# Ren Hang... art or not?



## mmaria (Feb 27, 2017)

So what do you think? Is his photography art? 

*Warning! Before you click the link...*

Totally and completely not safe for work.
Explicit scenes, you kinda need to have the stomach for it....

Ren Hang 2016


----------



## runnah (Feb 27, 2017)

Art? Yes. 

Good? No.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 27, 2017)

Art....maybe? Technically? 

Not a compelling shot in the bunch.


Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

Art?  Yes/No/Really doesn't matter.

Not something I care for, but then Robert Maplethorpe had lots of admirers as well.  Depends on ones tastes.


----------



## dunfly (Feb 27, 2017)

Interesting, but not very good.  From an "art" perspective, it looks sort of amateurish to me.  If I could get that many naked people together, I could be an artist too.


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Feb 27, 2017)

Definitely not art -- where's the aesthetic vision? -- and definitely not good. Even if the photographer is trying to distil some humor, the images simply aren't compelling -- they're not even so bad they're good, they're just tacky. (And I'm not a big fan of Mapplethorpe, too cold/no heart, but he had vision.)


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 27, 2017)

They are art. IMO, they are distasteful and appear on the edge of child pornography. I only witnessed a few, and morally, not my cup of tea.


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Feb 27, 2017)

For those who think this crap is art, can you explain what the aesthetic vision at work is? Or do you think that kitsch counts are art?


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 27, 2017)

The confusion arises from the need so many people have to equate the term 'art' with 'good art.' If it's bad then it can't be 'art' because the definition of 'art' requires the adjective 'good.' That's a mistake. It doesn't have to be good to be art. There are other adjectives often used that cause the same confusion. It doesn't have to be beautiful to be art. It doesn't have to espouse lofty ideals to be art, etc.

For example a musician is an artist. So even though it pains me to say it, Justin Bieber is an artist. I can also say the world would be a better place if Justin's vocal cords were surgically removed.

Joe


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Feb 27, 2017)

I'm not confused; I've studied art and practiced it (or tried to) for a very long time. What I want to know is, for those who consider these images art, just what the aesthetic vision at work is.


----------



## limr (Feb 27, 2017)

Art does not have to be visually pleasing, or even that technically difficult, but it should always be thought-provoking. Yes, this is _my _definition of art. If it manages only one of these things, it might still be art, but sort of...meh.

I find this to be very borderline. I suppose it does provoke some thought, but what? Is he (or she?) trying to convey a message with the naked bodies, or are they totally gratuitous? Is the technique amateurish on purpose? If so, why? If not, is that interfering with a possible intended message or idea? Is it a matter of lack of vision or lack of skill to achieve that vision?

Art can quite often be uncomfortable, and these most certainly are, though mostly because I can't discern any purpose to the nudity other than shock value, or edginess for its own sake. So they're naked and in weird positions. So what? Are we supposed to confront something about ourselves with these images? Are we supposed to acknowledge a discomfort or disconnect with the human body? Um...don't we already know that? And why should we confront it? To what end, what goal? For the ones taken in the water or on rocks, I can _almost_ see a sort of "vulnerable humanity in nature" kind of theme. But it's really a stretch to come up with something.

Art should always be thought-provoking, but if those thoughts consist of, "Huh?" and then a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with the most tenuous conclusion, then it's not successful art.

So, by my definition, is it art? Well. As stand-alone images, it is doubtful. As a portfolio of work, it's _slightly_ more successful...but just by the skin of its teeth. I think it's visually distasteful for no good reason, its message - if there is one - is possibly hindered by the amateurish photographic techniques, and it is only barely thought-provoking, provided we concede that 'thought' includes giving the benefit of the doubt and trying really hard to fill in the gaps.


----------



## BrentC (Feb 27, 2017)

This seems less art and more someone catering to their own fetish.


----------



## waday (Feb 27, 2017)

Thanks, @mmaria, for the NSFW warning.. that would have been bad on my work computer... haha



limr said:


> Art does not have to be visually pleasing, or even that technically difficult, but it should always be thought-provoking. Yes, this is _my _definition of art. If it manages only one of these things, it might still be art, but sort of...meh.
> 
> I find this to be very borderline. I suppose it does provoke some thought, but what? Is he (or she?) trying to convey a message with the naked bodies, or are they totally gratuitous?


I like your definition. 

