# newest new question of the day



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

Hertz and I had a discussion on another thread and a couple of terms got bandied about and rightly so. Every now and then that exchange comes to mind not so much the context cause frankly i dun forgot that.. but the two terms.

High Art and Low Art... I think I know the historic meaning of them. My question is this....

Do the terms high art and low art create a presumption of the worth of the piece in your mind.

Ie is a still life printed on canvas in a fancy frame really of more intrinsic value, than say a poster of equal artistic merit. Does the simple application of tyrantical (made that one up) words add or detract from the value of a thing.

again no right or wrong answer you can even reframe the question ie is a painting of more artistic value than a photograph ect...


----------



## terri (May 16, 2006)

> Do the terms high art and low art create a presumption of the worth of the piece in your mind.


Not even a little bit!

If a piece of art speaks to me, if I find I am having _an emotional response _to it, it doesn't matter what it is. That is the wonder and the beauty of the subjectiveness of art.


----------



## terri (May 16, 2006)

These threads are too entertaining to hole up here in the Alt forum, Charlie. If you keep this up, I'm going to be compelled to move them over to the Photographic Discussion forum. 

Should I start with this one? :mrgreen:


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

Please don't 

I like the people here lol... If anyone cares they will find them...

However if you are tell me to get back on topic I will. I ramble I know and I probably bore everyone to tears.

It seemed to me that discussing art was better suited among people who appreciated more than the number of megapix...This kinda stuff isn't about what's in your hand or even in your head its about whats in your soul...  Now that is pompus...


----------



## terri (May 16, 2006)

We can leave it right here. It don't bother me none.  Just checkin'.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

Good whenever I go out into the real world, I catch a virus.  It much safer in my bubble.


----------



## terri (May 16, 2006)

Then this bubble you shall have.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

ROFLMAO  sorry this is just so silly..... By the way would you think vincent was a great artist if no one told you it was high art.  My God they are just sunflowers, not like its a ham can with a candle for god's sake.


----------



## terri (May 16, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> ROFLMAO sorry this is just so silly..... By the way would you think vincent was a great artist if no one told you it was high art. My God they are just sunflowers, not like its a ham can with a candle for god's sake.


it's not and never has been about the sunflowers for me.  It's the swirling cloud in "Starry Night" or the quality of light from the lamp in "The Potato Eaters" that spoke to me.  

Those paintings, like good photographs, need to be seen IRL to be fully appreciated.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

Barbara once sent me to see a painting. It was hanging in an antigue store. It was long enough ago that most of the contemporary american artists were living on bread and beans. This one happened to be married to realty developer. Anyway I looked at the picture. It was just a field of straw late into the season. I looked hard, trying to see something worthwhile in it. I didn't want to appear stupid to my instructor.

I gave up and was about to leave when something moved in the painting. I mean real movement. I couldn't see anything but after several more minutes I saw it again. Finally I saw what it was. There was a tiny cloud of color. Not a cloud more like a gaggle of tiny tiny specks of color. I couldn't tear myself away from the painting until I figured out what Jean had done.

She painted all th staw bent in one direction. The gaggle of tiny flecks of color were formed into an almost undecernable wedge shape moving the oposite direction. The flecks of paint became butterflies and the movement was the wedge going against the grain of the staw.

It was maddeningly simple, but if you didn't look carefully you would not have seen the color at all. I have seen some painting that are supposed to leave me in awe that don't. It is the way the dutch masters handle light to make background depth that works for me... Matise doesn't. But thats what some people don't get... You don't have to like it all, just because someone else said it is art.

And Terri Regardless, I am not hacking off any body parts. (god i hate when I have to clean up a remark). Besides I have been warned by the post office I can't mail body parts.

ps for really low art see the new retro poster


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

Oh terri I bet you know all the words to Don Mclean's song....


