An attack against the definition of art...

Feb 28, 2008

This show...This community...The entries into everyone's "My Studio" is an attack against the definition of art. And I'm raising this in conversation because of something I read in the forum about how Photography is becoming a dead art. I just dont think that digital progress is step in the wrong direction.
Lets start with film and TV (just because I have more knowledge on it): There are plenty of films that you have seen in the recent past that have benefited from the progress of technology. And one of them is the reason we are all on this site. Filmmakers have been able to go out on their own, or with a couple friends and make movies. They have been able to go out and document moments of importance. They have been able to sit at their home and edit these pieces into something they are in control of, and they have been able to share it with you through the digital medium of the internet. And some of them have even been able to make it to the silver screen. Musicians have been able to record their own music and share it with you. Photographers have been able to capture moments and share them with you. And in reference to photoshop, they have been able to manipulate these images and show them the way that they saw them through the filter of their mind. Purity can always be an argument, but purity doesn't make art. Creation makes art. Which is my final point...

Art never was and never will be the "final product and its mass reception". If you create an image that 5 people like, and I create a film that 10 people like, that does not make it more art than yours. Thats a numbers game. And while we all wish we could make art that millions of people love and want to pay for, this is not the intention of art. Don't be fooled. The intention of art is to make something that you feel is your expression. And the "final product, whatever it may be, despite its mass reception" is what makes it art.

In my mind, I always remember, that its the act of creation that I strive for, and the devices or instruments that are used to create, are part of the story, but not the end all be all...Analog Digital Film Typewriter Computer...these are preferences, not dividing points between art and non-art.

****Update****
Edit: My friend Greg posted something that would fit well with this topic as well...so I'm going to post here underneath with credit to him:

"as far as mass reception / perception goes, while it may not be a criterion for whether something is "art" or not, it's definitely an important part of judging the value and quality of art. but that's something else entirely.

the long and short of it is this: digital art tools are precisely that, tools. a shitty carpenter can have a workshop with 10,000 dollars worth of tools and still end up making shitty furniture. a shitty carpenter can also exclusively use hand tools to make shitty furniture and talk shit about Herman Miller because they use all that "technology."

i think the real problem is that these days we all have really great excuses to make crappy work, ranging from "i'm a purist and eschew technology" to "i only use the latest in technology and it doesn't matter that i don't know the fundamentals" to "hey, i'm really expressing myself over here and that's valuable!"

i think the real thing killing any art, but probably photography in particular, is a huge overflow of people who are too lazy to figure out something they're actually good at, and decide that they must be artists. in the past these people were relegated to their local coffeeshops, but thanks to the advent of the internet they can showcase their piles of shit to an audience of millions."

Seemed like a good addition...