I was thinking about the research I have been doing on the four photographers and seeing as I have been given the theme of ‘artist’ I have been thinking about artist throughout the time I have been researching. I have been thinking ‘what makes an artist’?
All the artist could be classed as photojournalists, I personally would not consider photojournalism an art especially as all these photographers have been to war and to me art is something I could hang on my wall at home but I would not want photos of dying people on my wall. So if these photographers to me do not produce art does this mean they aren’t artists? But is that just my taste? Would someone want these artist’s pictures on their wall?
Roger Fenton was accused of setting up one of his most famous images called The Valley of the Shadow of Death as shown by the top image in the link. Many have studied this image, in particular Errol Morris he found out there were two similar images, one with the cannonballs and one without. He got the two image together and switched between the two for any differences he noticed there were two rocks that fall down on the image of the cannonballs, which suggests that the image was with the cannonballs came after the one without the cannonballs. Does this mean that it wasn’t documented? Similarly Donald Mc Cullin saw a dead Vietnamese man with his possessions discarded around him, Mc Cullin arranged his possessions differently. Again, does this mean he did not document what he saw but in his opinion he got a better shot. Additionally if Fenton’s exposures were between 3 and 20 seconds long surely they would be set up? Or if the photos did document what happened but the people were there for longer for period of time. So does this make the photos art if they didn’t document anything or still documentary?
The definition of art according the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power’
If this is the case, what is creativity? So if art is something that is creative and imaginative does that mean the chair I am sitting on to write this is art? Or the desk my laptop is on or the laptop I am typing this and the chair I am wearing are art? Because they have all been imagined by someone before they were
In the lecture on Friday 19th October art has changed over time: during the lecture and through my research why might that be?
Art is now mass produced, anyone can have a copy of the mona lisa in postcard form or as a magnet. Or pottery was usually one of kind and now it is all painted by machines and mass produced. However, even so most people would consider the Mona Lisa as art even though they might have a postcard copy but a mass produced pottery such as the Delft blue pottery might not be considered as art, but if I showed some Roman pottery, would someone consider it as art? So perhaps there is still consideration now as to what art is and what can be described as it.
Some might consider art as something as a gallery would display but now photojournalism is being shown in galleries.
It’s strange what has been and is considered as art is essentially what photojournalism does today, for example Picasso depicted the Spanish Civil War and most people would probably consider that as art yet a photo of someone being shot or dying it might not be considered as art.