Photographer unknown - does it matter?

[Arthurwg]

Most people don't care unless you're an art historian, student, etc. I don't. If a picture, painting, sculpture, or song for that matter is nice and I enjoy it, I really don't pay attention to who created it. Names and facts have to do with the intellect. Art with the spirit.

Can you really separate the two?

 

[Don_ih]

You're complicating this too much. Whatever the reason, you look at a piece of art, either it does something for you or it doesn't. Basing your satisfaction on what others say seems rather limiting.

I wasn't complicating anything but addressing topic of this thread. I didn't imply anyone bases their satisfaction on what others say. I said, for the most part, you don't encounter anything in a vacuum. Unless you make the art, you get to see what someone else has chosen you should see.

 

[Milpool]

But what is the reason? Either by education or osmosis you have developed ideas about what makes a good painting or a good photograph. Whether or not the art "does something for you" is influenced by a number of things, including what you learned in art class, by books you have read, by the opinions of artists who you respect, by critical reviews of art shows in museums and galleries. In other words, isn't your satisfaction is unavoidably influenced by what others have said?

I’m not so sure. I would say when it comes to artforms all of those things are more about “appreciation” (plus of course putting things in front of you to see, hear etc. in the first place), but that ultimately at least in my case whether or not it does something for me was innate from the beginning.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I look at each photograph separately. While a name such as a name such as Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Henri Cartier-Bresson will have me automatically comparing to each's other work, that lack of a name will not cause me to look with less diligence or interest.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But what is the reason? Either by education or osmosis you have developed ideas about what makes a good painting or a good photograph. Whether or not the art "does something for you" is influenced by a number of things, including what you learned in art class, by books you have read, by the opinions of artists who you respect, by critical reviews of art shows in museums and galleries. In other words, isn't your satisfaction is unavoidably influenced by what others have said?

Inspiration is on a different plane than intellect. You don't need schooling to love.

 

[pentaxuser]

Some people hate Newton, for instance, so won't consider anything he did worthwhile.

To be fair he wasn't bad on gravity

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Can you really separate the two?

So you check to see who the artist is, before you allow yourself to enjoy it? I don't believe you.

 

[Don_ih]

So you check to see who the artist is, before you allow yourself to enjoy it? I don't believe you.

It's more a matter of who decides what are you see. You can't just pick up "random art piece" that no one else has decided is worth seeing. You will only ever see what someone else has decided is worthwhile. Unless, of course, you make it yourself. Even then, you are probably following some kind of established practice to produce the work.

 

[Don_ih]

To be fair he wasn't bad on gravity

Good one - I was wondering what you were talking about for a second.

I meant Wayne Newton, of course.