be art.  The completely predictable isn't art, and the completely unitelligible isn't art, but almost nothing we come across is 100% predictable or 100% unintelligible.  There is a lot of room on those spectrums.  Most people don't consider a metronome music.  But maybe it can be if the very act of its simplicity is both relatable and unpredictable (because who would just make a track of a metronome).  

I pretty much never ask whether or not something is art, I simply ask how much it means to me.  Saying something isn't art is simply saying something doesn't mean anything to you, and as such it's mostly a worthless statement.  This could be because it wasn't very good, or it could be because you don't understand the medium of conveyance.  Or most likely some combination of both.  A photo isn't art to a blind man, but that doesn't make Boy Bitten By a Lizard fail to be art, just because it falls on blind eyes.  

What I find much more rewarding is trying to find the art in everything.  Instead of scoffing at the works of Jackson Pollack, try to find something in them.  Maybe you won't find anything, maybe you will find the most rewarding artistic experience of your life.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Beautifully said Fjrabon!!


----------



## KenC

otherprof said:


> I once read that when Beethoven's 7th Symphony premiered, the audience rushed to the box office during the performance demanding their money back. They claimed they were listening to noise, not music.



When Stravinsky's Rite of Spring premiered in 1914 there was an actual riot.


----------



## qleak

fjrabon said:


> *To me, as soon as choice in production is introduced, you have art.  2+2=4 is not art, because there simply isn't another way to do that operation, there's no choice*.  But proving the incompleteness theorem?  Lots of choice in how to go about that, and both Gödel and Turing's proofs are considered works of art (especially Gödel's) by people who understand them.  I think it's very easy to say advanced math and advanced code isn't art.  Just like the works of shakespeare probably don't seem very artistic to someone who doesn't understand English and is just listening to seemingly unintelligible garbling.



I'm surprised you'd say something like this and know something about Godel or Turing. Are you familiar with modular arithmetic?

2+2=1 (mod 3)

I've done work in mod 2 arithmetic in which 1+1=0. Your statement is then 0=0 (mod 2). So that is a choice right? Even axioms can be negated and reveal completely different systems of mathematics.  Non-Euclidean geometry comes to mind, it actually is the predecessor of the incompleteness theorem and Einsteins theory of relativity.  

However, I do happen to agree with most of what you're saying here.


----------



## fjrabon

qleak said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *To me, as soon as choice in production is introduced, you have art.  2+2=4 is not art, because there simply isn't another way to do that operation, there's no choice*.  But proving the incompleteness theorem?  Lots of choice in how to go about that, and both Gödel and Turing's proofs are considered works of art (especially Gödel's) by people who understand them.  I think it's very easy to say advanced math and advanced code isn't art.  Just like the works of shakespeare probably don't seem very artistic to someone who doesn't understand English and is just listening to seemingly unintelligible garbling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you'd say something like this and know something about Godel or Turing. Are you familiar with modular arithmetic?
> 
> 2+2=1 (mod 3)
> 
> I've done work in mod 2 arithmetic in which 1+1=0. Your statement is then 0=0 (mod 2). So that is a choice right? Even axioms can be negated and reveal completely different systems of mathematics.  Non-Euclidean geometry comes to mind, it actually is the predecessor of the incompleteness theorem and Einsteins theory of relativity.
> 
> However, I do happen to agree with most of what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

nah, because they're isometric statements, I don't consider them different.  I was talking about the operation, not the expression thereof.  I figured somebody would go down this rabbit hole, but I also didn't want to write three paragraphs explaining how I was only speaking of basic arithmetic in the normal sense.  But I guess here we are anyway.


----------



## qleak

fjrabon said:


> nah, because they're isometric statements, I don't consider them different.  I was talking about the operation, not the expression thereof.  I figured somebody would go down this rabbit hole, but I also didn't want to write three paragraphs explaining how I was only speaking of basic arithmetic in the normal sense.  But I guess here we are anyway.



I'm not sure what you mean by isometric. Can you point me in that direction or is it just an imprecise statement?


----------



## fjrabon

qleak said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nah, because they're isometric statements, I don't consider them different.  I was talking about the operation, not the expression thereof.  I figured somebody would go down this rabbit hole, but I also didn't want to write three paragraphs explaining how I was only speaking of basic arithmetic in the normal sense.  But I guess here we are anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by isometric. Can you point me in that direction or is it just an imprecise statement?
Click to expand...

was reading on my phone and thought you were giving the example of different base math, not mod math, IDK, sometimes it weirdly jumps around, my bad.  

However, I still think you're being obtuse here for the point of pedantry.  Nobody goes around talking about mod2 arithmetic. Even mathematicians don't go around interjecting "well, you could have been talking about mod3 arithmetic!" Well, at least not most of the time when they're not trying to be a PITA.  Usually which mod arithmetic type you're using isn't much of a choice.  When you need to know if you have 4 or zero cartons of milk, your choice of mod level isn't a choice.


----------



## The_Traveler

This 'conversation' seems to have drifted off into major hand-waving territory with lots of berets being donned.

More good pictures, fewer words are what is good for photography.


----------



## qleak

fjrabon said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nah, because they're isometric statements, I don't consider them different.  I was talking about the operation, not the expression thereof.  I figured somebody would go down this rabbit hole, but I also didn't want to write three paragraphs explaining how I was only speaking of basic arithmetic in the normal sense.  But I guess here we are anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by isometric. Can you point me in that direction or is it just an imprecise statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> was reading on my phone and thought you were giving the example of different base math, not mod math, IDK, sometimes it weirdly jumps around, my bad.
> 
> However, I still think you're being obtuse here for the point of pedantry.  Nobody goes around talking about mod2 arithmetic. Even mathematicians don't go around interjecting "well, you could have been talking about mod3 arithmetic!" Well, at least not most of the time when they're not trying to be a PITA.  Usually which mod arithmetic type you're using isn't much of a choice.  When you need to know if you have 4 or zero cartons of milk, your choice of mod level isn't a choice.
Click to expand...


Respectfully, I disagree but if you'd like to know why we should discuss in private messages


----------



## fjrabon

The_Traveler said:


> This 'conversation' seems to have drifted off into major hand-waving territory with lots of berets being donned.
> 
> More good pictures, fewer words are what is good for photography.


well, you're the one who posted in "photographic discussions," which is a forum designed to facilitate words about photography.


----------



## qleak

fjrabon said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'conversation' seems to have drifted off into major hand-waving territory with lots of berets being donned.
> 
> More good pictures, fewer words are what is good for photography.
> 
> 
> 
> well, you're the one who posted in "photographic discussions," which is a forum designed to facilitate words about photography.
Click to expand...

yeah c'mon lew some of us mathematicians can't tell the difference between a coffee cup and doughnut. 

Topology - Maths Careers


----------



## syaudi

anything that reflects light into my eyes in a pleasing manner, I consider art.


----------



## IronMaskDuval

Quite frankly, no one on here is an artist. I for one, use the torn clothing from the starving children in Ethiopia to wear my camera with. I also carry my gear in a grocery bag that has floated over the ashes of Pompeii, which puts American Beauty to shame. MY bag, is the most beautiful thing he's ever seen.

I do not speak French. My carbon copies of life, which you amateurs call images are sang, not spoken, in pure pig Latin, and I roll the r in arbon cay. I do not smile, for when you see me, you smile for me. When it rains, the world cries as I reproduce a part of it in another dimension. It is an experience that none of you can ever know of.

My best of work has been seen by everyone in the world. Every time you dream, aspire or imagine, you see a replication of my arbon cay opy cay f ay ife lay.

I am an artist.


----------



## pgriz

qleak said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is terrific
> 
> How do you feel about Fast Inverse Square Root?
> 
> Fast inverse square root - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The comments on the above code are comical (and justified) to say the least.
Click to expand...


Any implementation that relies on magic numbers or undocumented features is suspect.  In fact, a big reason for developing coding interfaces between modules was to get away from unknowable behaviours which usually occurs at the boundaries of data.  I haven't been in that field for 25 years now, so I hope the field has evolved a much better handle on how to produce working code that has smooth behaviour in its performance space, and good trapping of out-of-bound conditions and exceptions.  I hope.


----------



## bribrius

fjrabon said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?
Click to expand...

Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol)  It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary.  I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art.  For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar.  Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.


----------



## fjrabon

bribrius said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol)  It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary.  I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
> Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art.  For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar.  Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.
Click to expand...

There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.


----------



## bribrius

fjrabon said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol)  It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary.  I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
> Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art.  For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar.  Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.
Click to expand...

you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here.  In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.


----------



## Jamesaz

"Art is anything you can get away with"---Frank Zappa


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjrabon

bribrius said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> As support to qleak.
> Several years ago there was a going away party for my son who was technical lead in a company that was bought by Microsoft.
> Someone, knowing Mike was my son, told me that Mike wrote the most elegant code he had ever seen.
> I asked for an explanation, he made a couple of starts, then finally laughed and told me he couldn't explain it to someone who didn't know coding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol)  It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary.  I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
> Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art.  For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar.  Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here.  In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I think the other alternative is making completely arbitrary distinctions about what is or isn't art based simply on where you can draw hard lines. 

Slippery slope arguments are generally bad arguments. But they're especially bad when the slope leads to something that isn't a negative. If we are more inclusive about what art is, so what? Why is that something we need to avoid. 

If you're so concerned about not expanding the definition of art, what is the definition of art you're using?


----------



## sashbar

I made a huge step towards an artistic status recently.  Purchased a *real leather* wrist strap with an all-important red wrap.  Total waste of a fiver.  Soo stiff and awkward to use. Put back my old  0.70 p nylon strap. 
My career as an artist lasted about five minutes and ended without a single shot.   These artistic stripes do not work, proven. Will try to grow a beard.
Here I even bothered to attach it again for illustration.


