Vivian Maier

enrigonz wrote in post #11584608
My definition for art is definitely not the same as my own wife for instance, it really varies from one side of the spectrum to the other. I love black and white photography, I love a story in the photograph, there's many ways for one to admire the art of photography, many with today's technology and software such as Adobe Photoshop create their own version of art, I don't like it but it doesn't necessarily mean is not art, is just another form of art expression through an image.

I would agree with that. I don't think anyone here has been arguing that anyone's definition of art is an absolute. There are definitely different types, and schools of art that appeal or don't to the individual observer but we do have some time tested standards.

And why is it necessary to educate yourself to discern what you like or don't like? Why is it necessary to be told what I should like?
Isn't it like a ham sandwich...you either like it or you don't.

chauncey wrote in post #11585086
And why is it necessary to educate yourself to discern what you like or don't like? Why is it necessary to be told what I should like?
Isn't it like a ham sandwich...you either like it or you don't.

No and you can like and dislike whatever but wouldn't it be nice to at least understand what everyone else seem to know? I mean if you are a photographer then you are dealing with those that speak in a visual language and to understand that language like any language how fluent you are in it will allow you to have a low or high understanding of what is being communicated.

Heres something that I thought I'd share. I remember when I was a lot younger there was a painting that I absolutely did not like and for the life of me I couldn't understand what the buzz was about the artist of this piece in particular. Well, a few years after graduation and after studying art and photography in college I saw the piece at the art institute again and it was like I was looking at a different piece. I saw things in the work that I had never seen before. I still didn't care for it but I did understand why it was though of so highly.

Gets me back to a statement that I made earlier in this thread about Vivians work.

"Take the photo I linked and asked to get an explanation of why it is only a snapshot.
http://4.bp.blogspot.c​om/_YUrw6ooCZj...1600-h/636.jpg

Heres what I would have said in rebuttal.

Lets start by talking about composition. Usually a snapshot is not composed but just shot haphazardly. This image has a very strong classic triangular composition(di Vinci). With the tip of the triangle at the top of the stool and the base running parallel with the implied line created by the dogs gaze.

Now whether you like the image or not is an entirely different conversation and you certainly have the right to like and dislike what ever. But to say its only a snapshot or not very good is not an accurate statement. Its a good photograph just maybe one that you don't like. I personally don't like the work of many photographers but still can give the nod to it being good if in fact it is. Joel-Peter Witkin is not my cup of tea but he is never the less a real artist and an amazing photographer with a very unique way of seeing and expressing that vision."

Its also funny how time has a way of weeding out the rif raf in the art world. See if the work is still valid in 10 years.

Hey Chauncey I almost forgot that man a good ham sammy can be art for sure.

chauncey wrote in post #11585086
And why is it necessary to educate yourself to discern what you like or don't like? Why is it necessary to be told what I should like?
Isn't it like a ham sandwich...you either like it or you don't.

You are absolutely right; defining art is a personal matter, and education is not necessarily necessary, but...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11585154
No and you can like and dislike whatever but wouldn't it be nice to at least understand what everyone else seem to know? I mean if you are a photographer then you are dealing with those that speak in a visual language and to understand that language like any language how fluent you are in it will allow you to have a low or high understanding of what is being communicated.

Exactly...

chauncey wrote in post #11585086
And why is it necessary to educate yourself to discern what you like or don't like? Why is it necessary to be told what I should like?
Isn't it like a ham sandwich...you either like it or you don't.

That's kind of moving the goal posts. The issue wasn't what you liked or not. It was was what was considered art and the value of people who had an "educated palate".

You need to at least educate yourself as to whether the thing you like or dislike is a ham sandwich or a spam sandwich.

sjones wrote in post #11585279
You are absolutely right; defining art is a personal matter, and education is not necessarily necessary, but...
..

So you agree that defining art is a "personal matter" but immediatley also agree that photgraphic art is based upon a defined standard.

So your answer is "Yes.... I mean no".

