| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2003 04:58:09 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by calaille:
Haha!
This entire thread describes exactly to me what I've always thought of arts in general (being a science-oriented person myself) - It all comes down to a matter of personal taste.
And like my momma always said, "Taste is something you can never discuss".
In fact, its because of this eternal controversy in the perception of arts that I've decided to pursue a career in science...because in my world, two plus two will always equal 4, and not 5 because Picasso said so.
It's a little off topic, but I just had to say it.
I just think this discussion should not be taken so seriously.
Calaille. |
I understand what you are saying but I disagree about the seriousness of this topic. I completely agree that we all have different tastes and that is a good thing but I think that the underlying theme in this topic is about learning to consider a photograph from different points of view, something I consider to be very important and worthy of a discussion like this.
T
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 05:07:16 PM · #52 |
An analogy about an allegory occurred to me thinking about this.
If you've read the book 'Animal Farm' by Orwell, and didn't have any of the context, you might superficially look at it and say:
well, that was a short book about animals, but I didn't like it much and it wasn't very believable because the animals were supposed to talk and what was that nonsense towards the end about the pigs living in the farm house ?
In this case - the context and historical background to the story is everything - superficially it isn't very interesting.
It seems similar to how a lot of photographs get viewed - as literal representations of the subject matter - not communicating any more or any less than is immediately obvious from a 5 or 10 second glance at the picture. Often people don't get beyond that to think about the context or emotional content of the images - what is being shown, why is it being shown, what's been left out, what does the photographer want me to think about this ? How have the techniques of photography been used to enhance this message ?
Quite often there isn't anything more to see or be felt, but the better photographs communicate something, using subject, visual symbolic language and technical artistry to communicte with the viewer. I've noticed in the last year, by spending quite a lot of time trying to become visually literate and even be able to understand what's being said that I get a whole lot more out of visits to art galleries or photographic shows.
It doesn't always mean every picture has something to say, or because it is bad it is automatically interesting, but something I'm increasingly searching for in my pictures is to understand what I'm trying to say when I take a picture - to stop and think about what I'm taking a picture of and to understand why I want to take a picture then try to enhance that with the picture I take. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 05:41:34 PM · #53 |
I was at a birthday party this evening and suddenly the deaper meaning of the picture came clear to me. I think it represents the loneliness and sadness to both the child and parents of the Chinese policy to allow only one child per family.
The doll could represent either the lonely child (I for example love my bros and can't think of live without them) or a surrogate brother/sister.
What isn't yet clear to me is the opinion of the photographer about this. Does she find it sad, does se oppose to the one-child law, does she agree? I can understand why they have that law (and to a large extent agree), but cannot think off how it is to live whit that law.
I think that that is what the photo should tell us.
What do you think of it in that light?
Message edited by author 2003-02-13 17:42:13.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 06:53:09 PM · #54 |
| That discussion it's very interesting to me, and very constructive. As life itself, art can be anything. We assume it's only the-unique-well-done-technically-things or something like that. To me, art is something that tells you storys,things,sensations. Only the things that narrates something can be understand. The photograph we're talking about is part of a work. When we talk about art,we cannot judge one single photograph out of a all work, or only by looking at it in a computer screen, out of its context. Anyway, it's very healthy to discuss about art and I celebrate this is happening in DPC. By the way, what do you thing about Nan Goldin work? |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 07:35:29 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I was at a birthday party this evening and suddenly the deaper meaning of the picture came clear to me. I think it represents the loneliness and sadness to both the child and parents of the Chinese policy to allow only one child per family.
The doll could represent either the lonely child (I for example love my bros and can't think of live without them) or a surrogate brother/sister.
What isn't yet clear to me is the opinion of the photographer about this. Does she find it sad, does se oppose to the one-child law, does she agree? I can understand why they have that law (and to a large extent agree), but cannot think off how it is to live whit that law.
I think that that is what the photo should tell us.