To me, it seems solely gratuitous. Attention seeking, rather than thought provoking.

That said, who are we to judge it as art or not? Sure, it can be art, if that's what the originator wanted in the photos. But, that doesn't mean I/we have to enjoy it.

Who knows, maybe this is the purpose of the photos? Just to get people to talk? I don't know.



limr said:


> Art can quite often be uncomfortable, and these most certainly are, though mostly because I can't discern any purpose to the nudity other than shock value, or edginess for its own sake. So they're naked and in weird positions. So what? Are we supposed to confront something about ourselves with these images? Are we supposed to acknowledge a discomfort or disconnect with the human body? Um...don't we already know that? And why should we confront it? To what end, what goal? For the ones taken in the water or on rocks, I can _almost_ see a sort of "vulnerable humanity in nature" kind of theme. But it's really a stretch to come up with something.


But.... far too many questions for it to be considered anything but gratuitous and attention seeking, IMO.


----------



## JonA_CT (Feb 27, 2017)

I think I agree with those who say it is a bit too gratuitous...but I do wonder if our perception would be different if the production value were higher.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

alexis.alvarez said:


> I'm not confused; I've studied art and practiced it (or tried to) for a very long time. What I want to know is, for those who consider these images art, just what the aesthetic vision at work is.


Please to provide for us a Universally Accepted definition of Art.  Until that is accomplished there is no such thing as "Art".  It is merely a human term that tries to make highbrow out of Like or Dislike.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 27, 2017)

Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.

On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.

Defined by form art is physical -- sensual if you like. You have to make it from clay or stone or wood or paint or sounds or dancing or paper or string or etc. And then literature is usually offered to counter that definition. We embrace literature as art even though it seems weak on the physical requirement. So art isn't that simple, that's OK. And you really haven't experienced poetry right until you've heard it. I have a friend who's a poet. A couple months ago we met for dinner and he surprised me with a poem he'd written for me. I had him read it to me. Wow! But it's OK to read poetry too. I've read my poem a couple times since I got it.

So is it Art? Here's a couple lines from a poem by Kipling _The Conundrum of the Workshops_ that graces all of my course syllabi: _"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it art?'"_ For those who can't figure it out or can't accept the most inclusive definition that allows us all to revel in the joy of it all like the child artists of our birth the words of Paul Strand offer an appropriate comment. "_Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."_

Yes some art is bad. So be it and move on. If you let the bad art start you down the path of arguing about definition exceptions and exclusion clauses and rankings and classifications you've fallen into a trap that ultimately hurts you as you deprive yourself the opportunity to delight in the wonderful experiences that all the arts offer.

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.
> 
> On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.
> 
> ...








I've also studied the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.   Just because there is a church dedicated to the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make it a real deity or even a real entity.   Art is a human invented concept with no real definable meaning.  It is purely individual opinion based on individual likes and dislikes.  All the pseudo intellectual chatter in the world doesn't make it so.   That is why the "Art World" talks so much about it, they are still trying to convince the world that it actually exists and has real meaning to humanity.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 27, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.
> ...



And to paraphrase Paul Strand (a great artist) your undefended protestations are a clear sign of impotence. I will continue to enjoy and delight in art and value art -- and you have my sympathy.

Joe


----------



## runnah (Feb 27, 2017)

There is good naked and there is bad naked.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”-Daniel J. Boorstin. 

We can go on all day trading cute little quotes if you wish.  You have however failed to answer the simple challenge that was posed. (looks like you are demonstrating your Paul Strand's paraphrased quote.)

_Please to provide for us a Universally Accepted definition of Art. _


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Feb 27, 2017)

please provide to us a universally accepted definition of _anything whatsoever
_
rough consensus and running code, it worked for the internet it can work for philosophy if you're not obsessed with being a pedant


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 27, 2017)

Kinda surprised by some of the replies. Who are we to judge? Art is in the eye of the beholder. You and I may not like it but I'm sure there are plenty that look at what we do with contempt! 

The mere fact that that artist's work has generated 3 pages of critique here says a lot to me. The fact that I rarely get 2 pages! 

