Time to define "art".
Yes, you are the creator of the framing. Now ask yourself if what is viewed is the framing or what was framed; typically it's the latter.Yes, you are. In the art of photography, you are. What you have created is that framing.
That is what that art gives you the power to create: a framing of otherwise visible material.
You have to stop thinking so much about the items captured in the photograph and the fact that they are visible independently of the photograph.
not sure whether it's yours, but - yes, it's art now. why not?
Yes, that is why I did not offer one. But your conversation above is removed from @Hygro 's objectivity and into the specifics of whether a random picture of other peoples words is art. Raising the question of whether just "framing" stuff is sufficient to be art.Good luck with that.
Hygro's more focused initial question will probably lead to more interesting results overall.
But threads go where they do.
There's photography in film-making, as a distinct form. The person in charge of photography will select both the framing and the lighting/color of scenes for maximum effect, cohesiveness or juxtaposition. Now if the movie director did all that, it would be a good example of the person not just framing, but creating what is to be framed and then optimizing itnot sure whether it's yours, but - yes, it's art now. why not?
wanted to touch on something quickly, have a lot of thoughts (esp as we're getting into ambient theory and i might need to dust off some old books if i can find them), but on the frame
the frame is two things and you and gori may be talking past each other, and you know the theory i believe, but i'm still going to run through the position i'm coming from. there's the actual physicality of the frame, and putting something in a frame, and then there's naturally framing in itself, which can be applied well past photography. both are related but the framing does not have to be a frame. the scene photographer indeed draws a frame about something of sorts and makes a material that draws this frame around something they may or may not have created. such a frame then predisposes an observer to experience the scene through a mode of aesthetic experience. this happens because we have built the "language" of experiencing "art" through such a lens. simply, because it's framed intentionally, the viewer will treat it as art and engage with it as such. whether it then is succesful depends on a number of factors (that i admittedly know very little about in its material formal structures, my background is more one of music and literature).
john cage, i think it was, had an interesting position here (when talking about what the hell was happening with 4'33" - to people that don't know, 4'33" is a piece of outright silence for that duration - 4'33" may not be good, but it's important because it centers the frame). he liked to - and suggested others to - take a walk on the street and just take in the sounds of the world as active, engaged listening. in a sense, he liked to make the frame at will. the photographer in a sense is a middle man of creating the frame, and almost all art uses one such middle man yes - but the art then happens after the frame has been chosen. cage just noticed you can skip the middle man and activate the mode of engagement on your own. and important thing here is that while we don't know what art is, we all know what it feels like to feel that we're looking at art during "art mode". it just feels a certain way.
(if it wasn't cage, it was one of the other ambient guys or the minimalists)
for me, i think the issue's also that objective criteria for art analysis are hard to generalize the way art works; it's easier to make a case study and then go over what's going on there, and then discuss the formal structures that have predictive power for when similar things are succesful within similar genres. incidentally, the rap battle makes sense as something to talk about when figuring out what encompasses succesful rap battles.Good luck with that.
Hygro's more focused initial question will probably lead to more interesting results overall.
But threads go where they do.
yea i think i misread what i can gather is a discussion about ownership/personhood behind art as a question of what framing is. my bad.There's photography in film-making, as a distinct form. The person in charge of photography will select both the framing and the lighting/color of scenes for maximum effect, cohesiveness or juxtaposition. Now if the movie director did all that, it would be a good example of the person not just framing, but creating what is to be framed and then optimizing it
But I am not sure we are ready to move to that part, given we have a discussion about a much more important/overall distinction. In film, of course, part of your scene is also not practically created by you (eg the actors), but you still directed their posture/clothing etc. Can't do that with taking a photo of an execution - and then one can compare that to the famous painting by Goya.
What are we defining as social entropy?Must art not be the opposite of social entropy? A sort of emotional or experiential synchronization? If we really pare it down. I like to think of it in terms of a resonance, the more I think about it.
So yeah, the mountain isn't art. But it's divinely beautiful in the way that informs us of this concept of "objective beauty." that is subjectively experienced. These natural scenes inspire and demonstrate what art does as well, but are different. Sort of "the source".I'm struggling with if something can be unintentional art. Snowflakes are beautiful. Mountain ranges, too. But a mountain range isn't art except in the divine sense, whereas a particular framing photograph of the mountain might be, despite being ultimately a pale recreation. What's behind the lens seems to be the thing at point there, moreso than the viewer.
with the mountain, imo we return to the discrepancy of language; noone made the mountain art (in that no human arranged the material as an art piece; then it's not "making" art), but we can definitely experience the mountain through the lens of art, as art (appreciating it as an aesthetic experience, then it's "making" art). there's art as the material and art as the engagement.
Civilization is largely the failure to live wild.But also, why didn't they need them? (Mountain?)
Sparta did start as a cultural center - one of the "Seven Sages" of ancient Greece, in a list compiled in the 7th century BC, was Chilon of Sparta. It then deviated and became ultra militaristic, with a myth that it had to dominate all others because otherwise it would be destroyed by them.Civilization is largely the failure to live wild.
People who appreciate photography as an art view the framing. That is precisely what they look at in order to determine whether the photograph has artistic merit. They are aware that they could go stand in a particular spot and see the same object that is depicted in the photo. They ask themselves whether that object is framed interestingly in the shot.Now ask yourself if what is viewed is the framing or what was framed
I cannot, in fact, easily see this.after all you can easily see how the creator of something can also frame it
You and I aren't talking. I wish we were. I'm just swatting Kyr for stupid things he's saying about the art of photography. Framing, as I'm using the term in that context, is a technical term from the art of photography, not a theoretical term from aesthetics.oh, i may have misread
Don't worry. I'm dropping the rap. I thought it would make for a good case study, given the tread's OP.it's just that, personally, i know little about rap
That's because the thread has drifted away from Hygro's interesting initial question.But your conversation above is removed from @Hygro 's objectivity and into the specifics of whether a random picture of other peoples words is art.
Is this different than claiming "people who appreciate (eg) writing view x and not y"? Art can have an effect due to many different reasons and/or their interconnections. You also inevitably mentally frame it yourself. It'd be relatively rare to have the art be defined by the specific external framing particularities (you can find people discussing the effect of framing material, angle, size etc, but it can't realistically be argued that a photo you personally liked would become nothing with just any framing changes; the changes would need to be severe).People who appreciate photography as an art view the framing. That is precisely what they look at in order to determine whether the photograph has artistic merit. They are aware that they could go stand in a particular spot and see the same object that is depicted in the photo. They ask themselves whether that object is framed interestingly in the shot.
there's a bunch of side discussions in this thread, so i haven't quite followed this. let's try.I'm having a hard time going upstream of entropy to define it. So entropy is systemic decay, the opposite of synchrony, right? We then tend to think of entropy in terms of either unity or vacuum, either one being an expression of stasis. So social entropy would be the breakdown of the social interaction towards the point(s) where there is no meaningful synchrony, the parties are unmoved by each other?