What do you think of it in that light? |
It does make the photo look better, but I still think she went to the bedroom stood at the left end of the bed and pointed the camera and clicked. I think she could have done better. Like the photo on the wall. She could have got his head in the photo. Its like she didn't even try. T
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 08:34:20 PM · #56 |
| If it was taken with a digital camera, the delete button should have been used! |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 08:42:11 PM · #57 |
Snip>> Sonoifo:It does make the photo look better, but I still think she went to the bedroom stood at the left end of the bed and pointed the camera and clicked. I think she could have done better. Like the photo on the wall. She could have got his head in the photo. Its like she didn't even try. T
Snip>> timj351:I understand what you are saying but I disagree about the seriousness of this topic. I completely agree that we all have different tastes and that is a good thing but I think that the underlying theme in this topic is about learning to consider a photograph from different points of view, something I consider to be very important and worthy of a discussion like this.
I agree 100%
and I'm happy I didn't have to re-type all the above. :)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 10:43:12 PM · #58 |
I enjoy art due to its appeal. I don't look at unappealing art and enjoy it because I'm trying to figure out what kind of a traumatic childhood the artist had.
Then how is anyone ever supposed to express unappealing thoughts or ideas, or even EVERYDAY life like this photo? Do you think mundane or negative emotions should never go into art?
I think artists should express their mundane or negative emotions. There are great works of art that I have a great deal of appreciation for which depict negativity or everyday, mundane life. The "A Day in the Life of..." series are collections of great photographs taken in one 24 hour period. Many are of regular people doing regular things, but they are great photographs!!
I'm all for artists expressing all of their feelings and thoughts through art, but that doesn't mean a plain, not very good photo is a winner because of the philosophy behind it. A bad photo is a bad photo, regardless of who took it or what inspired it. I'm not saying this photographer is not a good artist, or that this particular image is not part of a bigger story, I'm just saying that I don't feel this photo is worthy of a contest win.
With that said, I also respect the fact that other people may feel a bigger connection to this image because of their understanding of the artist and the story behind a series of photos that this image belongs to...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 10:50:20 PM · #59 |
Maybe she cut off the heads to de-personalize the scene, devoid of emotions, hope and human contact, just like the doll represents, no life, lost dreams.....kind of like someone loosing a child, but maybe in this case, they lost their way of life. Or is that reading too much into it? Maybe "art" is only a platform for each individual to find their own meanings, there is no right or wrong answer....
|
|
|
|
02/13/2003 10:59:06 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
I was at a birthday party this evening and suddenly the deaper meaning of the picture came clear to me. I think it represents the loneliness and sadness to both the child and parents of the Chinese policy to allow only one child per family.
The doll could represent either the lonely child (I for example love my bros and can't think of live without them) or a surrogate brother/sister. |
I think this does resonate in the image. The wedding photo at the top and the doll on an intersection of thirds show a kind of indirect connection between the parents and the child, and all the promise and hope they end up investing in that one child they're allowed to have, yet the barrenness and emptiness of the photo show how solitary the child will always be. There is a member of DPC who was personally affected by the one child policy, and I can't help feeling very sad now that I look at the photo with that in mind. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 11:14:52 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by PHOTOCHlX:
FYI those are all photos done by the high end of the field, you know the ones who can take a strange photo and place it in an upperscale gallery and have it sale for a ludicrious amount. In other words it is ART! |
I don't care that art sucks. |
|
|
|
02/13/2003 11:38:06 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by cykhansen:
I think it is completely fair and reasonable to comment on 'art' using the DPC terms such as "I'd give it a 4".
This thread reminds me of the controversy over the idiotic Canadian government paying over $1 million for the painting (found in a warehouse) "Voice of Fire". I'd give it a 1. |
There was a controversy 30 years ago in Australia about our government paying what was then the most money ever for a 20th century painting, $1.3 million AU (at that time $2 million US). The top price for a Picasso then was $500,000 US. You know what? Estimates on its value now range from $70 million to $130 million. Not many people mind having an asset like that in Australian government hands anymore.