----------



## Designer

That's a very good photograph, sashbar.  

There are many qualifiers for design.  Design that ultimately does not fulfill its promise is poor design.  The designer of the strap failed to use appropriate materials for his product.  It did, however, sell, so the strap was successful in one way.


----------



## sashbar

Designer said:


> That's a very good photograph, sashbar.
> 
> There are many qualifiers for design.  Design that ultimately does not fulfill its promise is poor design.  The designer of the strap failed to use appropriate materials for his product.  It did, however, sell, so the strap was successful in one way.



You gave me an idea: I think this strap will help when I decide to flog this camera on eBay... which leads to another question: why do I need this camera if I can pull a decent shot without it?


----------



## bribrius

fjrabon said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try, as someone who has coded and managed software development.  It's actually quite a bit like music.  There is a strong, fundamental algorithm (or path, or melody, or idea), that is both powerful and yet seductively simple, supported by clear and straightforward initializations and terminations, nested in a way that make the logic easy to follow, and provides for a robust test approach without loose ends or potential underfined results.  Good, elegant code is actually fun to read.  Bad code is turgid, has no obvious coherence to it, brings in irrelevant stuff, and has a bunch of hanging bits that can be tripped over.  When doing design reviews of "good code", usually the KISS principle is embodied in the implementation.  Elegant code does the job with a minimal set of lines that don't leave anything to chance.
> 
> And this relates to "artists" as well.  I've had so many programmers tell me, in defending their turgid mishmash of redirections and pointers, that they were "artists" who created finely-crafted expressions.  The true coding artists produced clean, easy-to-follow code that got the job done with minimal effort and was easy to test and verify.
> 
> 
> 
> Think you guys are reaching quite honestly. The purpose of the code or equations is the end result. Like when they built the pyramids they relied on leverage (physics).  But the math wasn't the art. It was a necessary vehicle to produce it, as was the art they put in side. In my mind (i could be wrong) it seems some of you are claiming the vehicle to be the art. In which it is a manner in which to produce it. Clay pottery comes to mind as well. You can claim the physics of it are the art. But no one thinks that. They look at the finished art as the art. While methods of producing art almost always factor in the final perception of it.  I can't personally think of anyone that has attributed the physics of producing clay pottery as being the actual art. But rather they look at the materials and devices as knowledge or craft and the finished product as art. Same with statues ( how do they hold themselves up?). The equations in the process are they considered the actual art? And the further you get into the technical perhaps the more difficult it is to separate the technical craft side from the art itself (i alluded to this earlier in the thread). While davinci had a knack for both it isn't often or easily attained. The off track banter of the thread into math as art, code as art, i volunteer for proof of how quick people can be in claiming something to be art with technical merit but little of actual artistic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what you're saying makes code not art?  Or equations not art?  Because they have other uses?  Can an automobile not be, in and of itself an artwork, even though its primary purpose is to drive other people around?  Is a portrait not a work of art if its primary purpose is simply to record what the person looks like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Art is totally subjective. Equations either work or they dont. code either works or it doesn't. Art doesn't have to work to be art. (hence some bad art lol)  It comes into existence, and just is. Totally subjective with no solution necessary.  I understand the preference, for those that love math to want to consider it a art. I actually consider math more a language, or a tool. Yes, i have no doubt it can be beautiful to some. But if we are lowering the bar that far, then i love gardening, it must be a art. I love cooking, it must be a art, i love .......etc.etc.etc.
> Because you love something, and it does have creative tendency, does that make it art? That would mean EVERYTHING is art.  For me personally, i much prefer to consider math a tool, closer to a language, with some creative or somewhat beautiful to some tendency. But because it has a objective, a solution perhaps, it is used as a tool, and it isn't subjective (either it is right or it isnt) then i have trouble making that leap toward considering it a art. I will concur math is used in art, is closely related to art, is a tool for such purpose amongst many more and is a language, or similar.  Calling it (or code) art is a large leap through my perception of it. And making that leap means everything is art. As you could make a similar argument for most anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's actually mathematical proofs that math (and code) actually don't always either work or not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like language, a tool? In general i think most artists applied math TOO their art. They didn't consider it the art. Not to discourage you from believing whatever you want to believe. For me it sounds like a very slippery slope to be on. Not so much lowering the bar for what is art, but making the word itself defunct as everything can be art. You made other statements with regards to the car, different levels of art or something. You are opening a door here.  In with anything that has a creative tendency or aesthetic appeal can be considered art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but I think the other alternative is making completely arbitrary distinctions about what is or isn't art based simply on where you can draw hard lines.
> 
> Slippery slope arguments are generally bad arguments. But they're especially bad when the slope leads to something that isn't a negative. If we are more inclusive about what art is, so what? Why is that something we need to avoid.
> 
> If you're so concerned about not expanding the definition of art, what is the definition of art you're using?
Click to expand...

It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills.  A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.


----------



## pixmedic

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people _*insist *_on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another.  natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly  segregate  ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.


----------



## limr

Y'know what? I don't mind


pixmedic said:


> labels man...
> I don't get it.
> why do so many people _*insist *_on being labeled something?
> we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
> we pit ourselves against each another.  natural light -vs- flash,
> lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
> we willingly  segregate  ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.
> 
> just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
> and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.



^^^^THIS^^^^ALL OF THIS^^^^^

Testify!


----------



## sashbar

bribrius said:


> It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills.  A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.



I tend to agree with bribrius, even more so, craft and art are in my view two completely different propositions, regardless of medium. It might be a painting or a brick wall,  it does not really matter to me.

Call me a snob, but there is a clear line between a craftsman and an artist.  A craftsman can be trained, an artist can not.
A craftsman makes beautiful things - pots, vases, paintings, sculptures or photographs. Sometimes very beautiful, amazing things. They are great objects of craftsmanship, but there is nothing beyond it.
An artist makes same things only to use them as a medium to share his ideas, views, feelings, philosophy and vision that have a more or less universal appeal.

In other words to make it very simple - a craftsman is somebody who can pronounce sounds and words perfectly well and clear, or who is able to write letters and words beautifully. And he knows grammar as well, unlike me.

An artist uses these words and sounds and letters to give us poems and prose, that have meaning and are able to change us.  You can stare at an alphabet and it will never change you ( unless Ella sings it). You can read "Master and Margarita" and it will change you forever***. See the difference?

That is essentially a difference. One can learn to write and to speak. But to make the next step, to be an artist you have to have something inside to say or to write. Something that is worth saying. That is where 99% stumble, be it fine art or photography. One can be an undisputed master of photography, but he may never become an artist.

Sometimes I see a very "American" attitude towards art: anyone can be an artist. Anyone has something to say. Everyone is beautiful deep down inside. Nope. Sorry. Only selected few have got it, sadly.  Because otherwise there is only one step to "Everything is art", which is of course only half a step from "There is no art".

PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.


----------



## limr

sashbar said:


> PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.



This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.

I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.

Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)

I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a different definition of 'art.'


----------



## bribrius

limr said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.
> 
> I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.
> 
> Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)
> 
> I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a different definition of 'art.'
Click to expand...

But. But. He won a nobel prize!  sinner!
Select Sermons - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## KenC

pixmedic said:


> labels man...
> I don't get it.
> why do so many people _*insist *_on being labeled something?
> we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
> we pit ourselves against each another.  natural light -vs- flash,
> lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
> we willingly  segregate  ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.
> 
> just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
> and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.



You forgot the labels of "labeler" and "non-labeler".   I'm with you in the non-labelers.   {what's the emoticon for "irony"?}


----------



## bribrius

i hate to be labeled but love to label. It is like the *Dewey Decimal System*


----------



## The_Traveler

pixmedic said:


> labels man...
> I don't get it.
> why do so many people _*insist *_on being labeled something?
> we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
> we pit ourselves against each another.  natural light -vs- flash,
> lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
> we willingly  segregate  ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.
> 
> just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
> and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.



You can't get away from labels because they are a summation of many characteristics that are often difficult to describe in ways that are meaningful.
At the very lowest level, the labels for color (red, blue, etc.) describe characteristics in ways that are not precise but are generally understood.
At a higher less clearly defined level, if someone describes him or herself as a Goldwater Republican, then you can get a general idea of what that person might believe about a variety of fiscal and governmental ideas.
If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist.

Perhaps the best, most generally descriptive yet imprecise label I have ever heard was one used by Fritz  Zwicky, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who categorized some people  as “spherical a______s” (“spherical” because they are a______s no matter which way one looks at them.)


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> labels man...
> I don't get it.
> why do so many people _*insist *_on being labeled something?
> we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
> we pit ourselves against each another.  natural light -vs- flash,
> lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
> we willingly  segregate  ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.
> 
> just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
> and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get away from labels because they are a summation of many characteristics that are often difficult to describe in ways that are meaningful.
> At the very lowest level, the labels for color (red, blue, etc.) describe characteristics in ways that are not precise but are generally understood.
> At a higher less clearly defined level, if someone describes him or herself as a Goldwater Republican, then you can get a general idea of what that person might believe about a variety of fiscal and governmental ideas.
> If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist.
> 
> Perhaps the best, most generally descriptive yet imprecise label I have ever heard was one used by Fritz  Zwicky, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who categorized some people  as “spherical a______s” (“spherical” because they are a______s no matter which way one looks at them.)
Click to expand...






why should I seek a label? Because the difficulty of avoiding one  is so great that I should simply give in and accept it and the prejudices that follow?
you said yourself that _*"If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist."*_
well, I say to you, with the utmost honesty and sincerity...
I do not wish that any opinion of me be formed _*merely *_from a self stated label. 

would my work be any better for calling myself an artist?
should I call myself an artist, and thus prejudice people towards a different mindset than they might have otherwise had before viewing my work? such a term neither interests me, nor affects what I do or how I do it. 
people will judge my work as they see it, not for what I call it, or myself. 

