Marios Lefteriotis , May 24, 2007; 10:22 a.m.
Photography is an Art but what is art? Art I should say is the representation or
the reconstruction of reality. If we accept this definition, then art teaches
because it opens our eyes and makes us understand what life is and where we are
going.. So, in the case of photography, a photo in order to be ART must have a
back story, or must give a message to the spectator, or must give an answer to a
problem of life. THIS IS ART and not the "how beautiful it is!" or "what bright
colours!" or "my God what synthesis is that!" and so on. Now we come to the
critical point. In order to find out the backstory of a photo, or the message it
contains, it needs a certain effort by the spectator which we are not prepared
to make, so we choose the easy way of "beautiful pictures". As a new comer to
PN, I made an experiment. I put 5 photos, telling a story about human behaviour
and how we can restore inner peace. Deep human story which interests everybody,
because it is our life and we have to do something about it. I was ready to
start a constructive discussion and exchange ideas on this major problem of
human behaviour, proposing solutions or finding ways to show these ideas in a
better way through photos, but the co-operation was very little. I am sorry to
say that the majority of the comments made on photos, are of the type and for
the sake of "give me (good ratings), in order to give you". But this in not
PHOTOGRAPHY AS AN ART which I am sure PN wants to promote. I should like very
much to have your ideas on all these, including the opinion of those who are in
charge of PN. Thank you.
Help!!
Ellis Vener 
, May 24, 2007; 10:35 a.m.
"Art I should say is the representation or the reconstruction of reality."
Bunk.
Jacob Brown , May 24, 2007; 11:16 a.m.
"Art I should say is the representation or the reconstruction of reality."
Ellis beat me to it.
Matt Laur 
, May 24, 2007; 11:31 a.m.
Indeed, Jacob and Ellis.
As usual, the dictionary can be constructive in these conversations:
Art (noun):
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation [the art of making friends]
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill [the art of organ building]
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
Justin Black , May 24, 2007; 11:53 a.m.
Since everyone seems intent on jumping on a guy who's only trying to provoke an
interesting discussion, I'll flesh this out a bit. He isn't suggesting that art has to be
"realistic," or literally reflecting in full detail what is tangile and physical. Strictly speaking,
the definition of art is broad and nebulous, which I think is what Ellis and Jacob meant to
say. HOWEVER, the art academy, curators, fine art critics, etc. would tend to agree with
Marios. In other words, from that point of view, true fine art is in some way intended to be
a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition. In this
case, the reality that Marios describes includes perceived realities, like spirituality and
metaphysics. From the "big-A" Art world point of view, every work is evaluated in the
context of what it says (or what the artist says it is intended to say) about some aspect of
human experience.
So, from that point of view Marios is absolutely on the money. A work of art is one
person's representation or reconstruction of some aspect of reality (or a way they have
chosen to express or comment on an aspect of reality) in one form or another.
Steve Dawson , May 24, 2007; 12:16 p.m.
If you cut through the pompous language isn't this just a moan that your photos didn't receive the positive comment and ratings you'd hoped for?
Ellis Vener , May 24, 2007; 12:41 p.m.
he may be interested in setting up an interesting discusssion, but that would require a reasonable premise to start from.
Justin Black , May 24, 2007; 01:05 p.m.
Steve: Perhaps Marios is frustrated that the level of discourse here tends to be lacking. The
number of thoughtful, insightful, and thought-provoking critiques or comments posted to
ANY image here is quite small, while many feel perfectly comfortable taking the time to
share dismissive, rude, and useless comments.
Ellis: It is a perfectly reasonable premise for discussion in this forum, and nobody cares
that Ellis Vener thinks the premise is bunk. Perhaps rather than taking the act of typing
"bunk" and clicking the submit button, you should consider that others might find the
topic worthwhile despite the fact that you do not. It's his premise, it's based on a point of
view, and it's a view that many knowledgeable people would tend to agree with. If you
disagree, at least take the time to explain why.
Steve Swinehart , May 24, 2007; 01:12 p.m.
"In other words, from that point of view, true fine art is in some way intended to be a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition."
Double bunk - Not even close.
The entire abstract art movement lays waste to that statement. Yeah, Mark Rothko - there's an artist who's work is an example of portraying the human condition. Let's not forget the human condition portrayed by Piet Mondrian or Jackson Pollock.
Sometimes art is just done to examine the interplay of forms, shapes, and colors - regardless of yours or any other human's condition.
Dick Hilker , May 24, 2007; 01:34 p.m.
Justin, when you say " true fine art is in some way intended to be a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition," do you feel that images that enable us to expand our understanding and perception of the natural world (ex: humanity) are to be excluded from the definition?