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 16, 2006)

High Art and Low Art were terms used by the Victorians to differentiate between the uses of the various branches of the Arts.
I believe I mentioned it in a discussion about 'is Photography and Art or a Craft?' or some such.
The distinction between High and Low is useful but it has been forgotten - mainly because it is trendy today to believe that everything is Art (because that then means that everyone can be an Artist).
The High Arts are now generally termed 'Fine' Art and refer to things like Painting, Sculpture and Poetry.
The Low Arts are of a more practical nature - Design, Architecture, Graphics, Textiles. In the mid-20th C they were often referred to as Commercial Art.
The basis behind High and Low Art is that High Art is Art for Art's sake and Low Art is done to earn a living.
There is nothing wrong with doing things for money providing that you don't get pretentious and pretend you are doing it for 'higher' reasons and creating Great Art. Calling it Commercial Art gives it due respect without getting carried away.
The other reason for retaining the distinctions is that if you remove the boundaries and believe everything is Art then you lose sight of what Art is.
If a poster banged out by a Graphic Designer to sell toothpaste is artistically equal to a Monet, then that means that the output of a photo booth or a CCTV camera is also Great Art. There is no distinction.
In fact I have seen an exhibition of pictures taken of the Earth from an automatic orbiting satellite and it was billed as High Art From High Up.
It seems that even machines think they are Artists now. 
But it's all just a sign of the times within which we live (sadly).

As for van Gogh. His final paintings are, in my opinion, just second rate daubs - the outpourings of a madman (which he was by then).
He did far better work in his middle period. His sequence done in an orchard pre-figured Mondrian - but I guess no-one here has seen them.
I also find it amusing that one of his paintings sold at auction for the most money ever paid for a work of Art - and Vince painted it to pay his doctor's bill (1 or 2 Dollars in today's money). Art is never done for money :mrgreen:


PS And yes, I have been here to see the originals.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

I did not dispute that there is high art and low art. Actually I totally agree.

As for Vincent, I liked his brother better. I never borrowed from my brother but I could have.

Also some poster art isn't to sell anything.  It may well be the art of the masses at some point so of course it will be low art.  But even artist judge each other by the monitary value of their paintings.  Not what they think they are worth, but what they sell for.  

If I remember my art history and I may not, there are lots of things I dont remember,  Vincent was extremely jealous that Gauguinn (probably spelled wrong... I would look it up but I have been warned)    sold painting for real money.


----------



## JamesD (May 16, 2006)

I read recently that "fine art" can be defined (in one way) as that which presents a subject for non-literal interpretation--a reasonably workable definition.  My question is, what makes something "art" at all, whether high or low, fine or commercial?  What distinguishes a fine art photograph from a snapshot?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 16, 2006)

excellent point.... I am curious as to what others thing about that.  I see a lot of snapshots get ooos and ahhhhs and some damn fine art work get ignored... Some of it isnt even mine.

An even better question is does the average person really know the difference.....  Or care....

Why doesnt everyone just give us one of the many ways you judge what is art and what isnt.

Me first:... The picture has to be bigger than the subject..... (figure that out if you can)


----------



## JamesD (May 16, 2006)

It's a rough one, I think.  Seems that it's easy to recognize--most of it is already labelled "art," anyway.  I've recently found myself evaluating photographs of famous photographers, and I think I'm gradually coming to understand the interpretive aspect of it.  It's difficult for me, because I'm analytical and technical--I'm an electronics technician, for crying out loud!

It seems like some of it has to do with the body of work.  Pick a recognized "great photographer" and you'll find a set of photos with great composition, technical excellence, and "emotional impact."  Or, if you're not all that good at appreciating art, a set of very "pretty pictures."  A relatively small set, because they only show you the ones they want to.

On the other hand, take me:  A set of photos with so-so composition, technical mediocrity, and general blandness.  Or, if you even know what art is, a set of rectangular pieces of paper which, over all, yawn "blah."  A very large set, because I see every single one I take.

But then again, I don't care for van Gogh, but it's Art.  Why?  I dunno.  Perhaps because he has a specific style.  Perhaps some other reason.

Anyway, I think my train of thought has stalled.  Next, please!


----------



## Hertz van Rental (May 16, 2006)

As I've stated before, Great Art can only be determined by posterity - it's to do with Universality and influence.
As far as recognising Art (or even art) is concerned, there are some rules of thumb.
Technique and control of the medium for a start. Does the artist have total mastery over what they are doing?
Repeatability and history. Looking at one piece tells you nothing - it could just be a fluke. Looking at a lot of the artist's work will tell you wether what they do is intentional or accidental. It will also show if their ideas and technique are constantly changing and improving.
Art (and therefore the artist) is about self-exploration and pushing boundaries in part. If an artist churns out the same picture over and over with minor variations then they aren't very good or they lack inspiration.
Ideas and Philosophy. Good artists generally have something that drives them. They don't do it for a hobby or for status - they do it because they have to (the starving artist...). And they do it because they have something to say or something inside them that they have to resolve.
These are only a few - and very rough - guidelines. It is of course a lot more complicated, but they should give you a starting point from which to work in making up your own mind.
If in doubt err on the side of caution and give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise leave it to posterity. It's easy to differentiate good Art and bad Art - it's the big grey area of mediocrity in between that's the tricky bit.

