| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2012 10:59:24 PM · #76 |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:00:44 PM · #77 |
| OK, I'll make my final decision for The Best of 2011 based on that. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:01:39 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
OK, I'll make my final decision for The Best of 2011 based on that. |
*BONK*
|
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:17:13 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
OK, I'll make my final decision for The Best of 2011 based on that. |
*BONK* |
Thank you |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:28:08 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
OK, I'll make my final decision for The Best of 2011 based on that. |
*BONK* |
Thank you |
You're welsome. My inflatable art bonkhammer knows all. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:42:26 PM · #81 |
Interesting - this thread has morphed into an exploration of "what is art" when in fact the original query was "what makes an image good", whether or not it is artistic.
I'm curious as to what you think of this work. |
|
|
|
02/09/2012 11:44:39 PM · #82 |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 12:30:17 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Interesting - this thread has morphed into an exploration of "what is art" when in fact the original query was "what makes an image good", whether or not it is artistic.
I'm curious as to what you think of this work. |
"Similarly, this work breaks off from the pursuit of the "best image possible" into an exploration of the formalistic attributes (and conceptual implications) present in the emergent technology of digital imaging itself."
See, this is what annoys me about so much of the "art world" today; it's like so much navel gazing, all self-referential and ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying. "For cripesake, man," I want to scream, "stop conceptualizing your formal attributes and go make pictures!"
R.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 12:44:38 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"stop conceptualizing your formal attributes and go make pictures!" |
LOL!!!!!!
"conceptual implications"... oy |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 12:57:51 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I'm curious as to what you think of this work. |
I'm in favor of any photography that makes most photographers feel uncomfortable and confused. So I like it. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 01:02:18 AM · #86 |
| An interesting reply, Paul. So if I understand you correctly, it's not so much the image which you find compelling, but the reaction to the image. And if so, then any of these images would be a "good" image? |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 01:40:18 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
An interesting reply, Paul. So if I understand you correctly, it's not so much the image which you find compelling, but the reaction to the image. And if so, then any of these images would be a "good" image? |
Yes. I wasn't being flippant. I think these photographs are good in the sense that they move the stakes out a little further. In my view, anything marginal is likely to be good.
But you must remember that I'm not much interested in what most people at DPC think of as photography. When something has been done a million times already, who cares if someone can do it 0.000000001 percent 'better' than everyone else?
So the interesting question for me is what happens if Bruce-style pictures should become the 'water drops and wine glasses' of 2017? Will all the Rex Bruce copies that are appearing on DPC in five years then be inconsequential crap? I think yes, of course. But will Rex Bruce's original pictures still be good? Yes again. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 05:24:51 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Interesting - this thread has morphed into an exploration of "what is art" when in fact the original query was "what makes an image good", whether or not it is artistic.
I'm curious as to what you think of this work. |
I rather like that image...it does however remind me of a painting that I used to own that was water damaged.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 07:06:13 AM · #89 |
| Johanna, may I ask, not in an abstract intellectual way and no disrespect intended, what feeling/emotion is driving a competent artist like yourself to anguish over "what makes an image good"? |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:39:37 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by posthumous:
so far we have art defined as "interpreting" and "working" ... odd definitions of art. |
and we haven't still got a clue what ART is. |
If anyone wanted to get technical, dictionary.com defines "art" as follows:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is
beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
So according to this definition, what I see is that everything each and every one of us does is "art". Due to the fact that we photograph it, it is obviously either a) beautiful, b) appealing, or c) of more than ordinary significance (otherwise, why would we shoot it)?
So, art IS interpretive, art IS working, and art IS situational. Each piece we create, whether it is straight from the camera or has been processed after the fact, is still ART. :)
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:44:33 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Interesting - this thread has morphed into an exploration of "what is art" when in fact the original query was "what makes an image good", whether or not it is artistic.
I'm curious as to what you think of this work. |
As for that work, *I* do not find it personally appealing... but that is not to say that other people will not. Everyone sees things differently...
old cliche "one man's trash is another person's treasure". Same could be said about this.
Take for example, my husband. One of my favorite paintings is "Starry Night" by Van Gogh. My husband does not view this as "art" as he sees swirly lines, strange movements, etc. To him, it does not depict art. I, on the other hand, see it as "art."
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 09:45:26.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:47:16 AM · #92 |
| Imagine that i have never tasted chocolate, never even seen it or touched it, now explain to me what it is so i can know exactly what its like, why its so damn good, this is how i feel about Art. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 09:57:39 AM · #93 |
"Painters over the centuries sought to advance their capabilities to create an ever more realistic representation of what could be seen, but began to experiment with the nature of the paint itself and other purely aesthetic concerns regarding shape, texture, color and form (to name a few). Similarly, this work breaks off from the pursuit of the "best image possible" into an exploration of the formalistic attributes (and conceptual implications) present in the emergent technology of digital imaging itself."
art examines assumptions, and that includes assumptions about art. The above comparison clearly extends to the Impressionists. You can't dismiss "exploration of the formalistic attributes (and conceptual implications)" unless you would also dismiss the Impressionists.
