In class, we have discussed whether photographs are considered art. Some of my classmates stated they believe for something to be art, it simply must evoke emotion. That definition does not make complete sense to me, though emotion is a key element in determining art. If I get socked in the face, I'll have an emotional response, likely embarrassment, anger, or sadness, but the jab isn't a piece of art. Different emotions would arise from different contexts; if the punch came from a stranger, I'd likely be mad, if I knew I deserved it, I'd probably be sad, and if it were to occur in public, I'd be embarrassed. The consideration of photography as art applies to the same rule of context. If one takes family photos, they're not going to be considered art, unless possibly effects were added such as blurring the image or changing color tones. If a picture of a sailor kissing his lady is taken (and you all know what image I'm referring to), it's going to be considered art. But was it at the time? It's all about the context when determining whether a photograph is art. Likely any photo created by a disposable camera is not going to be art. This type of image would be defined by Ian Bogost as a snapshot, a term which he reminds us is derived from hunting and shooting at the hip (Bogost 70). Context is everything in any type of medium. For example, I'd provide a works cited at the end of this post if not for the context of our class, in which we all know who Bogost is and what book I am referring to. What is interesting about photos is that when and where they're viewed, in part and in coordination with the viewer, determines the context. Bogost reminds us, "Photography doesn't make such a distinction; a camera can just as easily take a landscape as a portrait" (Bogost 72). If a photo is of a landscape, and your friend is showing it to you in a slide show of their vacation, you will view it differently than if it's on the wall of a museum. Context is everything in determining whether a photograph is art or just a photo.
http://yahcuboster.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/159/comment-page-1/#comment-15
http://kthompsonsschoolblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/art-in-video-games-dtc-375-post-8.html?showComment=1397699859907#c4262578675579459810
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you questioned our classroom discussion's definition of art. You compared it to getting punched in the face which was very creative and thought provoking. You related what is considered art to what context it's in, not only that but context based on the specific medium. I would like to add onto that. Not only is it the medium and the context of that medium, but also the viewer and their thoughts, feelings, and emotions toward the piece. Maybe you don't view a disposable camera's film of your family reunion as art because the subjects are candid and familiar to you. But someone may see the images and see them as art because they find the blue sky against the green grass in the background as mesmerizing.