| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2008 01:32:29 PM · #26 |
regreted
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 14:14:59. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 01:35:43 PM · #27 |
| i strongly suggest if you don't like it - stop looking - |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 01:40:27 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by ralph:
i strongly suggest if you don't like it - stop looking - |
But if I don't like it then no one should![sarcasm/] |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 01:42:05 PM · #29 |
:)
True, I gave an opinion regarding the topic ... this reads more like a dissertation on the meaning of life ... and it's worded as being factual.
no harm done, just stating my dissension
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by hopper:
oozing with personal opinion
Originally posted by togtog:
Would you wish to know a person if knowing that person meant knowing things you would rather not? If you do not wish to know such things then you do not wish to know the person at all. And if you do not wish to know that person at all then you do not wish to know people at all. And if you do not wish to know people at all then you do not wish to know what life is. |
|
Pot meet kettle! lol |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 01:54:15 PM · #30 |
Indeed no harm and looking back at what I wrote I can see at least the ending looking like opinion. :)
It wasn't meant to be meaning of life though, rather that as a person, to truly know oneself I believe you need to know others, and to understand where you are you need to understand where others are. Still might be opinion but I wanted to clarify it a bit. :)
Originally posted by hopper:
:)
True, I gave an opinion regarding the topic ... this reads more like a dissertation on the meaning of life ... and it's worded as being factual.
no harm done, just stating my dissension
|
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 01:57:05 PM · #31 |
by the way ... i dig your screen name ... it's catchy
:)
Originally posted by togtog:
Indeed no harm |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:05:13 PM · #32 |
ps - the manet dejeuner sur l'herbe pissed a lot of people off when it was first displayed, just to be pedantic. and the david is in perfect proportion if viewed from the ground (except for that huge hand...)
that's all - i really like the mandan ceremony-esque image (that's hooks through the skin). i couldn't do it myself (ooooo, oooo, shivers and wiggly hands just thinking about it) but it's fascinating and disturbing, beautiful in a horrible sort of way. the photograph that started this thread is very well done, simple and beautiful, contrasting the young, cheerful face of the performance artist with the subtly bloodied hooks and chest skin. the tension (visual, physical, intellectual) created is palpable and very effective.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:09:29 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
okay, here is another question. For a shot like this, should it be in teh nude gallery where it is right now, or in the horrow gallery.
I think that question is a tough one, I personally would want it in the horror gallery as it has no real nude bits at all and I consider it to be horrific.
I feel that littlegett's shots are tame in comparison, and I think i feel that way, becuase I know that they are not real, where as this is. Does that make sense? |
There is nothing in the shot to make it 'horrific' except your own personal bias. If you do not care for the 'nude' gallery it is in, I suggest the emotive or performance gallery's.
As for the shot it self, I personally feel offended that you called it out because you do not care for 'subject matter' It is an extremely tame image of pierced suspension work. I have seen many others that would most likely stop your heart.
Interesting thing about art.... one thing I learned about art a long time ago from someone very wise is that... 'Art, art is created to inspire an emotional response. Regardless of a positive or negative emotion, if a person responds strongly than you did your job.' Considering your response the Artist did a fantastic job.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
What would be even scarier is the kind of person that would buy such a print -- and that DPC Prints approved it for sale... EEP!
Looks like the kind of thing a serial killer would have on his shrine-wall. |
What scares me is the fact that people have these kinds of bigoted thoughts. In my opinion, there are just too many people with narrow views of their candy painted world and have no idea what goes on, on the other side of the paper partition.
--------------------------------------------
DO you think it has gone too far? No, maybe not even far enough. It is incredibly tame for this type of imagery.
Do you think it is a good thing to feel that way artistically? I think it is a beautiful thing when a person can view a subject artistically than with bile in their mouth.
Do you think it is art? It is a form of art yes, on a few different layers or categories.
Is it an amazing thing to have captured? Not amazing, but it was very well created. The lighting is good, you can see the hooks pulling the skin well. It is nice for what it is, very 'magazine' like.