As I see it his camera kills leave much to be desired BUT his creativity is abundant. He (She?) pushes the boundaries of my comfort zone. I like the rocks.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 27, 2017)

Trever1t said:


> Kinda surprised by some of the replies. Who are we to judge? Art is in the eye of the beholder. You and I may not like it but I'm sure there are plenty that look at what we do with contempt!
> 
> The mere fact that that artist's work has generated 3 pages of critique here says a lot to me. The fact that I rarely get 2 pages!
> 
> As I see it his camera kills leave much to be desired BUT his creativity is abundant. He (She?) pushes the boundaries of my comfort zone. I like the rocks.


U mean the guys "rocks"? Or the literal rocks? [emoji38] 

Also...
I'm on shift so my time and forum capabilities are limited.  If anyone has any pictures posted that they aren't 100% sure they have permission to post,  could you please take them down? Or link to them? (Links to pictures are ok)

I'm on my way to a pretty gnarly scene so I might not be able to check back in  for a bit. 
Please play nice while I'm gone, mm'kay?

Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 27, 2017)

航 任  (<----FLICKr Link NSFW?)

I actually kind of like some of his work. Though I had not heard of him before (thank you TPF) and didn't know him from anyone else, I'd say yes.

How did he die at 29? Oh, I see, he took his own life... depression,madness.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

While not a fan of his work, I did find one image that had three models with legs intertwined intriguing.  It could have been done with clothed models as well.  The way their legs were intertwined reminded me of some of the works of MC Escher.


This image is the on I meant.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 27, 2017)

I saw that and also thought Escher, and Dali. Dali was also a weirdo. I'm sure he had his fair share of negative attention. I love Dali.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 27, 2017)

I didn't think Dali at all, but I am not a big fan of Dali's work.

Although when I was buying new furniture for the office my wife did get me a Dali inspired "melted clock" for my office.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 28, 2017)

I was thinking he was the one I read about that just passed away. I wonder if he'd lived longer if he might have developed his ideas and his art further. 

I haven't looked at all of the photos yet but so far some are interesting, some are strange/unusual, some are quite wonderful, and some don't seem much more than a close up of part of a nude body shown in an explicit way. I see inconsistency which to me says he was fairly young and still developing skills and maybe in time he would've begun to edit his work/his portfolio and get better at critiquing his own work and determining what works he'd show. 

I'm interested in going back and spending more time looking and find a few in particular to have been somewhat memorable so that to me says something, that there's some artistic and creative ability there.


----------



## mmaria (Feb 28, 2017)

"Ren Hang was an incredibly talented and brave photographer" 
"Sex organs, disco balls, and animals become interchangeable objects in the artist's low-budget, color-blasted fantasies. Even plants and pools of water are charged with lust.
In Ren Hang's imagination, everything is an uninhibited metaphor for desire."
"It's visual poetry. It's without limits."

sorry but I just don't get it... I'm totally indifferent to what he did. It doesn't give me any, I really mean, any reaction, emotion or tought (I must admit that a few of his pictures does, but a few "normal ones" and that's because I tried)

I read some really good answers here ty


----------



## table1349 (Feb 28, 2017)

mmaria said:


> sorry but I just don't get it... I'm totally indifferent to what he did. It doesn't give me any, I really mean, any reaction, emotion or tought (I must admit that a few of his pictures does, but a few "normal ones" and that's because I tried)
> 
> I read some really good answers here ty


Here's the part I don't understand, if you are indifferent to his work and his work provokes no reaction, emotion or thought overall, why the thread in the first place?

Me, overall I am not a fan of his work although as mentioned in a previous a couple of the concepts were intriguing.


----------



## mmaria (Feb 28, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Here's the part I don't understand, if you are indifferent to his work and his work provokes no reaction, emotion or thought overall, why the thread in the first place?


well to read what others see in his work, maybe to realize what I'm missing


----------



## table1349 (Feb 28, 2017)

mmaria said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the part I don't understand, if you are indifferent to his work and his work provokes no reaction, emotion or thought overall, why the thread in the first place?
> ...


Okay.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 28, 2017)

Some images are striking.  Some are (in my opinion) gratuitous.  I'm generally not shocked or repulsed by genitals, but if shown, I expect the form to be used in a consistent manner with the rest of the image.  Are these images art?  It may be for some people, but I would not go out of my way to view an exhibition of such work as, beyond shock value, I don't find much that causes me to think or to feel.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 28, 2017)

Reminds me quite a bit of some of the early Maplethorpe stuff.  The concept is a bit disjointed.


----------



## Macmagoo (Feb 28, 2017)

It don't know what it is but it is not Art.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 28, 2017)

So would you consider this art?


