| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2009 10:23:38 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if you want some more recent imagery to give the conversation context, check out David Friend's book The Meaning of Life, a collection of images from Life Magazine combined with over 300 mini-essays. |
THat's a hell of a good book. I heartily second the recommendation.
R. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 10:25:29 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if you want some more recent imagery to give the conversation context, check out David Friend's book The Meaning of Life, a collection of images from Life Magazine combined with over 300 mini-essays.
the impact of these images have nothing to do with technicals. these images succeed because they connect with the viewers.
if you look at photos just to find eye-candy or technically sound imagery, you are going to miss the world you live in. |
Very well said! |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 10:47:17 AM · #53 |
| Henri Cartier-Bresson is one of my inspirations... I love his work and each new photo I see of his reaffirms this. Sorry... I can't be objective. His work IMO is pure art.... |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 10:48:44 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Skip:
if you want some more recent imagery to give the conversation context, check out David Friend's book The Meaning of Life, a collection of images from Life Magazine combined with over 300 mini-essays.
the impact of these images have nothing to do with technicals. these images succeed because they connect with the viewers.
if you look at photos just to find eye-candy or technically sound imagery, you are going to miss the world you live in. |
My philosophy of photography (should I ever reach that level)....well said
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 10:48:54. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:16:53 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ I know a few beholders with dim eyes. |
And that would be as subjective as the interpretation of the art itself.
And certainly not particularly respectful of the viewer.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ We may know what we like, but what would that have to do with art...? |
Everything.
If you genuinely do not get the inspiration, message; the piece does not speak to you, that doesn't mean that it's not art, but it does mean that it's not art to you.
Bresson is a perfect example, really, because he doesn't speak to everyone, yet people who do appreciate him seem Hell-bent on denigrating anyone who doesn't love his work.
Why? What earthly purpose is that kind of an attitude?
I understand that his work is greatly inspirational to many people, and that's just peachy, but he really doesn't do much for me.
I feel no need to criticize his work, but he just isn't someone who does it for me.
Is that wrong? Of course not!
Different styles entirely from Bresson's work is what inspires me.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:49:23 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
How many meaningful-but-flawed images have YOU buried in your life, out of fear they'd be rejected for technical reasons? |
I find myself burying fewer the more I learn.
Often an image rife with flaws is the most real & honest.
My Duotones image I entered because of its flaws, and I chose to run it because I like it so much more than the competent image I had originally planned on using.
Part of why I enteredit is because I like it so much.....yet I cannot explain *why* it is that I like it so much.....I just do.
I figure if I get an image that I can make myself like without explanation, I'm definitely having more vision that what I used to......8>)
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:06:08 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ If you genuinely do not get the inspiration, message; the piece does not speak to you, that doesn't mean that it's not art, but it does mean that it's not art to you...
ΓΆ€ΒΆ I understand that his work is greatly inspirational to many people, and that's just peachy, but he really doesn't do much for me... |
[Omissions and bullets mine]
I agree on both counts.
I also agree with your assessment of my lack of respect for some viewers.
As to your general stance toward fings here, our views, however, part.
Your motivation appears to be largely democratic, which I would embrace, albeit less exclusively.
My motivation is largely promotional which translates into the job of helping to make the best pictures popular.
As you can see from this statement, its author interprets beauty as aptness to purpose and art as a measure of emotional and intellectual experience.
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement.
A two-year-old is likely to prefer candy to broccoli, yet we both know which of the two holds more nutritional value.
This polarity and the ensuing debate, I believe, is good soil to cultivate.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 02:41:25 PM · #58 |
The 'art' world is full of pretentious, high and mighty dick heads, and always will be. For whatever reason, people like to use big words and ideas and pretend that they are meaningful and applicable to everything and everyone.
Of course, in reality, this falls apart pretty quickly, but it works for those people that are within it.
An artist will always be loved by a certain group of people, and despised by another.
People will always be quick to condemn something they don't understand, or praise something they do, even if that understanding is based on subjective criteria. There is nothing wrong with either stance.
Many people believe that you can be educated in subjectivity. Many others believe that such a thing is impossible? Who is right? Nobody has ever been able to prove either way, really.
So like what you like, don't like what you don't, don't be afraid to speak out about it regardless, and have fun challenging, promoting, debating, classifying, enjoying, critiquing, and dismissing everything.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 02:57:31 PM · #59 |
Perhaps it is today's lifestyle and environment that resulted in the discussion here.
Years ago I took a desktop publishing class. It was all about color, and flash...eye candy... The instructor said that you have from the time they take the flier out of the mailbox, to the time they get to the trashcan to get their attention.
