Recently, a fairly nice photograph of a canyon in Arizona, called 'Phantom', sold for $6.5 million. You can find it at this link, as well as possibly the snootiest article I've ever read explaining why it isn't real art:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless
Now, even if the whole 'are videogames art?' debacle hadn't happened, I think we could all agree that anybody who claims something 'isn't art' has a lot of ground to cover in order to not look like a massive snob, and the Guardian clearly has not even made such an attempt. But, rather than make snippy remarks about their snippy remarks, I'd rather address his points directly.
Of course photography is art. Not just in the obvious technical definition 'anything that you make is art', but also in the sense of something you might put in a gallery or a museum. The article, written by one Johnathon Jones, claims otherwise because photography is just 'a technology', and that simply taking a still shot of something that already exists in nature isn't creating art. He points out that there are hundreds of similar images readily available on Google, none of which would sell for upwards of $6 million.
Now, let's start with the 'just a technology' argument. Well, I say argument, but I can really see no way of defending it. Of course a digital camera is a piece of technology. So is a film camera. Or a brush. Or MS Paint. That doesn't make it incapable of producing art.
Second, artful photography like this is more than just snapping a photo on your phone, then picking a filter for it. The photo in question was clearly the product of some time consuming search for locations, then finding just the right time, etc. In any case, the amount of effort put into an artwork does not change whether it is art or not, as we learned mere weeks ago when a painting of a white line on a blue background sold for almost $44 million dollars.
No, seriously. http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/
And it is true that there are hundreds of similar pictures on Google images. It's also true that kindergarteners draw squiggly lines on paper in the thousands. That's still art.
But his main point was that, if you simply take a picture of something that was made naturally, that isn't art. Which is, of course, entirely false, as I shall prove with the following syllogism:
1. Film is a form of art.
2. Nature documentaries, which mainly consist of footage of natural events occurring, are films.
3. Therefore, footage of nature can be considered art.
Now I know what you're thinking. "Matt," you think, "This is a pointless argument. I don't even care about photography, why should I care if it's art or not?"
Well, good sir/fine madam, if you cared about whether videogames were art or not, you should care about this. Both of these cases are a prime example of an old art form declaring a new one invalid, and both are just as ludicrous. When some new art form comes along in 30 years, people will try to delegitimize that, too. But if we learn from the older generation's mistakes, we can avoid being part of the group that spews hate on anything that came after their time. Instead, we can be the group that mocks that group on the Internet. And isn't that a goal worth striving for?
P.S. In case you clicked on this because you misread the title as 'Pornography IS art', rest assured that this is also true.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless
Now, even if the whole 'are videogames art?' debacle hadn't happened, I think we could all agree that anybody who claims something 'isn't art' has a lot of ground to cover in order to not look like a massive snob, and the Guardian clearly has not even made such an attempt. But, rather than make snippy remarks about their snippy remarks, I'd rather address his points directly.
Of course photography is art. Not just in the obvious technical definition 'anything that you make is art', but also in the sense of something you might put in a gallery or a museum. The article, written by one Johnathon Jones, claims otherwise because photography is just 'a technology', and that simply taking a still shot of something that already exists in nature isn't creating art. He points out that there are hundreds of similar images readily available on Google, none of which would sell for upwards of $6 million.
Now, let's start with the 'just a technology' argument. Well, I say argument, but I can really see no way of defending it. Of course a digital camera is a piece of technology. So is a film camera. Or a brush. Or MS Paint. That doesn't make it incapable of producing art.
Second, artful photography like this is more than just snapping a photo on your phone, then picking a filter for it. The photo in question was clearly the product of some time consuming search for locations, then finding just the right time, etc. In any case, the amount of effort put into an artwork does not change whether it is art or not, as we learned mere weeks ago when a painting of a white line on a blue background sold for almost $44 million dollars.
No, seriously. http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/
And it is true that there are hundreds of similar pictures on Google images. It's also true that kindergarteners draw squiggly lines on paper in the thousands. That's still art.
But his main point was that, if you simply take a picture of something that was made naturally, that isn't art. Which is, of course, entirely false, as I shall prove with the following syllogism:
1. Film is a form of art.
2. Nature documentaries, which mainly consist of footage of natural events occurring, are films.
3. Therefore, footage of nature can be considered art.
Now I know what you're thinking. "Matt," you think, "This is a pointless argument. I don't even care about photography, why should I care if it's art or not?"
Well, good sir/fine madam, if you cared about whether videogames were art or not, you should care about this. Both of these cases are a prime example of an old art form declaring a new one invalid, and both are just as ludicrous. When some new art form comes along in 30 years, people will try to delegitimize that, too. But if we learn from the older generation's mistakes, we can avoid being part of the group that spews hate on anything that came after their time. Instead, we can be the group that mocks that group on the Internet. And isn't that a goal worth striving for?
P.S. In case you clicked on this because you misread the title as 'Pornography IS art', rest assured that this is also true.