Footnote:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79766
You might not believe it but this is probably the most important - certainly the most influential - painting of the past 200 years. And Picasso didn't even finish it. 

PS I used to have a friend called Art. I must try and get in touch with him. There are a lot of people around taking his name in vain at the moment and I think he might be upset by it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

Ah but Hertzie, how about not great ART but just plain old everyday go to a sidewalk show and buy art. I can't afford a century old oil, but I might be able to swing a still damp oil painting buy some talented kid. It's still art to me, If I like it.

Of course you buy what you like and call it art. On a personal level that's art maybe not ART but art none the less. 

James asked the question that is central to this whole thread. Framed it simply and made it quite obvious. Pat did as well but we keep passing over it.

The difference between the snapshot and the art shot. I was a 'working for da bread' photographer for 30+ years. Which means nothing but that I bring that mentality to this type discussion.

For me a snapshot is what photography is best at. That being said, no matter how good it is, I couldn't sell and wouldn't try to sell a snapshot of my 4th of July picnic. Here is one definition of this boiled down to modern day terms. 

It's art if you can sell it in the park for 30 bucks.... it is ART if you can sell it for 30 grand. If you can't sell it at all, then it is probably a snapshot, or just a coat of paint on canvas. 

Not a very grand definition but an honest one. I expect everybody has their own definition. 

*We probably should be careful not to confuse ART, art, and the artistic snapshot. Which is probably the better question after all.*


----------



## JamesD (May 17, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> It's art if you can sell it in the park for 30 bucks.... it is ART if you can sell it for 30 grand. If you can't sell it at all, then it is probably a snapshot, or just a coat of paint on canvas.



Okay, how about this:  I went to a studio and had a portrait made of me in my greens, because I'd been promising my mum I'd get one for, oh, three years or so.  I sent one copy to my mum, and one to my sister, and one to my grandmum.  The photo was taken by a professional with 30+ years experience, who charged me eighty bucks.  It wasn't a very good photograph (so says everyone except my mother and grandmother).

Another portrait, one that I took on the spur of the moment, enlarged and gave to the subject at cost... almost everyone that's ever seen it has said "Hey, that's neat," or some variant.  Granted, I got lucky, but still, everyone seems to like it better than the one taken by a professional.

So, which one is art?  Is either art?  Does it matter whether it was just a snapshot at the unit barbecue, or a professionally made portrait taken in a studio?  One that was taken in a standardized environment with a standardized process that only takes a few minutes to process (or was only given a few minutes of processing, depending on your point of view); or the one that was pored over for hours, making ajustments, trying to get it _just_ right?  One taken by a professional who "knows what he's doing," or one taken by an amatuer who's really working at it?  Whether or not it's sold at cost with no stipulations; or sold for a ridiculous price, model release required, and copy-rights pointedly pointed out?  (Yeah, I know, it's a different topic, and I'll try not to get off on a tangent about it, but I'm still irked... I didn't even get a discount, much less time-for-prints!  But anyway...)

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about the professional having earned the right to charge for his services, or market devaluation, or whatever... merely the point of artistic quality.

What do you think?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

This needs to be taken one thing at a time since it has so many good points,
  Okay, how about this: I went to a studio and had a portrait made of me in my greens, because I'd been promising my mum I'd get one for, oh, three years or so. I sent one copy to my mum, and one to my sister, and one to my grandmum. The photo was taken by a professional with 30+ years experience, (actually three years ten times.) who charged me eighty bucks. It wasn't a very good photograph (so says everyone except my mother and grandmother).

Okay you went to a place that you didnt know, you wore clothes you dont usually wear  you were surrounded by things that were slightly foreigh and somebody said smile...  You did your best to smile but it doesn't look at all like you.   But he has no idea how you look normally.  

Another portrait, one that I took on the spur of the moment, enlarged and gave to the subject at cost... almost everyone that's ever seen it has said "Hey, that's neat," or some variant. Granted, I got lucky, but still, everyone seems to like it better than the one taken by a professional.  

The absolute reverse of the studio setting  and she was cute with that chocolate ice cream on the tip of her nose.