I am truly inspired by her work, some of the photographs Ive seen already are brilliant and moving. I do find it interesting that some people are debating this, I guess they just dont get photography at all.

bpiper7 wrote in post #11585578
So you agree that defining art is a "personal matter" but immediatley also agree that photgraphic art is based upon a defined standard.

So your answer is "Yes.... I mean no".

The issue isn’t about a defined standard (and where did I say that it was), but instead, as Allen comments on, it’s about appreciating the grammar involved, which can, in turn, enhance the appreciation of and respect for the medium, whatever that might be.

Yes, what I define as art is my personal opinion---you are certainly not going to tell me what is or isn’t art---and on a visceral level, that is where it stands, regardless of any further exploration. After all, are you educated in every medium in where you might find art?

I don’t paint, and I’ve never received any training (formal or informal) in painting, but I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb if I consider certain works by Matisse as art. It’s a relatively uneducated opinion, but then again, aesthetics isn’t rigidly rapped around some cerebral checklist.

That said, my appreciation for that which I consider art can certainly be heightened or refined through education and a better understanding of the ‘language,’ with cautious recognition that even within the syntax, there are organic divergences of definitions.

I agree with this sentiment. A lot of the images that I've seen so far are misses, but there are some very clearly amazing hits that demonstrate a true eye for both moment and composition.

I've seen a few contact sheets from greats like Eisenstadt and some outtakes from Bresson--most of their shots were not amazing. They often had to "work" up through many exposures to the iconic shot that expressed their vision of the moment. They often captured many moments and decided afterward which one was "the decisive moment."

I can see in some of Maier's "misses" that she was usually operating surreptitiously--very much a disadvantage--and in some cases probably doing the ol' TLR misdirection trick, giving up a lot of compositional advantage. She took her chances, and now we see good tries that didn't work exposed that a good picture editor would never have printed.

sjones wrote in post #11587439
The issue isn’t about a defined standard (and where did I say that it was), but instead, as Allen comments on, it’s about appreciating the grammar involved, which can, in turn, enhance the appreciation of and respect for the medium, whatever that might be.

So "grammar" isn't a "defined standard"?
Really??

sjones wrote in post #11587439
Yes, what I define as art is my personal opinion---you are certainly not going to tell me what is or isn’t art---and on a visceral level, that is where it stands, regardless of any further exploration. After all, are you educated in every medium in where you might find art?

I didn't say *I* would be defining art. But then you declare that "education in every medium" is a prerequisite for me to do so.

And somehow that "education" is not the aquisition of awareness of defined standards?

I'm enjoying your internal tennis match. Who's winning?

sjones wrote in post #11587439
I don’t paint, and I’ve never received any training (formal or informal) in painting, but I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb if I consider certain works by Matisse as art. It’s a relatively uneducated opinion, but then again, aesthetics isn’t rigidly rapped around some cerebral checklist.

And yet, again, you posit that education is involved and valuable in an opinion about aesthetics.
Your opinion of Matisse is uninformed by ANY outside influence?
Just YOUR viscera?

Interesting.

DNA, I guess?

sjones wrote in post #11587439
That said, my appreciation for that which I consider art can certainly be heightened or refined through education and a better understanding of the ‘language,’ with cautious recognition that even within the syntax, there are organic divergences of definitions.

Got it. "No, I mean ....yes"

You declare that you are the sole arbiter of what is art to YOU but that's affected by what you learn about the defined standard of the "grammar" of the "language" that is being used.

Nobody said there were absolutes. In fact I said that there weren't. The issue was the value of "an educated palate" and a basic defined standard of what constitutes art.

Looks like you agree with that in spite of yourself.

bpiper7 wrote in post #11587669
I didn't say *I* would be defining art. But then you declare that "education in every medium" is a prerequisite for me to do so...

No, you misinterpreted this; I am saying that I can enjoy the arts despite not having an educated background in all subject matters, and all I am simply adding, cannot you do the same? Also, I realize that you never said that you were defining art, simply using you as an example, as in you and everybody else.