Cant get away from labels?
As long as we believe that is the case, then it will be so. 
perhaps you are right. perhaps we can never escape the inevitability of being labeled.  The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty...
maybe, like labels, none of those things can ever be overcome by people...
But I will be damned if I don't try my best to do so anyway.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

sashbar said:


> Sometimes I see a very "American" attitude towards art: anyone can be an artist. Anyone has something to say. Everyone is beautiful deep down inside. Nope. Sorry. Only selected few have got it, sadly.  Because otherwise there is only one step to "Everything is art", which is of course only half a step from "There is no art".



Maybe I'm wrong but the attitude you seem to be describing doesn't come of as exclusively American. I think that it's more like a large portion of the modern and post-modern art world's beliefs. The belief or outlook however, is not that everyone "can" be an artist.. It's that everyone IS an artist, because everyone that does something involving expression of thoughts and ideas is making art. Now that's not to say that the art is profound or even worth paying attention to, but its still art.

Maybe we have different definitions of what art is.. but I don't believe that art has to be good or successful to be art.. I believe it just has to try and express something.

To explain my viewpoint.
A failed peace of art is still art, no? and if it is.. then what seperates the failed painting's of Van Gogh  from the failed paintings of "The non-select masses" you describe? Why is an average joe's  doodle in a math notebook any less art than "Master and Margarita"?


----------



## The_Traveler

@pixmedic

Language is labels,
You have put yourself in a category at least in one respect and that may not have a convenient label that comes to mind - it is a category.
You think most artists are poseurs and full of crap (your statements) - I may not have a name for it but that category exists.
Everyone thinks in labels, because that's the only way we can maintain knowledge about events.
I avoid certain foods because they are too spicy for my taste; I can't remember the taste exactly, but I remember them as 'too spicy'.

I see that you are trying to weight your argument by implying that labels are negative and using as examples labels that are accepted as negative -'The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty..."
Now I will remember this attempt about you as a generality, a label.

We can't avoid being labelled by others.
The more telling label are the ones that we apply to ourselves.

We, I, are always making comparisons between how we see people and the labels people apply to themselves, either actually or by the way they act,
For example, you think some people are pompous blowhards, obviously no one thinks that of themselves that way.
You see a 50 year old guy wearing knee-length shorts, a t-shirt with the name of a popular band and a ball cap turned backwards.  He thinks he's cool and passing for a much younger guy. You think, or I do, that he should be embarrassed for himself and there's a good chance he is a fool.


----------



## FeatherMonkey

For me in this thread I see a lot of arguments about the tangible bit's that make art, yet surely it's the untangible bit's that make it art. It's the audience/viewer interaction which then allows a difference of opinion.

I'm actually a chef and have heard this argument so many times in my case is it science or art. For me it's both. Take the humble fish and chips which feasibly could be taken to a level of 'art' now to take it beyond just food would probably take the environment as a factor to. Which I think can be seen with art i.e. a sculpture somewhere else. In another context why is the photorealistic artist an artist, yet the photographer isn't? 

So if it's the viewer/audience creating the art by the way they interpret and emotions evoked(Which all art does by the senses). So surely it's the untangible that makes it art. Someone said to me years ago maths is the highest form of art. I got it whilst there has been some comparison to language it's less symbolic it generally is untangible whilst we all know what 1 is it only lives in our head unlike cat. That was how I got it.

The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then? but I guess that's more philosophical.


----------



## pixmedic

The_Traveler said:


> Language is labels,
> You have put yourself in a category at least in one respect and that may not have a convenient label that comes to mind - it is a category.
> You think most artists are poseurs and full of crap (your statements) - I may not have a name for it but that category exists.
> Everyone thinks in labels, because that's the only way we can maintain knowledge about events.
> I avoid certain foods because they are too spicy for my taste; I can't remember the taste exactly, but I remember them as 'too spicy'.
> 
> I see that you are trying to weight your argument by implying that labels are negative and using as examples labels that are accepted as negative -'The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty..."
> Now I will remember this attempt about you as a generality, a label.
> 
> We can't avoid being labelled by others.
> The more telling label are the ones that we apply to ourselves.
> 
> We, I, are always making comparisons between how we see people and the labels people apply to themselves, either actually or by the way they act,
> For example, you think some people are pompous blowhards, obviously no one thinks that of themselves that way.
> You see a 50 year old guy wearing knee-length shorts, a t-shirt with the name of a popular band and a ball cap turned backwards.  He thinks he's cool and passing for a much younger guy. You think, or I do, that he should be embarrassed for himself and there's a good chance he is a fool.



interestingly enough, 
I never said that we _*could*_ avoid being labeled by _*others*_. 
I see that you are trying to weight  your argument by overlaying an objective to my words that is not there. (also, i do not remember using the words "full of crap" OR "poseurs" so i would appreciate if you are going to base your argument on turning my posts into a bash fest, at least have the curtsey to quote me properly) 
you have entirely missed the message i was trying to convey. 
thankfully, it seems others got it though. perhaps my language was too artistic for some. 
Let me try it again, but articulated a little differently. 

My problem is not a label that _*other*_ people give to me. 
my problem is that I do not wish to give myself a label, and thus affecting peoples opinions of me and my work right from the start.


----------



## Designer

FeatherMonkey said:


> The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then?


Yes, a work of art can be appreciated by only one person, and it's still art.  If you were to create an outstanding dish of fish & chips, made as only you could envision it, it would still be enjoyable to you even if all you did was to eat it all by yourself.


----------



## sashbar

limr said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.
> 
> I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.
> 
> Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)
> 
> I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a
Click to expand...


Prople do not have to understand and like any piece of art out there. But srprisingly often it is their problem. I, for instance, am seriously deaf to a lot of classical music and I know it is  my problem, not Bethoven's or Mozart's. I know I would be much richer if I could undetstand it. And this is my problem as far as I am concerned.


----------



## bribrius

none of you will ever be artists. You spend too much time arguing on line. How would you have room in your heads for that creativity to spark? You are filling your minds with clutter. Would a artist live in the art? Or fill their heads with the argument and discussion of it?

(pot calling kettle black)


----------



## pixmedic

bribrius said:


> none of you will ever be artists. You spend too much time arguing on line. How would you have room in your heads for that creativity to spark? You are filling your minds with clutter. Would a artist live in the art? Or fill their heads with the argument and discussion of it?
> 
> (pot calling kettle black)



art doesn't exist.


----------



## FeatherMonkey

Designer said:


> FeatherMonkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a work of art can be appreciated by only one person, and it's still art.  If you were to create an outstanding dish of fish & chips, made as only you could envision it, it would still be enjoyable to you even if all you did was to eat it all by yourself.
Click to expand...

Then the answer to this thread is simple, gone on for too long and boils down to one phrase.  'What's one mans junk, is another's treasure'


----------



## photoguy99

Aww, c'mon. As I Lay Dying is a masterpiece of black comedy. By which I mean it's hilarious. Intruder in the Dust ain't half bad either.


----------



## fjrabon

sashbar said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills.  A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with bribrius, even more so, craft and art are in my view two completely different propositions, regardless of medium. It might be a painting or a brick wall,  it does not really matter to me.
Click to expand...


But this is the exact opposite of what Bribrius said, he said that the medium does matter when it comes to being a craft or an art, you're saying that it is about the vision, philosophy, etc and "It might be a painting or a brick wall,  it does not really matter to me."


----------



## Designer

I don't know how you would make art without applying some craft to your construct.  

Even a pasteup montage requires you to use some glue, but placing the items artfully requires an artful vision of the finished product.


----------



## limr

photoguy99 said:


> Aww, c'mon. As I Lay Dying is a masterpiece of black comedy. By which I mean it's hilarious. Intruder in the Dust ain't half bad either.



I read Light in August and am told that was probably not the best novel of his to start with. I'm open to giving him a second chance, but someone who likes Hemingway as much as I do will almost always have a much harder time dealing with Faulkner.


----------



## limr

sashbar said:


> Prople do not have to understand and like any piece of art out there. But srprisingly often it is their problem. I, for instance, am seriously deaf to a lot of classical music and I know it is  my problem, not Bethoven's or Mozart's. I know I would be much richer if I could undetstand it. And this is my problem as far as I am concerned.



But why is it a _problem_? Why does it have to be anything? Okay, Faulkner was a great writer. He didn't fail in creating art. But I don't respond to Faulkner. Might I be richer if I did? Perhaps, but it's also not impeding my intellectual or spiritual progress by responding to another author instead. It's not causing me any "problems."

Why can't it just be a simple evaluation of what does or does not enrich my life?


----------



## limr

And...?

Edit: I gues Bri deleted that picture that was post #136. Now it looks like I'm tapping my foot waiting for a response to my previous post. (I'm not.)


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> And...?


The end.


----------



## The_Traveler

From an essay on a large show at MOMA, written by an artist, Brian Dupont

If you have the urge to say something scathing about 'artspeak', just skip it.
It's a cheap shot
What he says is interesting and pretty applicable to photography with its very limited scope.