Today we live a fast paced life. Our art has to grab us, and speak to us in seconds. The trashcan these days, is but a button click away.
It was mentioned here that the longer the person looked at the image, the more they saw. I believe that really good art had levels. Each level reveals more of the message. The longer you look, the more you see. However, that does not fit with today's world. Or at least here at DPC. If you spent 15 - 20 minutes with each image, think how long it would take to go through one challenge. Thus we have thumbnail voting. If you thumbnail image does not grab the voter, you may not even get a vote.
As little as a bit more than 100 years ago, many people saw only a few works of art in their life. My grandmother had a journal from her great grandmother. She lived in a rural area, and was so proud that she owned four books. Each of those books were read over, and over. It was all there was to do.
So it is with art. There was a time where access to art was limited. There was no internet, there were no glossy color books. There was what there was around you and that was it. But now there is an almost unlimited supply of art which is quickly digested; and then we move onto the next thing. If the meaning is not on the surface, then it is likely to pass by, without ever being recognized.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view. I enjoy sitting with a picture, and exploring its depths. At the same time, I enjoy the wide variety in the submissions as well. Images like those of Henri Cartier-Bresson, would suffer here at DPC. But that does not mean that the inhabitants here are people with no taste. The format and medium here, just do not support long reflective viewing.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:01:05 PM · #60 |
Art is much like music to me, as Edward says above an artist will always be "in" with certain people and others will hate his / her / their work.
Going back to the music analogy, let's take a thrash metal band and let's say you do not like that style of music, also let's assume you are not classically trained in music, does that mean you cannot voice an informed opinion on that group of musicians work? Of course not, but if you put it in the context with what you are saying about HCB then you would assume not.
But of course the thrash metal band might be just as "famous" as HCB is within their own field, but like HCB they will not be to everyones taste.
Hmm rambling a bit there but I think the analogy holds up (just). |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:02:16 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Perhaps it is today's lifestyle and environment that resulted in the discussion here.
Years ago I took a desktop publishing class. It was all about color, and flash...eye candy... The instructor said that you have from the time they take the flier out of the mailbox, to the time they get to the trashcan to get their attention.
Today we live a fast paced life. Our art has to grab us, and speak to us in seconds. The trashcan these days, is but a button click away.
It was mentioned here that the longer the person looked at the image, the more they saw. I believe that really good art had levels. Each level reveals more of the message. The longer you look, the more you see. However, that does not fit with today's world. Or at least here at DPC. If you spent 15 - 20 minutes with each image, think how long it would take to go through one challenge. Thus we have thumbnail voting. If you thumbnail image does not grab the voter, you may not even get a vote.
As little as a bit more than 100 years ago, many people saw only a few works of art in their life. My grandmother had a journal from her great grandmother. She lived in a rural area, and was so proud that she owned four books. Each of those books were read over, and over. It was all there was to do.
So it is with art. There was a time where access to art was limited. There was no internet, there were no glossy color books. There was what there was around you and that was it. But now there is an almost unlimited supply of art which is quickly digested; and then we move onto the next thing. If the meaning is not on the surface, then it is likely to pass by, without ever being recognized.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on your point of view. I enjoy sitting with a picture, and exploring its depths. At the same time, I enjoy the wide variety in the submissions as well. Images like those of Henri Cartier-Bresson, would suffer here at DPC. But that does not mean that the inhabitants here are people with no taste. The format and medium here, just do not support long reflective viewing. |
Ah, now this makes some sense :) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:33:23 PM · #62 |
I find it amusing when pretenders suggest training and literacy is required in order to be "qualified" to appreciate art.
Much of the classical art one now "needs" to be trained to appreciate was directed not at people who attempted to impress each other with how scholary they could speak or write, but, instead, its intended audience was the illiterate masses.... Paintings were used, particularly in cathedrals, but also elsewhere, to communicate to people with little or no education: to inform, to illustrate, to move them.
If an "artist" were to claim that one needs an MFA and extensive training in order to be able to understand his/her work, well, I guess I would say maybe s/he needs more training/experience in reaching and connecting with a viewer.
When some folks get all scholarly 'n stuff, proclaiming on behalf of an artist that one must acquire a sophisticated taste to appreciate the work, it says a lot more about the proclaimer than the artist.
I like to think HCB would call "bulls__t!" if he heard those people.
