Guys, For what it's worth, I used to teach art survey classes - it's no picnic getting people past the silly notions like I'm seeing expressed here. Most everyone I know is an artist (I guess I need to get around more!) and I have never had a "what's an artist" discussion like this with them. They know who they are, they don't fancy art as being an elite interest or occupation. It's the people who have placed themselves on the outside looking in that have these hang-ups. The notion that really good art has to be old stuff would have them rolling on the floor laughing. I have refereed to this book before on this list: "Believing is seeing" by Mary Anne Staniszewski. Get it, read it. :-) AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: can there be art photography ... > From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, March 31, 2004 6:16 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> In a philosophical or artistic sense, I'm sure it would be > >> *different*, since it wouldn't have the same sort of ubiquitous > >> photographic images to play off of, but artists work in any medium > >> that's around and strikes their fancy, > > > Is art, by it's very nature, elitist? > > > > Once you call yourself "an artist" are you not in a way claiming to > be > > "better" than mere camera users? > > A difficult and complex question; which I vaguely remember having > heard before sometime in my life :-). > > *Old* stuff that we keep around because a bunch of people like it is > elitist art in a very useful sense -- it's the small proportion of the > creation of thousands of years that has been valued enough to survive > this long and still be looked at. That's the "good" sense of elitist > there. > > People who claim to be creating stuff worthy to stand in that company > are making a rather strong claim; and perhaps you could say that's > "elitist". Depends what you mean by elitist, really. I hear it > primarily as a term used to put down people who care about quality. > (Oops, have I let my personal opinion leak out?) > > > A few days ago there was a discussion (short) about accessibility of > > art ... > > > > I guess that's why I don't call myself an artist - to claim > > superiority over those that do <BG> > > Yeah, once the one-up-manship battles really get going, the whole > terminological neighborhood gets polluted and it's really better just > to move along. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> > Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: > <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