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 1, 2017)

He's China's Ryan McGinley (NSFW obviously: ryan mcginley). However I do think the context of this work is much more compelling than McGinley's "edgy youth" theme partly because of the focus on the human body as sculpture in many of the shots but also because of the fact that he was creating it in China, which is _slightly _less individualistic than the West is. That's probably where a a lot of the "he's so brave" comments are coming from.

Personally I like some of the photos.

I think these are more interesting than another banal, technically and creatively sterile photo of a *totally* *hot babe* whose only purpose is to accommodate the male gaze.

I also think it's interesting that many of these photos of naked people are somehow less erotic than the soft core porn photographers are infatuated with. But hey, as long as the nudity is suggested and the lighting ticks all the marks from that one workshop I went to, it's a _great_ photo.


----------



## mmaria (Mar 2, 2017)

rexbobcat said:


> He's China's Ryan McGinley (NSFW obviously: ryan mcginley). However I do think the context of this work is much more compelling than McGinley's "edgy youth" theme partly because of the focus on the human body as sculpture in many of the shots but also because of the fact that he was creating it in China, which is _slightly _less individualistic than the West is. That's probably where a a lot of the "he's so brave" comments are coming from.


 never heard of Ryan, so thank you for that. I find his images much more pleasing and emotional.

I wanted to say that I find the atmosphere in Ryan's photos understandable, familiar, I empathize but with Ren's work... that's so different than anything I could ever understand. I'm not repulsed by it or anything but I simply can't come up with any philosophy to justify praises for his work. We're not from the same planet 



> I think these are more interesting than another banal, technically and creatively sterile photo of a *totally* *hot babe* whose only purpose is to accommodate the male gaze.


 well I find them just as interesting as a hot babe pict



> I also think it's interesting that many of these photos of naked people are somehow less erotic than the soft core porn photographers are infatuated with. But hey, as long as the nudity is suggested and the lighting ticks all the marks from that one workshop I went to, it's a _great_ photo.


 I really tried but I don't understand this part, the firs sentence of the quote...so... what did you say?


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2017)

mmaria said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > He's China's Ryan McGinley (NSFW obviously: ryan mcginley). However I do think the context of this work is much more compelling than McGinley's "edgy youth" theme partly because of the focus on the human body as sculpture in many of the shots but also because of the fact that he was creating it in China, which is _slightly _less individualistic than the West is. That's probably where a a lot of the "he's so brave" comments are coming from.
> ...



Basically what I was saying is that these photos of these naked women are seemingly less erotic in many ways than the photos of models who are mostly clothed and in less explicit positions.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 5, 2017)

Just to stir the pot a little:   https://petapixel.com/2017/03/04/ph...feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+PetaPixel+(PetaPixel)


The opinions expressed above do not reflect those of the management of this station.


----------



## nerwin (Mar 6, 2017)

Kind of reminds (vaguely) me of some of the work that Ben Hopper (NSFW) has done but nothing that extreme. I know Ben Hopper and he's a really great guy and a true artist. But Ren Hang? I'm not sure if I can say he's an artist or not. Its certainly not my cup of tea. 

However, after finding out that he took his own life is a little sad. As someone who does suffer from depression and having photography as a way to deal with depression and then having people call your work controversial probably set him over the edge and ultimately took his own life. 

I may not be a fan of his work or that style of photography, but I can respect him as a photographer. Depression is a horrible thing and I deal with it every day and we all deal with it in different ways.


----------



## mmaria (Mar 6, 2017)

nerwin said:


> However, after finding out that he took his own life is a little sad. As someone who does suffer from depression and having photography as a way to deal with depression and then having people call your work controversial probably set him over the edge and ultimately took his own life.
> 
> I may not be a fan of his work or that style of photography, but I can respect him as a photographer. Depression is a horrible thing and I deal with it every day and we all deal with it in different ways.


 I deliberately didn't share any more information about him because that might affect on what we think about his work...

I wouldn't go that far to assume "having people call your work controversial probably set him over the edge and ultimately took his own life."

Depression is tough. Most artist suffer/ed from it and that makes them good/better in their art, I think.

He wrote and photographed... I don't know do I or don't I like how he wrote but I know that I don't understand what he photographed. That has to do with his photography, not him as a person. As a person, I feel the same way as you do, I respect his way of dealing with the depression.


----------

