| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2005 03:18:38 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
[quote=utro]
If EVERYING is up for interpretation by the individual, then in essence, every challenge is an open challenge therefore why set up rule to begin with? Why not just say, take your best photo and submit it? |
Bravo....well said.
Surrealism is a pretty vast concept, as is and still given that broad scape there were too many entries that missed a pretty wide mark.
There's nothing wrong with labels and definitions. How else can we communicate?
Can Fauvism be called Pointilism? By the same token, I'm sure people would start to twitch if an art historian kept refering to Dali as a Cubist. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 06:02:09 PM · #52 |
dali is not a cubist, a cubist is a surrealist, but i know of no works in where dali has anything that remotely resembles cubism.
Alot of you bring up good points about arists before the surrealist movement having surreal works, It just helps to prove my point that titles are useless, each artists has his/her own style but everyone copies each other. Dali put it best when he said "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." Maybe that is the Post-Modernist in me talking... There I go again using titles., damn art school |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 07:37:43 PM · #53 |
"It just helps to prove my point that titles are useless, each artists has his/her own style but everyone copies each other"
Regardless of style with these challenges, we ARE dealing with subjective matter. We can objectify things as much as we like but within limits or else we have a free for all. What's the point of writing rules if noone has to follow them.
Mind you, I'm not trying to limit how far things may or may not be stretched but genres, labels, definitions and titles exist for good reason.
We all know that Picasso was probably the greatest Photo-realist painter that ever existed and the many Cubist works by VanGough speak for themselves but that's no reason to put them in a box, is it? |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 08:00:45 PM · #54 |
| My thought on what i am looking for, I am thinking the picture has to have a feel to it a mood a certain mystery. Painters relied on creating the difference by making it different. To copy one of these painting in a way that there is no doubt what it is, and so clear and perfect, is a good picture far from surreal. I am thinking the picture has to make me wonder a little at what I am seeing or create a feeling that something is not right but what. Another thing would be a picture of something or somewhere caught in a way that that I would feel something whether it be awe, fright, bewilderment, compassion something anything but trying to figure out why it is here or if it should be....maybe if I am thinking that I am not surrealed :} |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 01:12:59 AM · #55 |
Dali was first a futurist. Then a cubist at the age of 21 and made a number of cubist paintings until turning to surrealism. You will have to click on very small thumbnail.
Dali cubist self portrait
Message edited by author 2005-03-13 01:52:42. |
|
|
|
03/13/2005 01:56:55 AM · #56 |
It is admitted by many who have voted that many members missed the point with their entries. Many of the images are not surreal. This is not at all the argument.
My contention is that this challenge called for the surreal and suddenly this thread began a dissertation on Surrealism versus Neorealism. The main label is SURREAL which emcompasses the Surrealist movement as well as the surreal. Again, go back to the 15th century and as per my earlier entry in this thread check out the works of Bosch. The sureal does not have to employ any specific type symbols. All artist from all periods new how to reach out subconscious. That is what art does. And then the Surreal has a broader definition and it is not at all tied to the movement of Surrealism.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2005 08:48:37 AM · #57 |
Funk,
I think the real issue being disputed here, and one that's unresolveable, is whether abstract and "strangely realistic" images can be properly called "surrealism", not whether anything pre-1918 can be called surreal. I doubt that anyone would seriously dispute that Hieronymous Bosch's wotk was "surreal", you're quite correct in that. A more useful question, drawing from art history and taking into account some of the images entered in this challenge, would be: "Is Van Gogh's 'Starry Starry Night' surreal? Are Matisse's water lilies surreal?'"
Robt.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 05:32:00 PM EDT.