So, which one is art? Is either art? Does it matter whether it was just a snapshot at the unit barbecue, or a professionally made portrait taken in a studio? One that was taken in a standardized environment with a standardized process that only takes a few minutes to process (or was only given a few minutes of processing, depending on your point of view); or the one that was pored over for hours, making ajustments, trying to get it _just_ right? One taken by a professional who "knows what he's doing," or one taken by an amatuer who's really working at it? Whether or not it's sold at cost with no stipulations; or sold for a ridiculous price, model release required, and copy-rights pointedly pointed out? (Yeah, I know, it's a different topic, and I'll try not to get off on a tangent about it, but I'm still irked... I didn't even get a discount, much less time-for-prints! But anyway...)

Try this on for size... ask yourself if I framed it and put it in a sidewalk show would a complete stranger buy it....

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about the professional having earned the right to charge for his services, or market devaluation, or whatever... merely the point of artistic quality.

What do you think?

For me the picture has to have an emotional appeal as well as a graphic appeal.  If he grabs me by the throat then I would pay for it maybe... if not there is no chance...


----------



## JamesD (May 17, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Okay you went to a place that you didnt know, you wore clothes you dont usually wear  you were surrounded by things that were slightly foreigh and somebody said smile...  You did your best to smile but it doesn't look at all like you.   But he has no idea how you look normally.



Good points.  However, the photographer was recommened to me by someone I _do_ know and trust.  This photographer has a reputation for doing military portraits.  The studio setting was a bit strange, true.  However, there's a basic tennet of any formal military photograph:  stand at attention and look like you want to kill.  I mentioned this, then he explained how he does it, and he's also known for doing such portraits.  I figured he knew what he was talking about.

As for the clothing... I'm intimately familiar with my greens, and I know they fit right, look right, and are right.  If I walked in with my jeans and stetson, I might be a little uncomfortable because I don't appear to fit in with that environment (even though I wear them all the time).  However, when in uniform, it's totally different.  It doesn't matter where you put a soldier; he (or she) owns the place, even if not really totally comfortable in the environment.   It's one of the things they instill from day one in basic training, because nobody's comfortable on the battlefield, but we _have_ to own it.  And another Army catchphrase:  "train like you fight."  Of course, that's neither here nor there, and I probably should have stuck with what I know.



			
				mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> The absolute reverse of the studio setting  and she was cute with that chocolate ice cream on the tip of her nose.



LOL Okay, point taken.



			
				mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Try this on for size... ask yourself if I framed it and put it in a sidewalk show would a complete stranger buy it....



If you were selling a van Gogh (and I actually had the expendable income) I probably still wouldn't buy it, simply because I don't care for van Gogh.  On the other hand, in all fairness, a lot of people would; I do believe that I'm in the minority.  Would I buy a Bob Ross?  Probably; I love his stuff, and have ever since I watched his show on PBS when I was a kid.



			
				mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> For me the picture has to have an emotional appeal as well as a graphic appeal.  If he grabs me by the throat then I would pay for it maybe... if not there is no chance...


Yeah, what you said.  Except, if he tried to grab me by the thoat, I might try to make him a _real_ photographer (if you get my drift).

I suppose the "is either one 'art'" question is kinda hard to answer without seeing the photos in question.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

The would a strange buy it is the bench mark for what is a commissioned work and what I sell at festivals or on ebay.  The individual item is of no importance it is just the tape measure.  A picture of my grandson is high art to me and my wife but I doubt you (a stranger) would buy it at a street fair.  That was my point about shooting for friends.  Sorry it sounds kinda ridgid and there is no such thing in art.  My own opinion only.. and where is terri in this discussion..


----------



## terri (May 17, 2006)

> and where is terri in this discussion..


can't I watch from a distance...?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

NO


----------



## terri (May 17, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> NO


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

but ... but...:heart:


----------



## Torus34 (May 17, 2006)

In my very best H*y*m*a*n K*a*p*l*a*n manner, let me introduce a word into the discussion:

A*e*s*t*h*e*t*i*c*s

I believe it has a definite bearing on the subjects of high vs. low art and also on what constitutes a portrait.

Since I mentioned portraits: the phrase 'more than simply a likeness' is germaine.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

Ah I see Torus is a minimalist as well. Sir I am afraid I don't understand your meaning... But then I never said I understood any of this. 

No seriously please expound for us.


----------



## JamesD (May 17, 2006)

I think I understand as applied to portraits.  The picture has to look good, but more than that.  It has to show the character, to show the subject in "a good light."  It's taking a random shot of someone, versus capturing a moment that describes the personality and character of the invidiual.