If done technically right does it make it any better? Technical skills make a world of difference. No matter what image you look at the technical skills of it will always make it better.
Do you think the photographer would be pleased with the result it has on people?I can not answer for the photographer, I have no idea what their motivation or inspiration is. However, based on personal experience of people whom travel in these circles is that most would have a huge'ol'Cheeser if they read this thread.
I have an example in mind (can not get it out of my mind), it is a very well shot shot. Techincally it is great, But do you think the artist is going for a viceral thing? I tried looking up 'viceral' just so I can fully understand what the question is asking and have no such luck. So I can not answer this. Please repeat in another way. Thanks.
---------
Edit to Add
Originally posted by xianart:
visceral (of the guts): 1 : felt in or as if in the viscera : deep 2 : not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning 3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions : earthy 4 : of, relating to, or located on or among the viscera : splanchnic |
Thanks, I found this meaning, though spelling was different and to me, just seems so far off base... but If this is the intended meaning for the question I would have to say 100% NO! not in the least. But, whom am I to speak for the photographer. Best just to ask him/her to find your answer.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 14:36:18.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:10:48 PM · #34 |
The purpose of art (Pictures, Paintings, Sculptures, etc.) is to stimulate thought. If you are thinking about it, and now propogating further discussion then I think it is spot on.
Well done to the photographer. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:19:37 PM · #35 |
[quote]ps - the manet dejeuner sur l'herbe pissed a lot of people off when it was first displayed, just to be pedantic. and the david is in perfect proportion if viewed from the ground (except for that huge hand...) [/quote]
I knew about david, I was being sarcastic about a perfect piece of art, and technically all of these works created a stir (I don't know about rape of sabine) but they didn't last very long or didn't gain momentum, and the resistance became acceptance.
I removed my previous post bc It was a weak argument anyways.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 14:21:03. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:26:22 PM · #36 |
visceral (of the guts): 1 : felt in or as if in the viscera : deep 2 : not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning 3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions : earthy 4 : of, relating to, or located on or among the viscera : splanchnic
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:41:29 PM · #37 |
read the photo's description:
"My friend Erik Dakota is a very experience artist and we had the pleasure to work with Samar a well known piercing performer. This performance was especially done for me in a studio and I had the privilege of capturing it on camera."
the "model" is actually a well known piercing performer, which means people watch her do this on a regular basis. what the photographer has done is document something in a technically superb way that is of interest to probably thousands of people.
just because you don't enjoy it, does it make it any less "correct"?
what if i was cripplingly arachnophobic? would shots of spiders then be controversial? |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 02:49:48 PM · #38 |
my stand point is this.
technically it is a great shot and for that it is a good shot
is it thought provoking, hell yes, otherwise this thread wouldnt have appeared
doesnt mean I have to look at it
doesnt mean I have to like it
doesnt mean I can not have an opinion on it
do I think it is horrific, yes, and yes that is my own preferance, am I telling you not to like it, no
doesnt mean i have to get slammed for having an opinion, just like the rest of you shoudnt be slammed for having an opinion
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:04:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
my stand point is this.
technically it is a great shot and for that it is a good shot
is it thought provoking, hell yes, otherwise this thread wouldnt have appeared
doesnt mean I have to look at it
doesnt mean I have to like it
doesnt mean I can not have an opinion on it
do I think it is horrific, yes, and yes that is my own preferance, am I telling you not to like it, no
doesnt mean i have to get slammed for having an opinion, just like the rest of you shoudnt be slammed for having an opinion |
If you felt like I slammed you for your opinion, I apologize. It was not my intention to 'slam' anyone, I write mostly in my own bias opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:17:53 PM · #40 |
Let me speak some heresy and say that I think people get way too wound up about so-called "art." As far as I'm concerned, unless it's something done by a great master, so-called "art" is just something pretty to hang on your wall. To be art, it should entail great craftsmanship (like the ability to paint or draw or sculpt something that looks lifelike). If the craftsman can even capture more complicated things like mood and lighting, so much the better. If he can also be symbolic, great. I roll my eyes at people who call themselves artists. Leonardo DaVinci was an artist, Michelangelo was an artist, Monet, Renoir, Vincent VanGogh - these people were artists. It seems to me, you don't get to call yourself an artist until a large portion of the world agrees to bestow that title upon you. Everyone else are just kids playing with crayons... And unless the so-called art is on the level of the great masters, it deserves no exalted place in society that frees it from criticism.