But subjective is as subjective does........ (somebody put that in latin, it will be so much more impressive! :-) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:36:04 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Nobody has ever been able to prove either way, really. |
Why did you have to drag  Nobody in to this? |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:38:56 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
But subjective is as subjective does........ (somebody put that in latin, it will be so much more impressive! :-) |
thema est ut thema does |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:40:10 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
But subjective is as subjective does........ (somebody put that in latin, it will be so much more impressive! :-) |
thema est ut thema does |
lol. You wound up on the same latin translator page I did I guess, but I wasn't about to post that obvious grammatical frankenstein. lol. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:47:27 PM · #66 |
So this HCB shot would get a 3 or 4 in DPC. Yay !!! My first entry got 3 and my second 4. Guess I'm doing well ;-).
Actually I was gob-smacked with the 3. Personally I thought it deserved little more than a 1 - it was truly terrible but I felt obliged to upload it 'cos it made my daughter who was in it with her cat feel great. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:54:44 PM · #67 |
I don't know how close the Romans came to a word for 'subjective'. 'Thema' is subject.
They probably had one, but it's beyond my memory. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:56:11 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I find it amusing when pretenders suggest training and literacy is required in order to be "qualified" to appreciate art.
Much of the classical art one now "needs" to be trained to appreciate was directed not at people who attempted to impress each other with how scholary they could speak or write, but, instead, its intended audience was the illiterate masses.... Paintings were used, particularly in cathedrals, but also elsewhere, to communicate to people with little or no education: to inform, to illustrate, to move them.
But subjective is as subjective does........ (somebody put that in latin, it will be so much more impressive! :-) |
The training is required to understand the context that would have been second nature to those 'illiterate masses'. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:57:41 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
So this HCB shot would get a 3 or 4 in DPC. Yay !!! My first entry got 3 and my second 4. Guess I'm doing well ;-).
Actually I was gob-smacked with the 3. Personally I thought it deserved little more than a 1 - it was truly terrible but I felt obliged to upload it 'cos it made my daughter who was in it with her cat feel great. |
Well, DPC is the ultimate hodgepodge.
I mean, we have popular photographers, and unpopular photographers, and great photographers, and average photographers, and popular photographers with great photographs, and great photographers with popular photographs, and popular photographers with average photographs and average photographers with great photographs, and unpopular photographers with popular photographs and... |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:02:03 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
we have popular photographers, and unpopular photographers, and great photographers, and average photographers, and popular photographers with great photographs, and great photographers with popular photographs, and popular photographers with average photographs and average photographers with great photographs, and unpopular photographers with popular photographs and... |
then there's Edward?
Dunno if I got that right ;) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:06:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement.
A two-year-old is likely to prefer candy to broccoli, yet we both know which of the two holds more nutritional value. |
Well put. As the two year old, the concept of nutritional value is a foreign one much like the notion of art to many people. In such situations it's common to try and explain art by relating it to other less nebulous concepts such as commercial photography. However, applying commercial standards or your own standards for that matter as the basis for judging someone else's art would be a mistake as the goals and purpose are not the same.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:08:00 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
we have popular photographers, and unpopular photographers, and great photographers, and average photographers, and popular photographers with great photographs, and great photographers with popular photographs, and popular photographers with average photographs and average photographers with great photographs, and unpopular photographers with popular photographs and... |
then there's Edward?
Dunno if I got that right ;) |
:D (singing: And then there's Maude!) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:09:58 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement.
A two-year-old is likely to prefer candy to broccoli, yet we both know which of the two holds more nutritional value. |
Well put. As the two year old, the concept of nutritional value is a foreign one much like the notion of art to many people. In such situations it's common to try and explain art by relating it to other less nebulous concepts such as commercial photography. However, applying commercial standards or your own standards for that matter as the basis for judging someone else's art would be a mistake as the goals and purpose are not the same. |
It's a flawed analogy from the start. The difference between candy and vegetables is objective. The difference in taste in art is subjective.
Thus the flaw.
Disingenuous at best, horribly pretentious and misguided at worst. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:11:16 PM · #74 |
context can work for you or against you:
A superb photographer friend of mine presented for comment one of the single most beautiful sand-dune shots I have ever seen. Our group was helping each other down-select prints for an upcoming gallery show.
We all gasped, nearly in unison, at the image. He, of course, was pleased at the reaction; he went on to mention that this image had particular significance for him: he hiked well into the dunes carrying heavy gear (we all used view cameras at the time) and, as it turns out, not quite enough water--though he had planned on the hot, dry weather. He got this image while beginning to suffer from the early onset symptoms of heat stroke, and then struggled back to his car. He described in more detail than I needed to hear the numerous collapse and vomit events on the way back to his car. In our group the print became informally, but permanently, known as Vomit Dunes.
I cannot, to this day, see the image and feel the striking sense of beauty and power of the first-sight-no-context viewing.
In the end, the print was selected for the gallery event, with an admonishment that he should Never Tell That Story Again :-)
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 04:25:29 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