> _A better pop cultural reference would be Morpheus stepping back to reveal the desert of the real to Neo[8] at the beginning of “The Matrix.” Coming from the gleaming skyscrapers and clear blue skies of high modernism, the scorched earth and sky of the truth of reality is a foreboding sight. It would seem a landscape of exhausted strategies and unintended consequences where survival will take more work than before, but it also allows for broader interactions and a greater degree of possibility.[9]For artists this desert is terrain where the hierarchies of how to make art and what to make it out of don’t apply. *Freed from the need to worry about pushing forward[10] or heralding an agenda, the artist may make what they want out of whatever material will mesh with their formal, conceptual, political, or aesthetic ends. Simply making something “new”[11] is too transient a glory and no longer laudable; the novelty of invention wears off too quickly and everyone’s sources are easily discovered.[12] *This end of progress is also the end of avant garde; one can’t be at the forefront of a movement if there is no front, or if looking backward in reflection can’t be labeled as merely retrograde. This is ultimately disorienting for all involved as the criticism of any given work requires a careful approach on its own terms. The old signposts aren’t necessarily relevant, and the headstrong critic will find themselves revealing more about their own bias than the work’s. Likewise the artist must be acutely aware of what s/he stands for, and how they relate to the shifting context that surrounds their work lest they loose control of it.
> 
> Brian Dupont
> Out of Time Part 1 Forever Now and the New Landscape of Painting. Brian Dupont Artist s Texts
> Brian Dupont_


----------



## pgriz

The flip side to all this, is that we have a relatively limited attention span, and rediscover what we once knew and then forgot.  A truly novel approach is very difficult (someone somewhere in recorded history probably did something similar if not exactly the same), but within one's circle of acquaintances and contacts, it is quite possible to have the "new" thing.


----------



## Designer

pgriz said:


> The flip side to all this, is that we have a relatively limited attention span, and rediscover what we once knew and then forgot.  A truly novel approach is very difficult (someone somewhere in recorded history probably did something similar if not exactly the same), but within one's circle of acquaintances and contacts, it is quite possible to have the "new" thing.


Your post reminded me of an experience I had:

In my second year of architecture school we were to design a building and make a model (of an art museum).  My idea was strictly my own, but some time later I saw a building that looked exactly like my model.  I'm sure the teachers thought that I had copied that building, but I had not seen it before the class project. 

So even original ideas have duplicates sometimes.

ps; that building was not an art museum, but an office building.


----------



## bribrius

I spend much of my time looking at older photos. Often i come across one that was taken in maybe the 40's or 50's and i think "i wish i was that good at this".  I could probably make a similar photo than some more aesthetically pleasing (modern tech and processing). Not so sure that makes it a better photo though as it wouldn't carry the same weight. so i wonder if photography has progressed. Or if it just became more processed or high tech.  The re isn't many modern images i see that i say to myself "i wish i could take that". I do come across a lot of older ones though. Saw a diner pic the other day. Straight shot probably little dark room fudging. And just thought "i wish i could take that". It was 1950's


----------



## bribrius

And yeah, i take some ugly pics. Because my biggest fear is turning out "aesthetically pleasing garbage" for me. I look through my own stuff, see something processed and kinda pretty. And my mind says "well that is a p.o.s.". The prettier and more processed the more a p.o.s. i think it is. Mostly i shoot that type of stuff at all just to learn some post processing.  Just where my mind is, but i probably pertains heavily on how i view modern art. Not that i don't like anything modern. It just isn't what i hold my own standards too or set my guide by.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> ..so i wonder if photography has progressed.


The technology is different now, but many of the principles of photography, such as; composition, manipulation of light, etc. have remained essentially the same, which makes those old images timeless.


----------



## minicoop1985

So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?


----------



## limr

minicoop1985 said:


> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?



Are they hipster glasses? Then no. No cred for you! Come back one year!


----------



## Gary A.

limr said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of this stuff is the equivalent of trying to making learning calculus art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think mathematics, and specifically calculus is not an art?
> 
> Having taught calculus for the last 13 years and being a professional mathematician, I believe that mathematics has much more in common with art and philosophy than with science.
> 
> Pedagogically, it's often best to help students understand that mathematics is not some vast absolute quantity to be learned exactly, it's a social discipline. *What students learn is the communication process that is accepted by the group.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really interesting. I've often heard mathematics referred to as a language, and heard about how proofs can be elegant or clumsy. The problem is how to reconcile this concept with the experience of math as a rigid set of rules that have to be followed but given no real explanation of what those rules are for. That's how I think most kids experience it in the schools, anyway. But it can be likened to language, and if language can be the tool of artistic expression, then it follows that math too can be a tool of artistic expression, no?
> 
> Hmm, gonna be thinking about this one for a while
Click to expand...

Sooo 2+2=3 ... is art?


----------



## Gary A.

W.Y.Photo said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I fully disagree with @qleak (sorry--see my reasoning!) with regards to mathematics being more in common with art than science. It's not one or the other..it's both. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it can't be scientific. And vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true engineer  (Just joking with you )
> 
> I do not disagree with you. It is certainly both! I personally see more relations with art / philosophy than with science. I didn't say there weren't relationships with science
> 
> The problem with mathematics as a discipline is that there is a divide between applications based courses (calculus through differential equations and linear algebra)  and more theoretical offerings which tend to hold much more of the philosophical and artistic questions.
> 
> The transition is often difficult for students they move from classes where they are taught how to do technical things to classes where they are asked why things work and have to think creatively for themselves. I think the parallel to photography is quite apt here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly. That parallel is eerily familiar to me having recently graduated from photography school. I found myself utterly underwhelmed for my entire freshman year, learning next to nothing that I didn't already know, halfway through sophomore year I got hit over the head with "meaning" "concept" and "narrative". At the time it tripped me up quite a bit. I thought "why is this necessary?" "This doesn't pertain to my work..."and plenty of other negative things about it until I finally gave in and really attempted to understand it. Now its all I think about. I can't even see a photo without thinking about the concept, the ideas, and the narrative of an image. Technical precision is just a nice doorway to a much larger mansion of possibility.
Click to expand...

I was taught as a photojournalist, that there wasn't much difference between photography and the written word. Both are tools for communication.


----------



## limr

Gary A. said:


> Sooo 2+2=3 ... is art?



I have no idea. What the hell do I know from math?


----------



## Gary A.

Simply said, isn't anything beyond utilitarian ...art? A person crafts a simple clay pot for holding water. Another person adds some shape to that utilitarian design ... it serves no utilitarian purpose ... thus art. Art can be good or bad, elaborate or simple, high or low. according to collective and individual tastes ... but can't/isn't anything extra beyond utilitarian be considered art.

Which has me perplexed about writing code and art. Given, I know nothing about code ... but using the above definition as the lowest common denominator to define art, (a segway into math), how is using less code artistic?

I understand the idea of bumbling, clean, pure, et cetera and that with code accomplishing the same task with less ... is more ... to be desired ... but is that art? A craftsperson throws a utilitarian clay pot equal to another utilitarian clay pot but with less clay ... is that art or is it engineering (redesigning the same volume pot with less material) or is it craftsmanship (it takes more skill to use less clay)?


----------



## Designer

Gary A. said:


> Which has me perplexed about writing code and art. Given, I know nothing about code ... but using the above definition as the lowest common denominator to define art, (a segway into math), how is using less code artistic?


Think of it in terms of writing prose.  If someone can convey an idea in a few well-chosen words, that also is "art".


----------



## tirediron

minicoop1985 said:


> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?


Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.


----------



## Gary A.

Designer said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has me perplexed about writing code and art. Given, I know nothing about code ... but using the above definition as the lowest common denominator to define art, (a segway into math), how is using less code artistic?
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it in terms of writing prose.  If someone can convey an idea in a few well-chosen words, that also is "art".
Click to expand...

Or is it brevity, fine engineering ... to the point ...  possibly eloquence ... but by my simple definition, to "... convey an idea in a few well-chosen words" wouldn't be art. That would be equal to throwing a similar volume pot with less material. Does crafting a pot with less clay but same volume indicate a mastery of the medium, a high level of skill, thinking outside of the design box ... certainly ... is it art, adding elements beyond function and utility ... I think not.


----------



## Designer

The first example was in coding, so that is why I chose the analogy of writing.  I should not have written "a few" which may have made you think that I meant that in both coding and writing we would want to see the fewest number of lines/words, but that was not my sole intent.  While few lines/words often lead to excellence, there is more to it than merely numbers.


----------



## rexbobcat

tirediron said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
Click to expand...


A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?


----------



## tirediron

rexbobcat said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
Click to expand...

Well played sir, well played!


----------



## Gary A.

rexbobcat said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
Click to expand...

... and a few self-inflicted wounds.


----------



## table1349

All you have to do to become an artist is change your name to a symbol.


----------



## W.Y.Photo




----------



## KenC

A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?[/QUOTE]
... and a few self-inflicted wounds.[/QUOTE]

Does it have to be the whole ear?


----------



## 480sparky

I don't want to be an artist.

I want to be an 'are-TEEST'.


----------



## pgriz

480sparky said:


> I don't want to be an artist.
> 
> I want to be an 'are-TEEST'.



I think the angle of the nose relative to the horizon is a key component of the look.  Also dropping phrases such as "I don't confine my creativity by rules made by the less-imaginative".


----------



## pixmedic

rexbobcat said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
Click to expand...


YES!


----------



## pgriz

pixmedic said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!
Click to expand...


Jason, your bias is showing.  And don't forget that just because it looks good on you, doesn't mean that everyone's features will be enhanced by this.  After all, there are standards to be maintained.  Especially if it is the "arteeest" look.


----------



## pixmedic

pgriz said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jason, your bias is showing.  And don't forget that just because it looks good on you, doesn't mean that everyone's features will be enhanced by this.  After all, there are standards to be maintained.  Especially if it is the "arteeest" look.
Click to expand...


you cant go wrong with a mustache. 
its a timeless classic staple of the Arteest. 
the more mustache wax it takes to hold the 'stache in place, the more artistic you are.