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 15:22:10. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:23:38 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Let me speak some heresy and say that I think people get way too wound up about so-called "art." As far as I'm concerned, unless it's something done by a great master, so-called "art" is just something pretty to hang on your wall. To be art, it should entail great craftsmanship (like the ability to paint or draw or sculpt something that looks lifelike). If the craftsman can even capture more complicated things like mood and lighting, so much the better. If he can also be symbolic, great. I roll my eyes at people who call themselves artists. Leonardo DaVinci was an artist, Michelangelo was an artist, Monet, Renoir, Vincent VanGogh - these people were artists. It seems to me, you don't get to call yourself an artist until a large portion of the world agrees to bestow that title upon you. Everyone else are just kids playing with crayons... And unless the so-called art is on the level of the great masters, it deserves no exalted place in society that frees it from criticism. |
haha and who are you to say what is and isn't art? i personally don't enjoy VanGogh's work. i'd much rather peruse DPC for a day than look at VanGoghs all day. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:25:03 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
DO you think it has gone too far?
Do you think it is a good thing to feel that way artistically?
Do you think it is art?
Is it an amazing thing to have captured?
If done technically right does it make it any better?
Do you think the photographer would be pleased with the result it has on people?
I have an example in mind (can not get it out of my mind), it is a very well shot shot. Techincally it is great, But do you think the artist is going for a viceral thing?
 |
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Yes. It probably has gone too far, but
much in this world has gone to far, and if
we wouldn't photograph it, we wouldn't know.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ I think it is good to consider -and feel- everything.
To feel artistically , hell, what does that mean?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Yes, it's art.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Yes, it's horrific, amazing, sad and strange.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ If I was the photographer, pleased would not be the ideal word.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ To me each individual image dictates what's technically right for it. If it was right
by standards derived from outside of that image, it would probably make it worse.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ I think of an artist as someone who discovers something viscerally and then allows it to integrate a larger experience.
I don't think of him/her as someone who goes for anything. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:28:53 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Let me speak some heresy and say that I think people get way too wound up about so-called "art." As far as I'm concerned, unless it's something done by a great master, so-called "art" is just something pretty to hang on your wall. To be art, it should entail great craftsmanship (like the ability to paint or draw or sculpt something that looks lifelike). If the craftsman can even capture more complicated things like mood and lighting, so much the better. If he can also be symbolic, great. I roll my eyes at people who call themselves artists. Leonardo DaVinci was an artist, Michelangelo was an artist, Monet, Renoir, Vincent VanGogh - these people were artists. It seems to me, you don't get to call yourself an artist until a large portion of the world agrees to bestow that title upon you. Everyone else are just kids playing with crayons... And unless the so-called art is on the level of the great masters, it deserves no exalted place in society that frees it from criticism. |
If that works for you, great.
Obviously, other people feel differently.
FWIW, at least two of those "artists" you mention,( Monet and VanGogh) were, for much, if not all of their lives, ridiculed in much the same way and with the same kind of contempt you've shown towards those "kids playing with crayons".
