Art, Intent, and Content

On Art, Beauty, and Content vs. Intent.

So I'm thinking about this image the other day, and a friend protests as he points out that the content of the photograph is not something he feels should be displayed.

He argues that the image should be judged on content alone, and that the content of the image conveys a message he's not comfortable displaying as art in his home.

I counterpoint by saying that anyone who has worked with photography can determine via their resultant knowledge of the art form that the picture is intentional, and that this intent clearly demarks the picture and validates its existence as art.

My friend disagrees.

It presents an interesting discussion, and so it winds up here, so I can hammer it out better in my head.

I disagree 100% with the idea that a picture's content is completely removed from any obvious staging. An intentional pose adopted by a dancer is to be admired both for it's direct effect and for the fact that it is a performance, an intentional presentation.

I think that the intention to do something for performance reasons validates some activities that would otherwise be frivolous or disconcertingly offensive. Ballet, I feel, is an entire art form about generating power via movement, but the power is not just the physical power the dancers put forth, but also the emotional power evoked from the audience, and I feel that without this focus on eliciting emotion Ballet would be a much less effective and honest art.

If that's true, than Ballet's intent must be evaluated alongside its content, or else its content is being blatantly misunderstood.

I think that photography is a medium where the contrast is far less obvious (yeah yeah, pun intented).

However, I think that any photographer who knows about the work involved and doesn't put that knowledge to work during the evaluation of his fellow artists is like a ballet or figure skating critic who refuses to consider the technical difficulty of the movements performed when evaluating the performance. Or like a Martial Arts judge who refuses to consider the real tactical signifigance of the kata he is judging and use it as one of his criteria, instead focusing on the audience appeal, despite the fact that the intent of a Kata is not to appeal to an audience but to train a mindset.

For the person who hopes to critique any art in any medium with any reasonable level of professionalism, intent must be brought into consideration to bring about a full understanding of the art being presented. Otherwise the artist and the critic are both sold short.

Art's presentation speaks volumes about it. It's the presentation that surrounds the image in question that keeps me from being offended by it, because it's obviously succeeding at intentionally capturing for display a concept rarely captured in such a fashion. I personally wouldn't take such a picture, but the fact that others do doesn't offend me, and I can admire it for its intent and it's effect, both, without feeling that it's somehow infringing on the sanctity of the moment.

I say that Arts' presentation and intention is a great part of what makes it art, and what seperates it from craft.

Oh, and by the way: I crashed my JEEP on a dirt road today. Laid it over on its side just as pretty as you please. Just thought that might be a point of interest to some of you.