----------



## pgriz

I forgot the wax.

You mean like this? http://fusepilates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mustache-4.jpg


----------



## limr

This doesn't mean that _I_ need to have a beard too, right? If I want to be an ar-teeeest? Can I just get away with a fedora, lots of black clothes and lots of silver jewelry? I really don't want facial hair.


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> Can I just get away with a fedora, lots of black clothes and lots of silver jewelry?


Show us!  What color fedora?  You need a scarf, too. Flowy, and not black.


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> This doesn't mean that _I_ need to have a beard too, right? If I want to be an ar-teeeest? Can I just get away with a fedora, lots of black clothes and lots of silver jewelry? I really don't want facial hair.


I think we can allow you to skip the beard; your regular mustache is fine on it's own!



*ducks and runs*


----------



## limr

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't mean that _I_ need to have a beard too, right? If I want to be an ar-teeeest? Can I just get away with a fedora, lots of black clothes and lots of silver jewelry? I really don't want facial hair.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can allow you to skip the beard; your regular mustache is fine on it's own!
> 
> 
> 
> *ducks and runs*
Click to expand...


It's a birthmark!!


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't mean that _I_ need to have a beard too, right? If I want to be an ar-teeeest? Can I just get away with a fedora, lots of black clothes and lots of silver jewelry? I really don't want facial hair.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can allow you to skip the beard; your regular mustache is fine on it's own!
> 
> 
> 
> *ducks and runs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a birthmark!!
Click to expand...

Since when do you use wax on a birthmark??????


----------



## pgriz

Uhoh.  John, it's been nice knowing you.  I'm also sad that the imminent destruction of the south part of Vancouver Island by an asteroid will mean that I won't be able to see it again.

@limr:  Let's just agree that John needs his eyeglass prescription checked.  and perhaps call off the asteroid strike, as I do really like Vancouver Island.


----------



## tirediron

pgriz said:


> Uhoh.  John, it's been nice knowing you.  I'm also sad that the imminent destruction of the south part of Vancouver Island by an asteroid will mean that I won't be able to see it again.
> 
> @limr:  Let's just agree that John needs his eyeglass prescription checked.  and perhaps call off the asteroid strike, as I do really like Vancouver Island.




Mehh... I'm pretty sure I can run faster scared than Lenny can mad!


----------



## minicoop1985

The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?


----------



## pixmedic

tirediron said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhoh.  John, it's been nice knowing you.  I'm also sad that the imminent destruction of the south part of Vancouver Island by an asteroid will mean that I won't be able to see it again.
> 
> @limr:  Let's just agree that John needs his eyeglass prescription checked.  and perhaps call off the asteroid strike, as I do really like Vancouver Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh... I'm pretty sure I can run faster scared than Lenny can mad!
Click to expand...


'till she chucks a Land Camera at you


----------



## tirediron

pixmedic said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhoh.  John, it's been nice knowing you.  I'm also sad that the imminent destruction of the south part of Vancouver Island by an asteroid will mean that I won't be able to see it again.
> 
> @limr:  Let's just agree that John needs his eyeglass prescription checked.  and perhaps call off the asteroid strike, as I do really like Vancouver Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh... I'm pretty sure I can run faster scared than Lenny can mad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'till she chucks a Land Camera at you
Click to expand...

Ooohhh... those things hurt!


----------



## pgriz

minicoop1985 said:


> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?



If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.


----------



## limr

tirediron said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhoh.  John, it's been nice knowing you.  I'm also sad that the imminent destruction of the south part of Vancouver Island by an asteroid will mean that I won't be able to see it again.
> 
> @limr:  Let's just agree that John needs his eyeglass prescription checked.  and perhaps call off the asteroid strike, as I do really like Vancouver Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh... I'm pretty sure I can run faster scared than Lenny can mad!
Click to expand...


Don't underestimate the strength spite can lend to an arteeeeest.


----------



## table1349

With this mustache and only one eye this must be a truly a GREAT Arteest............
http://static5.businessinsider.com/...-the-best-beards-and-mustaches-in-america.jpg


----------



## bribrius

i thought all you had to do to be a artist was quit your job, pick up at least a mild drug to do, and mooch off all your family and friends.


----------



## table1349

bribrius said:


> i thought all you had to do to be a artist was quit your job, pick up at least a mild drug to do, and mooch off all your family and friends.


No that is how you become a looser son.


----------



## BrickHouse

I thought they were called 'millennials' or whatever?


----------



## rexbobcat

BrickHouse said:


> I thought they were called 'millennials' or whatever?



Um, I, in fact, have a part time job in retail. I work acceptably hard most of the time occasionally so that I may wear my suspiciously well-styled hobo garb.

I mean, do you know how much effort I have to put into styling my whole aesthetic to look _this_ bohemian? I don't have time for a 9-5 with my fast-paced, chain-smoking-outside-coffee-shops lifestyle.


----------



## BrickHouse

My brother just taught me the term 'Lumbersexual'. People.


----------



## rexbobcat

BrickHouse said:


> My brother just taught me the term 'Lumbersexual'. People.



I'm not a lumbersexual. I'm more normcore. Normcore Fashion for One in 7 Billion -- The Cut

Then again, I don't really believe in labels.


----------



## minicoop1985

pgriz said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
Click to expand...


Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

minicoop1985 said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.
Click to expand...


Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..

People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..

As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?

Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.

And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..
> 
> People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..
> 
> As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?
> 
> Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.
> 
> And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.
Click to expand...

Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..
> 
> People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..
> 
> As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?
> 
> Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.
> 
> And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.
Click to expand...


It's kind of something you can hope for as an artist but not something that you can bank on as a career path. You either have to be extremely dedicated and work in a more profitable area as well or be lucky enough that once you get exhibited there is a craze over your work to the point that you can make a living off of it.


----------



## minicoop1985

No offense taken. I understand your point. I was simply being sarcastic and making a point about the idiots who take one photo with total cost of about $5 and decide it's worth $130,000. Things that make absolutely no sense. Calculating actual costs and seeking to recover them, that's a completely different realm.


----------



## bribrius

W.Y.Photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..
> 
> People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..
> 
> As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?
> 
> Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.
> 
> And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of something you can hope for as an artist but not something that you can bank on as a career path. You either have to be extremely dedicated and work in a more profitable area as well or be lucky enough that once you get exhibited there is a craze over your work to the point that you can make a living off of it.
Click to expand...

First step might be finding a gallery that cares about photos to start with. Lot of them seem to concentrate on oil painters, sculptures, and if they are willing to take photos they shove them on the back wall like it is a "discount rack". Space being a premium.


----------



## Forkie

bribrius said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny part is I own a beret and have a goatee... Oh god, I am an _arteest_ aren't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If both at the same time...  Yeah.  Sorry.  Now I'm going to have to discount all the images you post by 99%.  On principle, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry. I'll inflate the prices enough now that I'm an _arteest_ that I still make a crapload off of your 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to call you out personally or anything but your post sparked a thought in my mind..
> 
> People tend to call art overpriced and scoff at artists who think their art is worth so much or people who spend large sums on a piece of artwork but they don't stop to consider that there may be a valid reason that a single photograph in an art gallery is typically priced at $4000 dollars or more..
> 
> As an example.. consider a professional photographer who has calculated that their cost of doing business is $250 a day.. a client hires them to shoot an event that will leave them with a full day of shooting and 2 full days of post processing.. whats that photographer likely to charge for the entire shoot? A good guess would be around $900 correct?
> 
> Now consider a photographer who is operating as a "professional artist".. they make all their money off of their art. Say the photographer spends a year working on a project that he can finally put into an exhibition.. and lets say he actually spent time making the project 250 of those days. In order to simply break even that artist needs to make $62,500 off of the project he made. He spent 250 days worth of time and $62,500 in order to create a collection of images and somehow needs to acquire money so he can fund his next project. The only thing of value he has to offer is Artworks he has made during that time and there is a small portion of the population which is willing to pay him what the work is actually worth. If he charges $4000 per print from a 12 image series he is only going to make $48000 so he decides to sell 2 or three editions at $4000 a piece in order to make back what he spent with some profit and move on to the next project. He needs to charge this much in order to support himself and continue his work so it is only logical that the prints cost that much.
> 
> And this scenario is only if all of his artwork sells... which in my experience, it won't all sell, meaning he'll make far less than 144000 with three editions but he will also at least have a better chance at breaking even. And breaking even is an exception, not the rule in the art world, most artists don't make a dime of profit because they only sell a few pieces from projects that they spend years working on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. i think the days are long gone (if they ever existed) where the majority of artists have any hope of supporting themselves on their art. You could try to do it around here but you might end up living in a cardboard box. 200 dollar prints are a hard sell never mind 4k. What is worse is once you are selling 200 dollar prints (or worse yet 50 dollars prints) you just put a value on your own work. The odds of you ever getting more than that are even slimmer.
Click to expand...


I think it also depends on where you live or market your art.  In London, a lot of people wouldn't think twice about spending £4000 on a piece of art.  Even a photo.

I have no idea where you live Bribrius and I'm making a sweeping generalisation here, but I suspect the majority of small towns in the US would contain very few people with a mindset to spend so much money on a piece of art.  It is much more likely and commonplace in places like London, New York, LA, Paris and Milan where art is much more commonplace and accepted as a valuable asset.


----------



## Dagwood56

You will find that your high end galleries are primarily paintings and sculptures, but many of the smaller galleries that you'll find outside of major cities, tend to display more of a variety. Several near me not only show photos, but also textile art as well. It all depends on how big one's ego is when they go looking to have their work displayed, how easy or difficult it is to find the right gallery.