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 15:29:37. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:28:57 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Interesting thing about art.... one thing I learned about art a long time ago from someone very wise is that... 'Art, art is created to inspire an emotional response. Regardless of a positive or negative emotion, if a person responds strongly than you did your job.' Considering your response the Artist did a fantastic job. |
I think this is a bunch of hooey designed to let so called arteeests be anti-social without being criticized. Why should a so-called artist be privileged to be allowed to go around provoking emotional responses in people with no regard for what those responses are. My emotions are my own. Stay the heck away from them. You can't just go around and do something f'd up to provoke people and then stand back and say "Hey, who the hell do you think you are to criticize me when I'm an arteest!" B.S.! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:34:58 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Interesting thing about art.... one thing I learned about art a long time ago from someone very wise is that... 'Art, art is created to inspire an emotional response. Regardless of a positive or negative emotion, if a person responds strongly than you did your job.' Considering your response the Artist did a fantastic job. |
I think this is a bunch of hooey designed to let so called arteeests be anti-social without being criticized. Why should a so-called artist be privileged to be allowed to go around provoking emotional responses in people with no regard for what those responses are. My emotions are my own. Stay the heck away from them. You can't just go around and do something f'd up to provoke people and then stand back and say "Hey, who the hell do you think you are to criticize me when I'm an arteest!" B.S.! |
Why is provoking a response anti-social?
I'd suggest that if your emotions are so tender, you should consider avoiding controversial, provocative artwork.
I don't see the artist crying about criticism, where did that come from? |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:36:21 PM · #46 |
I should add that my responses thus far in this thread have to do only with the subject of "art" in general, and are unrelated to the pictures that began this subject of discussion.
As far as those pictures go, though, have any of the "art is sacrosanct" crowd considered the possibility that those pictures constitute and promote violence against women? Sexist, violent, pornographic tools of misogynistics bent on subjugating women?
It's possible! |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:37:04 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
...I think this is a bunch of hooey designed to let so called arteeests be anti-social without being criticized. Why should a so-called artist be privileged to be allowed to go around provoking emotional responses in people with no regard for what those responses are. My emotions are my own. Stay the heck away from them. You can't just go around and do something f'd up to provoke people and then stand back and say "Hey, who the hell do you think you are to criticize me when I'm an arteest!" B.S.! |
Here's something akin to a sketch on the subject:
"Art is what results when things come together in the creative process in such a way as to inspire a sense of magic and sacrament. Artists are sovereign individuals attuned to special arrays of the spectrum. They are specialists who cannot profitably be used as employers or employees.
Apart from their special focus and calling, artists are much like anyone else. They need to eat, sleep and live under roves. Despite an odd need to dissociate to fine-tune their feelers and to commune with forces yet unrealized, they cannot live entirely in a vacuum. This and the subsequent inability to conform is viewed with suspicion and frequently misunderstood as a privilege by those who lack this capacity and have not shared in the innate experience associated with it. It should come as no surprise that artists are sometimes unhappily mated and not likely to be recognized for their use until well after they have died and no longer present a perceived threat to a society who, by and large, opposed them while they were still living.
A society without art is a society in decline. When any village continues to exists for a spell without acts that dignify its existence, it's survival can only be measured by counting."
|
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:39:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why is provoking a response anti-social?
I'd suggest that if your emotions are so tender, you should consider avoiding controversial, provocative artwork.
I don't see the artist crying about criticism, where did that come from? |
I wasn't talking about the photographer or the model. I was talking about people who defend things just because they are so-called art.
My emotions aren't tender. I just get fed up with people doing whatever the hell they please with no regard for other people. Case in point - painting a crucifix dipped in urine and displaying it in public. Calling it art is not a defense. The person who does that sort of thing has earned a negative response from the people he intentionally "provoked." |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:41:20 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
As far as those pictures go, though, have any of the "art is sacrosanct" crowd considered the possibility that those pictures constitute and promote violence against women? Sexist, violent, pornographic tools of misogynistics bent on subjugating women?
It's possible! |
Hmmmm, since the woman depicted in those images is evidently known for such performances, I doubt it.
It's also possible that an exposed ankle could be similarly interpreted, depending on the societal context in which it's presented. |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 03:42:03 PM · #50 |
| Just because its not a cute puppy, a cute baby, a sunset or a macro of an eye doesn't mean it's not good, or its not art. I think the photos are beautiful, and if you look closely you'll see that this makes her happy. To each his own I say. |
|