What is so difficult about this? I like a painting because the mere site of it viscerally evokes something pleasant. I then learn more about the painting; about the artist; perhaps about the difficulties involved; about compositional elements, the backstory. Now, I like the same painting, but I have a greater cognitive appreciation for what is involved; and yes, by God, I think it is art, but then again, I felt that way right from the start, even before I learned about the painting. Someone else looks at the same damn painting; they hate it; they don’t think it is art. Oh, and this person actually has had his paintings displayed at the Guggenheim. Who is right or wrong in regards to whether the painting is “art?” Such debate is what undermines the weight of “defined standards” when trying to determine what is art.

As for grammar, note that I stated, “with cautious recognition that even within the syntax, there are organic divergences of definitions.” Grammar is remarkably flexible in this case, almost more figurative than literal, because when dealing with the arts, one is dealing with a heap of subjectivity, which is potentially corrosive with thrown against standards. The ‘rule of thirds’ is a compositional device, we learn it, it’s part of the grammar, but it is not a solid draconian rule that must be adhered to in all cases. Remember, we both agree, no absolutes.

As far as why I like something, whether it be food, color, or a song, I don’t know what all factors are involved in this decision making process; perhaps culture, family upbringing, society, exposure to certain environmental surroundings, and yes, absolutely, DNA (a huge factor in a lot of cases). So if I like a painting by Matisse, is it because of my diet, my DNA, because something a dog did the other day. I don’t know, but what I do know is that I don’t have an educational background in painting, and if I did, maybe, just maybe, I might value the painting even more. That said, I can still like this painting without such specific instructional background; that’s my point. Are you telling me that I can’t? That I must have a degree in art?

Now, if there are any contradictions in my statement, it is an inherently inextricable consequence that arises when dealing with the conflicting elements of ‘grammar’ and subjectivity in the arts...unless, of course, one is prone to choose one over the other: I am not, and that is my burden to bear. One one level, I know that Beethoven must be greater than Justin Bieber, but on another philosophical level, I know that it is just an opinion.

But really, again, firstly, all I am saying is a person can like something because they like it. They can then possibly like it more, or appreciate it on some higher level, if they learn more about the subject. And secondly, if I think something is art, for whatever reasons, then I think it is art; it’s my opinion. That’s all.

And again time has a way of weeding out the Biebers.

Its a pretty good bet after 200 years if its still considered by most to be art (Beethoven) then it probably is. Ya think Biebers will still be in the conversation?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11589043
And again time has a way of weeding out the Biebers.

Its a pretty good bet after 200 years if its still considered by most to be art (Beethoven) then it probably is. Ya think Biebers will still be in the conversation?

I've frequently said that the real consideration can't start unless one additional generation agrees.

Some thoughts by a few more articulate than certainly I am.
"(Art) is both the taking and giving of beauty; the turning out to the light the inner folds of the awareness of the spirit. It is the recreation on another plane of the realities of the world; the tragic and wonderful realities of earth and men, and of all the inter-relations of these."
Ansel Adams

"A great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety."
Ansel Adams

"The element which gives life to the great Picassos and Cezannes, to the paintings of Van Gogh, is the relationship of the artist to context, to the truth of the real world. It is the way he sees this world and translates it into art that determines whether the work of art becomes a new and active force within reality, to widen and transform man's experience. The artist's world is limitless. It can be found anywhere far from where he lives or a few feet away. It is always on his doorstep."
Paul Strand

"It is not art in the professionalized sense about which I care, but that which is created sacredly, as a result of a deep inner experience, with all of oneself, and that becomes 'art' in time."
Alfred Stieglitz


"Art is a by-product of an act of total attention."
Dorothea Lange

"As the language or vocabulary of photography has been extended, the emphasis of meaning has shifted, shifted from what the world looks like to what we feel about the world and what we want the world to mean."
Aaron Siskind

"Once you really commence to see things, then you really commence to feel things."
Edward Steichen

The simple fact that this woman has garnished so much attention on photography forums such as this and other's all over the world is a testament to her genius and supreme talent.