----------



## bribrius

Dagwood56 said:


> You will find that your high end galleries are primarily paintings and sculptures, but many of the smaller galleries that you'll find outside of major cities, tend to display more of a variety. Several near me not only show photos, but also textile art as well. It all depends on how big one's ego is when they go looking to have their work displayed, how easy or difficult it is to find the right gallery.


yeah, i can get into a local gallery here if i want to try to sell a hundred dollar prints. Another i am talking to IS primarily paintings and sculptures but more  $$$ (in which i expect a flat out NO). I probably won't end up showing anything i tend to go down these roads and change my mind. The inquiries are fun though.


----------



## bribrius

When you look at some of the galleries. They establish there own reputation on limiting what they show. For instance if they list as "one of a kind, no prints or copies" you can pretty much count photography totally out.


----------



## photoguy99

There is "value based" pricing, and there is "cost based" pricing. The latter takes your expenses, divides by the number of sales, adds a modest markup for profit, and sets that number as the price.

"value based" pricing sets the price according to how much value the thing being sold provides to the buyer.

Value based pricing is how Art with a capital A is sold, however. Value, in this case, is entirely a social construct. Your job as an artist is, arguably, to construct that Value.


----------



## bribrius

photoguy99 said:


> There is "value based" pricing, and there is "cost based" pricing. The latter takes your expenses, divides by the number of sales, adds a modest markup for profit, and sets that number as the price.
> 
> "value based" pricing sets the price according to how much value the thing being sold provides to the buyer.
> 
> Value based pricing is how Art with a capital A is sold, however. Value, in this case, is entirely a social construct. Your job as an artist is, arguably, to construct that Value.


to be blunt. (just my thoughts) I think you might get more respect and be taken more serious as a shitty painter in the art world than a good photographer. Some galleries look at the purpose of photography to take photos of what they consider the real art (the painting and sculptures for their brochures or web, newletters.). It seems the ones that don't list their pricing on their pieces (because they are that expensive) you may as well forget about getting photography into. You know when you have to jump through hoops just to get the price you are at a different "level".  Not to say their isn't photography in any higher end galleries or like the Boston museum of art but you better be someone famous.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> First step might be finding a gallery that cares about photos to start with. Lot of them seem to concentrate on oil painters, sculptures, and if they are willing to take photos they shove them on the back wall like it is a "discount rack". Space being a premium.


I'll bet that if somebody showed them a really good photograph, they would display it proudly up front. 

When they've got every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to sell mediocre photographs, they simply can't take them all, nor could they hope to make any money on them.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is "value based" pricing, and there is "cost based" pricing. The latter takes your expenses, divides by the number of sales, adds a modest markup for profit, and sets that number as the price.
> 
> "value based" pricing sets the price according to how much value the thing being sold provides to the buyer.
> 
> Value based pricing is how Art with a capital A is sold, however. Value, in this case, is entirely a social construct. Your job as an artist is, arguably, to construct that Value.
> 
> 
> 
> to be blunt. (just my thoughts) I think you might get more respect and be taken more serious as a shitty painter in the art world than a good photographer. Some galleries look at the purpose of photography to take photos of what they consider the real art (the painting and sculptures for their brochures or web, newletters.). It seems the ones that don't list their pricing on their pieces (because they are that expensive) you may as well forget about getting photography into. You know when you have to jump through hoops just to get the price you are at a different "level".  Not to say their isn't photography in any higher end galleries or like the Boston museum of art but you better be someone famous.
Click to expand...


Yes and No. At least in New York City..

Photography is widely accepted as an artistic medium here and is readily displayed in galleries but it is valued at far less than a painting or sculpture usually is. Some of the reasons for this are good ones and some a purely based off of the buyers perception of the skill levels required to make a piece in each differing medium.

I'm sure the mentality can differ quite a lot depending on where you are from though.


----------



## rexbobcat

I think part of the reason photography as art isn't as respected as the classic forms is because, well, photography can have a certain degree of happenstance. A mediocre photographer can eventually take an amazing photo if they shoot enough. Plus, digital has, in some ways, brought down the already low walls of exclusivity that photography had.

Sculpture on the other hand....Well, unless you're some BS post-modern artist who throws clay at a ceiling fan and calls it art, I've never heard a sculptor say "I accidentally sculpted the Venus de Milo."


----------



## bribrius

rexbobcat said:


> I think part of the reason photography as art isn't as respected as the classic forms is because, well, photography can have a certain degree of happenstance. A mediocre photographer can eventually take an amazing photo if they shoot enough. Plus, digital has, in some ways, brought down the already low walls of exclusivity that photography had.
> 
> Sculpture on the other hand....Well, unless you're some BS post-modern artist who throws clay at a ceiling fan and calls it art, I've never heard a sculptor say "I accidentally sculpted the Venus de Milo."


quantity to. You never know how many photographs are out there. Even numbered prints are questionable. They are easily duplicated.  Paintings and sculptures more difficult. The ease of reproduction devalues them as well imo. Hard to feel you are buying something special in a medium easily reproduced.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

rexbobcat said:


> I think part of the reason photography as art isn't as respected as the classic forms is because, well, photography can have a certain degree of happenstance. A mediocre photographer can eventually take an amazing photo if they shoot enough. Plus, digital has, in some ways, brought down the already low walls of exclusivity that photography had.
> 
> Sculpture on the other hand....Well, unless you're some BS post-modern artist who throws clay at a ceiling fan and calls it art, I've never heard a sculptor say "I accidentally sculpted the Venus de Milo."



No of of course not. but...I accidentally cast The Bronze David... 
Lol.




It definitely makes sense that photography is valued less than something more physical like a sculpture or a painting.

You bring up an interesting point. Happenstance, while very rare if not absent in other forms of art is almost a given in photography. I remember capturing great photographs without putting any thought into them as soon as i started taking a lot more pictures than the average person. It's a matter of probability, like how if you hold down the shutter button for an hour while you walk around something appealing is bound to show up on your memory card.

I think photography is probably the most likely medium in the world for this to happen with... a close second being poetry (If someone talks enough they are bound to say something poetic eventually)


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> First step might be finding a gallery that cares about photos to start with. Lot of them seem to concentrate on oil painters, sculptures, and if they are willing to take photos they shove them on the back wall like it is a "discount rack". Space being a premium.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet that if somebody showed them really good photograph, they would display it proudly up front.
> 
> When they've got every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to sell mediocre photographs, they simply can't take them all, nor could they hope to make any money on them.
Click to expand...

doubtful. The vast majority of work on 1x they wouldn't even touch. Often if you look through artists representations a lot of galleries (least here) don't have a single photographer listed as a artist they represent. Nor do they have a single photograph in their listed online collections. I just spent a little time going through the "call to artists" for upcoming events. Dont see much there for photography calls. Instead of them calling you for work, you might be calling them to see if they are willing to take a photograph.  There is like art festivals, photo contests, etc, but they are largely separate from the actual gallery scene. So you can have work exhibited, but can't really be choosey. The local local galleries or members of the art association here will take photographs. But they are on more a "public purpose" level and probably funded with local and state grants. Not so much private label.


----------



## tirediron

bribrius said:


> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.  View attachment 97578


Doesn't that automatically imply a HUGE amount of artistic "cred" in and of itself?


----------



## bribrius

tirediron said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.  View attachment 97578
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that automatically imply a HUGE amount of artistic "cred" in and of itself?
Click to expand...

that and the fact i don't even bother combing my hair?


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.  View attachment 97578



You just gotta talk to people first Brib!! I've seen people who look awful in galleries and found out they actually know a thing or two about art and were fun guys to talk with.



tirediron said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.  View attachment 97578
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that automatically imply a HUGE amount of artistic "cred" in and of itself?
Click to expand...


Absolutely, the true Arteest emit's an essential vibration which promotes people to gaze upon him in awe while simultaneously being terrified to approach him.


----------



## Designer

bribrius said:


> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.


I get that.  Maybe you should hire somebody to be your agent.  You don't step foot inside a gallery, let your agent do all the people stuff.


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I get that.  Maybe you should hire somebody to be your agent.  You don't step foot inside a gallery, let your agent do all the people stuff.
Click to expand...

That would be great, except i go to look AT the art. LOL


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I get that.  Maybe you should hire somebody to be your agent.  You don't step foot inside a gallery, let your agent do all the people stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be great, except i go to look AT the art. LOL
Click to expand...


Well then you need to hire yourself a photographer to look at the art for you.. I hear there's plenty of people who do that weird s**t on these forums actually...


----------



## tirediron

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I get that.  Maybe you should hire somebody to be your agent.  You don't step foot inside a gallery, let your agent do all the people stuff.
Click to expand...

And to really cement your ar-teest reputation, you have your agent do the art too!


----------



## bribrius

tirediron said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys shouldn't listen to me anyway. You realize what i even look like walking through a gallery? People usually don't even talk to me and just move out of the way and speak quietly amongst themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I get that.  Maybe you should hire somebody to be your agent.  You don't step foot inside a gallery, let your agent do all the people stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to really cement your ar-teest reputation, you have your agent do the art too!
Click to expand...

naaaaaa. Just don't worry about any of it. It is what it is. Doesn't matter.


----------



## bribrius

hey. If you were going to be a artist what is the best shoes to wear? Footwear seems critically important.


----------



## limr

bribrius said:


> hey. If you were going to be a artist what is the best shoes to wear? Footwear seems critically important.



Used to be Berkenstocks or Doc Martins. These days, probably some Chuck Taylors.


----------



## pgriz

Well, if you're really going to be an arteeest, I submit that barefoot is the way to go.  Even in winter.  Especially in winter.  Now that's serious arteeest cred. 