100 years ago Whistler took an art critic to court because he panned an exhibition of his very avant garde paintings. He won damages, but the court awarded a pittance and the costs of the libel case ruined him. But nowadways, Whistler is a household name, his painting of his mother is one of the most recognisable works of art in the world, and the people who at that time thought they were the little boy crying that the emperor had no clothes are seen as closed minded. It's an age old story. People today still may not personally like Whistler or Pollock, but you can't deny them their places in art history. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 12:03:00 AM · #63 |
Also, "Something More", from a series of photos by Tracey Moffat in 1989, was recently bought at auction for the highest price ever paid in Australia for a photograph. I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think of it.
Tracey Moffat is a mixed race (half indigenous) Australian woman who has worked in the film industry and advertising for many years. Her photos have a strong dramatic quality and usually have narrative elements. For the series this photo was part of, she created a stage set and costumes, and hired actors to tell a kind of sylised narrative of a mixed race woman's experience in a dead end country town. Many of the images have violent, racist and misogynistic overtones. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 12:05:03 AM · #64 |
[quote] and the people who at that time thought they were the little boy crying that the emperor had no clothes are seen as closed minded. [/quote]
But it doesn't change the fact that the emporer still had no clothes, and he did it because he didn't want to appear to be less than intelligent. There will always be artists ahead of their times, avant guard, I think is a relatively good term.
Quite frankly, the picture, technically speaking, did nothing for me. Yes, it told a story to me, based on my personal thoughts and experiences. It is the kind of shot i would like to take in such a manner described above (I think it was Sonifo), then stand back and simply say, "There is meaning, find it." Maybe I am just too skeptical, but it is like finding rich symbolism in every line of a Shakespearen play. Did he put it there, or are we finding it because we are trying to find it?? Is there meaning to this picture (as it stands alone, I understand that as part of a collection, it would be a different situation), or are we finding meaning because we are trying to find meaning? And if we are assuming meaning MUST be there because this is an incredible photographer, why can we not assume that for every photographer and every photograph? Might change how we look at things, sometimes.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2003 12:11:44 AM · #65 |
Getting back to the original photos considered "bad". I think the point is that photojournalism is about creating/telling a story using images.
1 photo, taken out of context, may not be great, however, as part of a story, it may be perfect, or at least fit into what the photographer is trying to accomplish.
A great deal of photography is not about "single shots" as we live it here, but 3, 5 or 20 that give a more in depth perspective of a place, people, etc....
For more on the portfolio's of these photographers:
//www.guardian.co.uk/arts/gallery/0,8542,841005,00.html |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 12:17:01 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And if we are assuming meaning MUST be there because this is an incredible photographer, why can we not assume that for every photographer and every photograph? Might change how we look at things, sometimes. |
That's a good point. I would suggest that I, personally, take the approach of looking for meaning most of the time when I'm voting on DPC. The fact that a photo I rated 9 came 2nd last in the "Before and After" challenge, and one I rated 10 came 60th, is some evidence of this. I also rated the one that came first a 10. I do this without having much idea at all that one photo I give a 10 is liked by other people, and another one is generally disliked, which doesn't say much for my ability to decide how well my own photos will rate :P.
I am a very soft scorer, but I think that's because I find something interesting or unique in most of the images I see, not because I want to spare someone's feelings. If everyone here was like me, there wouldn't be much variation in the scoring, and the site would be a crazy, chaotic place. I wouldn't want that. But I'd like to stick up for myself by saying yes, I do look at DPC photos the same way I look at any other images, regardless of who took the photo, regardless of whether or not the photographer intended for me to see deep meaning in the image. If it means something to me, I comment and vote accordingly. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 12:57:27 AM · #67 |
This reminds me of.... wait. no it doesn't.
Wanna discuss some creepy, controversial photography then how about Witkin? I can really appreciate the photography, but I'd never want to hang any of his work on my walls. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 02:31:12 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by indigo997:
This reminds me of.... wait. no it doesn't.