My portrait, as paid eighty bucks for, didn't capture the character it was supposed to.  The portrait I took captured the personality of the subject fairly well.  Therefore, people (in general) would probably prefer the latter.

Nevermind that my shot was almost (or all mostly) by accident... I'd been into this photography stuff less than three months at the time.

Is that sorta what you were saying, Torus?  Or am I way off base?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 17, 2006)

I don't know that it is what he meant.

The portrait even bad in your greenies has a quality that transends a better picture of you in utilities.  But then I don't know exactly what he had in mind.  

Drag him back and we'll put him on the rack till he brakes and spills his guts.


----------



## Torus34 (May 18, 2006)

James D: Bravo! I say "Bravo!", Sir! You got it. Hit the old nail right on the head, you did.

I've said before that anyone can take a picture of Aunt Harriet which, if shown to someone who knows her, will elicit the comment "That's Aunt Harriet." Piece of cake. Done every day by millions of people with cameras, including an unfortunate number of portraitists.

It is an entirely different thing to take a picture of Aunt Harriet which, if shown to someone who does not know her, will result in "That portrait tells me something about the character of Aunt Harriet."

Check the portrait of the jurist in 'The Family of Man' as a prime example.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

Guess I missed that one about 180 degrees.....  but then I've done that before/


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

Well the obvious next step is,  "What elevates the snap shot at the zoo to a portrait suitable for that empty spot in the dining room."  Be serious what snapshot would you put in a formal dining room.

In my dining room there is a portrait of my daughter. in her wedding gown.... I didn't do it by the way. It's pretty awful, in my opnion, but if I were to move it.  I'd have to sleep with a gun and dog for protection.  There are hundreds of snapshots done by me and others that are much better "views" into her soul.  They didn't make it so formal a place.

There is also a huge portrait of her, that I did do, hanging on the living room wall.  That portrait does just as you guys say.  It could hang on anyones wall, it is that kind of picture.  But that is less a portrait than a statement and was made to be such.  A teenaged girl with her flute in a black background, spotlighted with a music stand.  Just your typical teenaged orchastra picture, but it has class.  I think so anyway. but I have a bias toward the subject, as well as the artist.


----------



## JamesD (May 18, 2006)

I think some of it has to do with expectations.  "This is her wedding picture, and by God, it's going to hang in the dining room, whether it's good or not!"

I think that a portrait, at least of an "ordinary" person, is a special case.  It has meaning to some people, but virtually none, other than "Hey, that's a good picture of an attractive guy/girl," to strangers.  It's meant to record that person, rather than a thought, emotion, concept, or idea.  When that person becomes famous, the portrait gains value, but not necessarily because it's "Art."  More because of the subject.

Here's a question:  the images captured by photojournalists, the ones that really tug at our emotions.. are they "art" or are they "record shots"? A great number of them make profound and often timeless statements about the human condition.

For instance:  the classic National Geographic cover, the girl with the blue eyes (or were they green?) in Afghanistan back in the '80s.  Or war photography...  Or photojournalistic expeditions to starving and disease-ridden third-world countries...  Are these art? Commercial art? High art? Low art?  Well-composed snapshots?  Simple illustrations?


----------



## terri (May 18, 2006)

Then there is the *accidental* elevation.  

Take the family portraits of yesteryear....and I mean, circa 1920's or just before. Those images were taken in a business environment, with the best studio equipment of the day. 

But when you look at them now.....something more comes through. I can look at anyone's old family shots and be moved. Those faces, those clothes...those times. 

Given what Torus was saying: _It is an entirely different thing to take a picture of Aunt Harriet which, if shown to someone who does not know her, will result in "That portrait tells me something about the character of Aunt Harriet." _these images were only taken to show Aunt Harriet. 

I find it intriguing how only the passage of time somehow elevates these images to showing more, into something that can evoke an emotional response.


----------



## JamesD (May 18, 2006)

Ah, good point.  But the image _does_ now show something about the character of aunt Harriet, and even the human condition.  It shows the state of the art.  It shows the fashions of the time.  It shows that beloved aunt Harriet is an antique herself, and shows her as we've probably never known her: young and not knowing what her life will contain in the future.  It shows that she comes from an era we've never experienced, and can probable never fully understand.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

And round and round we go...


----------



## Torus34 (May 18, 2006)

"Art is long and time is fleeting."  [Minimalist statement!]


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 18, 2006)

cool  (more minimal or is it less)


----------