(oh, and you will have to wash the crud out of your toes every night, but every arteeest has to make sacrifices.  This is to compensate for the happy childhood you had, and the freedom from want that you lived with too long.  Now you have to suffer for your art.  And it has to show.)


----------



## tirediron

pgriz said:


> Well, if you're really going to be an arteeest, I submit that barefoot is the way to go.  Even in winter.  Especially in winter.  Now that's serious arteeest cred.
> 
> (oh, and you will have to wash the crud out of your toes every night, but every arteeest has to make sacrifices.  This is to compensate for the happy childhood you had, and the freedom from want that you lived with too long.  Now you have to suffer for your art.  And it has to show.)


In the winter you can get away with Birkenstocks and long wool socks, in the summer?  Barefoot for sure!


----------



## rexbobcat

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey. If you were going to be a artist what is the best shoes to wear? Footwear seems critically important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Used to be Berkenstocks or Doc Martins. These days, probably some Chuck Taylors.
Click to expand...


Indeed. You will get more likes on your feet selfies on Instagram if you're wearing Chucks.


----------



## limr

tirediron said:


> In the winter you can get away with Birkenstocks and long wool socks, in the summer?  Barefoot for sure!



Oh John, so much to learn. You can NEVER get away with socks and Berks.


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the winter you can get away with Birkenstocks and long wool socks, in the summer?  Barefoot for sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh John, so much to learn. You can NEVER get away with socks and Berks.
Click to expand...

Oh ye of little time on the Wet Coast!


----------



## Designer

Our local talk radio host is a "sandals and socks guy".  He rides a bicycle too.


----------



## limr

My arteest's soul cries.


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> My arteest's soul cries.


Because of sandals and socks?

If it will help a bit, I once worked for a man who wore glasses in red frames.  He also wore sandals and socks though.  Sorry. 

He actually thought he was some kind of artist, but he didn't even measure up to the "hack" mark.  

More like a wannabe.


----------



## limr

Designer said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My arteest's soul cries.
> 
> 
> 
> Because of sandals and socks?
Click to expand...


Because of the angst, the weltschmertz, the mixed-up cacophony of people and beauty and sea...and oh, to capture it all for just a moment, oh the ephemera....!

And yes, the sandals and socks.


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> My arteest's soul cries.
> 
> 
> 
> Because of sandals and socks?
> 
> If it will help a bit, I once worked for a man who wore glasses in red frames.  He also wore sandals and socks though.  Sorry.
> 
> He actually thought he was some kind of artist, but he didn't even measure up to the "hack" mark.
> 
> *More like a wannabe*.
Click to expand...

That is of course what the majority of us all are. I don't see any van goghs around.


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> Because of the angst, the weltschmertz, the mixed-up cacophony of people and beauty and sea...and oh, to capture it all for just a moment, oh the ephemera....!


Hay! You rite nice, lady!


----------



## DanOstergren

I'm a self -described artist... Funny how that tends to make others judge and H8.


----------



## TammyCampbell

Live in a tree for a while is a good bet too, or any den a coyote would prefer.    Gets you closer to a subject to feel what they are feeling. No offense intended for cave or tree dwellers .. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## The_Traveler

This has got a little far in the field but,

my original post was tongue-in-cheek but it certainly elicited some interesting responses.

I think there are really two valid kinds of artists; those who think of themselves that way because they really want to create and those that are thought of as artists by others.

All the rest, the fakers and the poseurs, in the long run really don't count.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

I'm not not implying that all artists are capable of good work; clearly that isn't true. 
The intent may be there but the creativity, the talent, the skills may not be.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

IMO, what is important is that people try.


----------



## acparsons

I've been doing photography exhibitions for a year now, experiencing many forms of other art as a part of a collective. I've been going to about 20-30 exhibitions per year for a few years. Artist is a very subjective term. I would say that I am a bit below mediocre as a artist, but people seem to enjoy looking at my work. I have seen many "accomplished artist" exhibitions that have done nothing for me, especially that damn Tomato Soup can.  Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work. 

     I am stepping outside of photography for my April show and showing Pop Art. As an artist, this is a big risk, especially since it is at City Hall. Everyone is an artist, but few can make a living at it. If you would like to become an artist go for it and see where it takes you, the most important thing is to enjoy the ride.


----------



## bribrius

The_Traveler said:


> This has got a little far in the field but,
> 
> my original post was tongue-in-cheek but it certainly elicited some interesting responses.
> 
> I think there are really two valid kinds of artists; those who think of themselves that way because they really want to create and *those that are thought of as artists by others*.
> 
> All the rest, the fakers and the poseurs, in the long run really don't count.
> They know it and that's the painful part for them.
> 
> I'm not not implying that all artists are capable of good work; clearly that isn't true.
> The intent may be there but the creativity, the talent, the skills may not be.
> They know it and that's the painful part for them.
> 
> IMO, what is important is that people try.


They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist. Being a member of a organization gets me automatically listed as a "artist" in fact i have to ask not to be listed that way to avoid it. To show any work, you get listed as a artist (even if it sucks). I was just invited to partake in a exhibition (they have open slots) which automatically would list me as a artist for the exhibition. But really, it is filling open slots. If i submitted to a pay to play gallery i would be listed as a artist there, even if my only ability was to cough up the money to pay to play.
it is a label. They have to have something to call you. There are some real artists around here. My work doesn't hold a candle to theirs. Don't even pretend or try to.  I just take photos. But any involvement automatically lists me as a artist. Which gets me involved in these things. Newletters, invitations, emails, member meetings, showings blah blah blah.. Which lists me as a artists more. It is a chain reaction.  Basically to fill a space on a line with SOMETHING.  I have thought of taking up painting again more or maybe acrylics just so i dont feel like a -hole seeing my name listed.


----------



## Designer

You seem to be obsessing over the term.  

Why?


----------



## bribrius

Designer said:


> You seem to be obsessing over the term.
> 
> Why?


I dislike being called one.


----------



## pgriz

bribrius said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be obsessing over the term.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike being called one.
Click to expand...


Really depends on who's doing the calling.  The amount of weight I'd give that depends much on how well they know you.


----------



## bribrius

pgriz said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be obsessing over the term.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike being called one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really depends on who's doing the calling.  The amount of weight I'd give that depends much on how well they know you.
Click to expand...

meh. True i suppose. labels help categorize. For me the problem is if i accept such a label so readily and i lack the merit to back up such a label it really makes me the other "p" label above. (poseur). I much prefer "untitled" as last i checked i wasn't no Vincent vangogh and no title seems a much safer route..


----------



## W.Y.Photo

acparsons said:


> Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work.



^This. So much this!!


----------



## The_Traveler

W.Y.Photo said:


> acparsons said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This. So much this!!
Click to expand...


Somewhere here had a signature something like 'Art is in the Intent' and I agree with acparsons and W.Y.Photo that nothing much is important except in the intent of the person to create, to make 'art'.
How it appears to anyone else is a bit irrelevant.
If one wants to make art, that intent will drive creativity.


----------



## sm4him

bribrius said:


> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.



I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."

Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.

To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill. 
I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term. 

I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important. 
If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."


----------



## W.Y.Photo

sm4him said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."
> 
> Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.
> 
> To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
> I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.
> 
> I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
> If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."
Click to expand...


I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...

What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.

This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)


----------



## The_Traveler

or jealousy


----------



## kdthomas

Oh heck, I'll chime in FWIW ...

I consider myself an artist. I'm just a _novice_ artist, with more misses than hits (but I *do* have hits  ). The medium I work in is photography. There are things I like and don't like, but I think that, at the end of the day, if you wind up with an image that pleases your client (even if the client is yourself) then you've succeeded, and it's something to be proud of.

Despite my mistakes, and the a**-kickings I get trying to do stock, I believe I'm intelligent and capable and continually improving, and that I have a fairly decent chunk of potential. The images that are still in my mind waiting to be created are very bold and creative. I just need to build the skill and intuition to have more hits than misses while getting them into the camera, and I'm putting in my time to get that skill and intuition.

Maybe I'll have gallery showings, maybe I'll shoot for Vogue. Or maybe I'll scratch out a few nickels doing sit-n-grins in the suburbs. Soon (at age 47!) I may even take a year off, move into a crappy loft and make a lunatic hail-mary shot at "making it". As the song says, "Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and in the end it's only with yourself". Stephen King used to have a nail in his apartment wall next to his desk that he hung all his rejection letters on.

And I love his definition of "talent": He said: _If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented._ He goes on to say further down: _And if you're not succeeding, you should know when to quit._ Also: _But if everyone - or even most everyone - is criticizing something different, you can safely disregard what all of them say._

And I'll hold my hand up on the BW conversion charge. I do too much of that. But I do like B&W better.


----------



## DanOstergren

W.Y.Photo said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."
> 
> Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.
> 
> To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
> I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.
> 
> I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
> If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...
> 
> What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
> These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.
> 
> This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)
Click to expand...

This. Exactly this.


----------



## bribrius

DanOstergren said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."
> 
> Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.
> 
> To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
> I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.
> 
> I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
> If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...
> 
> What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
> These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.
> 
> This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This. Exactly this.
Click to expand...

you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada.  Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.


----------



## photoguy99

There are at least two important changes that have occurred in about the last 100 years with Art.

The first is the evolution of our conception of Art toward the "concept". Fabrication of.. pretty much anything is recognized as straightforward. Photography helped point the way here, but some excellent forgers pointed out that paintings are, ultimately, not about craftsmanship. If Vermeer is about his amazing brushwork, then van Meergerens should be just as valuable, and they are not. And so on. Therefore Art pretty much has to be about the Idea, not the Object, not the making of the thing.