Admittedly, art has overindulged in conceptualism, but that's what happens. Art (or anything else) gets too comfortable, falls into a rut, and rewards what tradition deems it safe to reward. And then someone like Banksy comes along and art feels alive again. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:24:47 AM · #94 |
Art is restless. If it's not changing, it's dying. Or dead.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:30:05 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Imagine that i have never tasted chocolate, never even seen it or touched it, now explain to me what it is so i can know exactly what its like, why its so damn good |
A black river beneath a sunrise bridge; the wall that stopped her car
opens: your leaves reach through
to last week's air. A song
braids your child's hair,
darker than the barn swallow
writing out your secret
backwards to you.
Falling into the water, silver stones
covered with your nerve endings
finally tap the drums
of your gliding ears.
A lost word sparkles
outside your closed eyes. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:34:13 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by jagar:
Imagine that i have never tasted chocolate, never even seen it or touched it, now explain to me what it is so i can know exactly what its like, why its so damn good |
A black river beneath a sunrise bridge; the wall that stopped her car
opens: your leaves reach through
to last week's air. A song
braids your child's hair,
darker than the barn swallow
writing out your secret
backwards to you.
Falling into the water, silver stones
covered with your nerve endings
finally tap the drums
of your gliding ears.
A lost word sparkles
outside your closed eyes. [/
Very nice but you could have just flushed the chain.
|
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 10:36:05. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:44:22 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by jagar:
Imagine that i have never tasted chocolate, never even seen it or touched it, now explain to me what it is so i can know exactly what its like, why its so damn good |
A black river beneath a sunrise bridge; the wall that stopped her car
opens: your leaves reach through
to last week's air. A song
braids your child's hair,
darker than the barn swallow
writing out your secret
backwards to you.
Falling into the water, silver stones
covered with your nerve endings
finally tap the drums
of your gliding ears.
A lost word sparkles
outside your closed eyes. |
Bugger! I was about to post an almost identical verse in praise of chocolate. Now I'll have to go with my second string:
The boy stood on Don's sunrise bridge
his eyes screwed shut in bliss
he took a bite
of Turkish Delight
and said, 'WTF rhymes with this?' |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 10:55:55 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by jagar:
Imagine that i have never tasted chocolate, never even seen it or touched it, now explain to me what it is so i can know exactly what its like, why its so damn good |
A black river beneath a sunrise bridge; the wall that stopped her car
opens: your leaves reach through
to last week's air. A song
braids your child's hair,
darker than the barn swallow
writing out your secret
backwards to you.
Falling into the water, silver stones
covered with your nerve endings
finally tap the drums
of your gliding ears.
A lost word sparkles
outside your closed eyes. |
Bugger! I was about to post an almost identical verse in praise of chocolate. Now I'll have to go with my second string:
The boy stood on Don's sunrise bridge
his eyes screwed shut in bliss
he took a bite
of Turkish Delight
and said, 'WTF rhymes with this?' |
LOL, i still cant taste a thing though, surely chocolate is not a sour as this. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 11:30:09 AM · #99 |
@ Ray - that was only the first of quite a few images, and admittedly, probably the one I "like" the "best". In order to decide if his stuff is "good", you'd have to see at least a few more of his other images. At this point I must confess that when I viewed his work on line, I did NOT enjoy it at all. I thought it the height of mediocrity. And yet, paradoxically, when I saw it at the gallery (in very large format - 36 x 48 and larger), they were quite interesting, although just the sheer size may have helped. This is the paradox I'm exploring here.
@ daisydavid - because I'm intrigued by the part of me that will look at an image and cringe, roll her eyes, feel exasperated when I think is meh/blah/unremarkable/whatever is being lauded. As a growing artist, I want to understand, or at least be more tolerant of, things that are not within my intellectual reach. Especially because this directly contradicts my belief that while everything is good to someone, mediocrity DOES exists. It is the old standard of opposites. Without hate, dark, cold, tears, we can't appreciate love, light, warmth, laughter. I really can appreciate "almost" every kind of artistic effort, but it doesn't mean I like it, or that I don't believe some stuff is just
I also decidedly believe that perception and personal taste are highly individual and quite difficult to manipulate, and seeking to be definitive about this is perhaps a fool's enterprise. It is seeming to be less and less likely that a concensus can be reached on any specific traits of mediocrity, which is mostly rather a function of personal taste. |
|
|
|
02/10/2012 11:58:32 AM · #100 |
ETA:Wrong Thread....
Message edited by author 2012-02-10 11:59:52. |
|
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: 07/29/2025 07:28:36 PM EDT.
