Emotional Response & Art

In class we've talked about abstract, realistic art, and emotional response. This is my take on the different responses gained from each type of art.

While looking at an abstract painting, and not a realistic representation, one is forced not tie in conotations with what they are viewing. For example, if you're looking at a painting of a tree, all your conotations of a tree also become part of the experience. A tree might represent growth, the environment, stability, etc.

Therefore the emotional response would be deduced response, requiring reasoning and logic. The message here is gained through what we already know, and it is up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions of the message.

However, in an abstract artwork there is no representation or symbolic meaning. All other knowledge is left out, and what the viewer is left with is what he is experiencing here, in that moment. The message here I believe lies on an instinctual response.

But what about art that is both abstractual and realistic--painting's that use real images as a starting point for conveying an abstract image? Would this surpass the response drawn from both abstract and realistic art?

Response to Misty's post

Question: do you agree that artists create better work a majority of the time, when they are just expressing themselves, instead of trying to make money

I think this is subjective.

For example, an artist that is solely producing for the sake of self expression is going to produce alot of shit. Kind of like when you write a poem in your journal and its unedited, completely sparatic and embarassing to share with other people. However, every once in a while you may get something awesome.

An artist that produced to make money, to meet a deadline etc is usually someone who's talent becomes their profession. they may produce paintings greater than just anyone on the street, because that is their skill. Some people work better under pressure like this, such as working as an artist for a living, rather than leisurely creating art.

So like I said, I think it's pretty subjective.

Personally, I prefer art purely for the sake of expression. No matter how good a painting is, I want to believe the intentions during the creative process were solely to deliver a message, a meaning.

Photography as an Art Form

A while ago, we were discussing how some people would argue that photography was not an art form--that capturing an image was merely capturing an image. While surfing the internet I came across this entitled, 10 Reasons Why Photography Sucks and Isn't an Art Form, the author was playing a sort of devils advocate and came up with these reasons.

So today, I'm going to write an opposition on a few of the points he makes.

1 - "Anyone can do it." - While I agree that the point and shoot cameras make photography an accessible art form to anyone, this does not mean that anyone can do it. And I hardly believe that if we gave a group of monkeys some cameras, that the monkeys cameras could produce though provoking images. Yes, anyone can point an shoot a camera, not everyone can evoke an emotion with the image they've captured. Just like anyone can draw a picture (think about elephants creating painting), not everyone can evoke emotion out of it.

2 - "No talent involved" - There are countless books and magazines that have tips on how to better your photography skills. It's not just right place right time. It right place, right time, right lighting, right shadows, right saturation of colors, right focusing, etc, etc.

3 - "No creativity" - Just like any other art form, photography can be uncreative. The kind of photos the article describes, "the more you protest that your badly-composed, out-of-focus pictures bear your unique artistic sensibilities, the more you satisfy your own delusions" is the same as an amateur painter - just plotches of paint with no real purpose or intention....Think about photographers such as annie leibovitz, ansel adams, richard avedon.

4 - "It doesn’t help you to look at the world differently" - i'm going to use a personal story to refute this. the other day I saw a picture of a hermit crab using a broken bottle as a shell. the picture not only reinforced how sad it that we as humans, are destroying the environment for the ourselves and others that depend on it. but it caused me to reflect for a good while on how nature has this constant amazing ability to adapt to it's environment.

anyways, so that's my opposition on the first 4 points, the rest were kind of silly.

the question i'm posing is there is sucha thing as good photography and bad photography, good art and bad art. However, what is each based on? The amount of creativity and inentionality we put into it? Or how it is recieved by the public?