The second is that, hand in hand with this, the general culture has tended to shift toward a false interpretation of the first thing. We see nonsense like "art is all just subjective" thrown around. We see people saying stuff like "well, to me, Art is really..." as if Art were some sort of do-it-yourself word. Art is a social construct, with an evolving definition, with broad scope and with, yes, a personal element. So is Spanish, and we don't see people saying "well, Spanish is all just subjective anyways" and "what Spanish is to ME..".

That's not QUITE right. My five year old, I will admit, sometimes refers to her nonsense words as "my kind of Spanish for cat" or whatever. But she's five.

Anyways, the first leads the second, and the second leads to the false notion that Art is whatever anyone wants it to be.


----------



## pgriz

Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food".  Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth?  Does putting something in your mouth make it food?  What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"?  Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"?  Is the concept of "food" a social construct?



) )


----------



## bribrius

pgriz said:


> Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food".  Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth?  Does putting something in your mouth make it food?  What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"?  Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"?  Is the concept of "food" a social construct?
> 
> 
> 
> ) )


Okay, i will start. I don't consider soda to be food. I don't even know how people can drink that chit.


----------



## pgriz

You know, Brian, that Coca-Cola will strongly disagree with you.  There's a recent discussion about whether Kraft cheese slices are "food", with Kraft claiming that it's part of a "nutritionally-balanced diet", and a lot of people vociferously disagreeing with that.


----------



## sm4him

pgriz said:


> Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food".  Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth?  Does putting something in your mouth make it food?  What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"?  Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"?  Is the concept of "food" a social construct?
> 
> ) )


----------



## DanOstergren

bribrius said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."
> 
> Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.
> 
> To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
> I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.
> 
> I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
> If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...
> 
> What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
> These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.
> 
> This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This. Exactly this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada.  Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't see there as ever being any sort of bar for what art or what an artist is. To me, art is any form of personal expression. Talent and skill have nothing to do with it. Artists have been making masterpieces and total failures for as long as humans have been drawing on cave walls, singing, dancing and drumming around fires. As well, what I see as a masterpiece another could see as utter crap, or the other way around. Just because myself or anyone else thinks someone's art is total crap doesn't mean that person is not an artist. You for example may not see yourself as an artist, but you still take photos that display your personal esthetic; you may hate the term, but that makes you an artist. The day you stop being an artist is the day you stop doing anything whatsoever that displays your personal esthetic.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

bribrius said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."
> 
> Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.
> 
> To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
> I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.
> 
> I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
> If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...
> 
> What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
> These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.
> 
> This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This. Exactly this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada.  Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.
Click to expand...


I don't think the bar can be lowered for what a dog is, what a cat is, or what a computer is.... So no I don't think the bar can be lowered for what an artist is.

As Dan pointed out there is a criteria... It's just not criteria based off of any sort of merit. You don't need merit or training to be an artist, you just need to make art.

You regard the term artist too highly. Calling someone an artist isn't like claiming them to be a master, its just calling them what they are, whether they are good at art has no bearing on them being artists.

It's like calling a person driving a vehicle a driver, whether its their first time behind the wheel or their millionth time, whether they are a good driver or a terrible driver, they are still the person driving the freaking car! They don't earn the status of driver through learning to drive, they get it by sitting behind the wheel and turning the ignition. The act of driving requires nothing but simply acting to make the car move. It's not suddenly labeled as something other than "driving" when an unskilled operator is behind the wheel.


----------



## otherprof

pixmedic said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more _arteest_ cred? Is that like street cred?
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jason, your bias is showing.  And don't forget that just because it looks good on you, doesn't mean that everyone's features will be enhanced by this.  After all, there are standards to be maintained.  Especially if it is the "arteeest" look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you cant go wrong with a mustache.
> its a timeless classic staple of the Arteest.
> the more mustache wax it takes to hold the 'stache in place, the more artistic you are.
Click to expand...

Hence the relative scarcity of high-level women artists. Hair, hair!!


----------



## pgriz

If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone.  On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery.  Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear.  So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.


----------



## pixmedic

pgriz said:


> If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone.  On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery.  Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear.  So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.



one only has to take a sampling of porn over the last 50 years to understand the manner in which hair as a social construct has changed.


----------



## table1349

pixmedic said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone.  On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery.  Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear.  So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one only has to take a sampling of porn over the last 50 years to understand the manner in which hair as a social construct has changed.
Click to expand...

Now that sounds like a modern day graduate thesis if I ever heard one, and I have heard more than one.


----------



## table1349

bribrius said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food".  Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth?  Does putting something in your mouth make it food?  What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"?  Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"?  Is the concept of "food" a social construct?
> 
> 
> 
> ) )
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, i will start. I don't consider soda to be food. I don't even know how people can drink that chit.
Click to expand...


Beans, beans, the musical fruit: 
The more you eat, the more you toot! [or poot] 
The more you toot, the better you feel, 
So let's have beans for every meal!  

I ate my beans and they were loaded, 
Went to bed and they exploded!

Beans, beans, are good for your heart! 
The more you eat, the more you fart! 
The more you fart, the better you feel, 
So let's have beans for every meal!

Beans, beans, the musical fruit, 
The more you eat, the more you toot, 
The more you toot, the better you feel, 
So lift up your leg and let one squeal!


Beans are power food.


----------



## table1349

The problem with you guys is that you just don't have what it takes to be an Artist..................
But I can help!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.





There, now you have an Artistic License.  Fill it in and you are good to go as an Artist.


----------



## sashbar

I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art.  This is official.


----------



## rexbobcat

That's so meta.


----------



## photoguy99

rexbobcat said:


> That's so meta.



And yet, telling.

Banksy is an artist. The guys spraying graffiti on the plexi are not artists. What's going on? It is not because Banksy is officially declared an artist. He is an artist first, officialdom follows.

Banksy is an artist because the social consensus is that he is an artist. You and I might not think he's an artist, but the tastemakers do, and "the public" have followed along, and now the government installs plexiglass over the work, which seems to be inherently missing the point. Simply declaring that what you do is art _is not enough._ You have to convince others.


----------



## rexbobcat

It also depends on the value of the art both financially and intrinsically in the eyes of the masses. while Banksy's graffiti and the no-name graffiti might both be considered art, Banksy's art is worth more in name than the cleanliness of the wall or the other person's graffiti.

People would care about the sanitation of the exteriors of their neighborhood buildings until Picasso came up and wrote "Picasso wuz hear." Then, all of a sudden, nobody cares about the "cleanliness" of the neighborhood because holy crap it's Picasso.

Celebrity trumps sensibility

Fun anecdote: My family had an early 80's velvet Elvis that kept being regifted every Christmas for 10 years. It's art...arguably...But it's made by a guy without notoriety and it's kitsch, so the value of using it as a family in-joke is worth more than displaying it or trying to sell it.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

photoguy99 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so meta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, telling.
> 
> Banksy is an artist. The guys spraying graffiti on the plexi are not artists. What's going on? It is not because Banksy is officially declared an artist. He is an artist first, officialdom follows.
> 
> Banksy is an artist because the social consensus is that he is an artist. You and I might not think he's an artist, but the tastemakers do, and "the public" have followed along, and now the government installs plexiglass over the work, which seems to be inherently missing the point. Simply declaring that what you do is art _is not enough._ You have to convince others.
Click to expand...


So was Banksy an artist before everyone thought he was as holy as the pope's piss?

I'd say yes.. but then again I'd say that a 4 year old drawing their family as stick figures in front of a house is an artist as well; and don't get me wrong, I really like what your saying here. Particularly the statement: "Simply declaring that what you do is art _is not enough." _I agree.. It's not enough to do anything of use with, however, I just think that public opinion, while being an important part in decearning what art is successful and what art is not, doesn't decide what art actually is. My photographs are photographs, no matter how popular they are.


----------



## Designer

sashbar said:


> I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
> So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art.  This is official.



Pardon me while I reach down and pick up my jaw from the floor.

Who the heck is in charge over there?


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Designer said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
> So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art.  This is official.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon me while I reach down and pick up my jaw from the floor.
> 
> Who the heck is in charge over there?
Click to expand...



Someone who likes to save things that are worth millions and millions of dollars that they technically own.


----------



## Designer

Sorry, mate, you get the big red "X" this time.  

There is no logical reason whatsoever that these works should ever be worth anything, let alone "millions of dollars", and the idea that the municipality "owns" them is preposterous.  Even if the paint is on "public property", which is extremely rare, their intrinsic value is hardly worth the paint to cover them over.


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Designer said:


> Sorry, mate, you get the big red "X" this time.
> 
> There is no logical reason whatsoever that these works should ever be worth anything, let alone "millions of dollars", and the idea that the municipality "owns" them is preposterous.  Even if the paint is on "public property", which is extremely rare, their intrinsic value is hardly worth the paint to cover them over.



Tourists buy 31K Banksy art for just 60 each New York Post

Just an example of what his smaller works go for... Imagine what a large piece like that could be sold for. If I owned a building Banksy did work on I would do the same thing because someone out there would be willing to buy that building off of me for literally millions of dollars.

The Art world is in a tizzy over Banksy right now. He's considered the best street artist of all time. So yes, his works hold an extremely large value. If you were handed the Mona Lisa today, but told you had to leave it outside would you leave it on an easel and ask other painters to paint all over it, or leave it behind glass to protect it from vandals and weathering?

There's also no logical reason a Bentley sells for a quarter of a million dollars, but it does, because its one of the best cars in its class and its a status symbol that had a lot of work put into it. The same thing goes for art.


----------



## Designer

Yeah, sure, just like rap is considered music.  BS!


----------



## W.Y.Photo

Designer said:


> Yeah, sure, just like rap is considered music.  BS!


----------