Wanna discuss some creepy, controversial photography then how about Witkin? I can really appreciate the photography, but I'd never want to hang any of his work on my walls. |
I looked him up, and I totally agree with you! Disturbingly beautiful. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 02:53:23 AM · #69 |
Wow, thats some really weird stuff!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2003 05:20:47 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
An analogy about an allegory occurred to me thinking about this. |
Wow, that is really deep.
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you've read the book 'Animal Farm' by Orwell, and didn't have any of the context, you might superficially look at it and say:
well, that was a short book about animals, but I didn't like it much and it wasn't very believable because the animals were supposed to talk and what was that nonsense towards the end about the pigs living in the farm house ?
In this case - the context and historical background to the story is everything - superficially it isn't very interesting. |
If you have just a bit of common sense you can understand what is really going on here... a story of human nature.
Originally posted by Gordon:
It seems similar to how a lot of photographs get viewed - as literal representations of the subject matter - not communicating any more or any less than is immediately obvious from a 5 or 10 second glance at the picture. Often people don't get beyond that to think about the context or emotional content of the images - what is being shown, why is it being shown, what's been left out, what does the photographer want me to think about this ? How have the techniques of photography been used to enhance this message ?
Quite often there isn't anything more to see or be felt, but the better photographs communicate something, using subject, visual symbolic language and technical artistry to communicte with the viewer. I've noticed in the last year, by spending quite a lot of time trying to become visually literate and even be able to understand what's being said that I get a whole lot more out of visits to art galleries or photographic shows.
It doesn't always mean every picture has something to say, or because it is bad it is automatically interesting, but something I'm increasingly searching for in my pictures is to understand what I'm trying to say when I take a picture - to stop and think about what I'm taking a picture of and to understand why I want to take a picture then try to enhance that with the picture I take. |
Wo, you must really have some good drugs in Austin. Keep contemplexorating. But maybe in the future, you can hold it down to a reasonable length. Art is simply subjective...period.
ART IS SUBJECTIVE
|
|
|
|
02/14/2003 07:40:38 AM · #71 |
My approach to art is something along the lines of:
"It's not nothing if it isn't only one thing"
Basically, when I view art, I'm looking for layers of things, I'm looking for emotion, drama, information, a new view of the world, etc.
As for the original picture, on its own it is rather artless. As part of the whole work it takes on a bigger role depicting life in China. Its roughly equivalent to a detail in a painting, with its artistic value coming from its position in the larger image.
This flamewar was brought to you by the number 4. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 09:35:04 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Antithesis:
Originally posted by Gordon:
If you've read the book 'Animal Farm' by Orwell, and didn't have any of the context, you might superficially look at it and say:
well, that was a short book about animals, but I didn't like it much and it wasn't very believable because the animals were supposed to talk and what was that nonsense towards the end about the pigs living in the farm house ?
In this case - the context and historical background to the story is everything - superficially it isn't very interesting. |
If you have just a bit of common sense you can understand what is really going on here... a story of human nature.
|
and that little bit of common sense gives you really one small part of what that story is about. So even with a bit of thought, you might get the superficial lines drawn in the story, even though you still would be missing the point. However, I think all the - this is crap (4) comments are about the same as thinking Animal Farm is a kids story about talking cows and pigs.
Message edited by author 2003-02-14 10:35:58. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 10:33:20 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by indigo997:
This reminds me of.... wait. no it doesn't.
Wanna discuss some creepy, controversial photography then how about Witkin? I can really appreciate the photography, but I'd never want to hang any of his work on my walls. |
I looked him up, and I totally agree with you! Disturbingly beautiful. |
Can you post a link? My friend Lonny Shavelson has some interesting but possibly disturbing photos, including from his book A Chosen Death (about assisted suicide) and from an article on Zurich's Needle Park. |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 11:01:45 AM · #74 |
|
|
|
02/14/2003 03:00:47 PM · #75 |
Thanks. My lame browser is displaying the pages but not the photos. I'll try later with a different browser. |
|
