| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2011 11:05:34 AM · #26 |
I never think things over, but my wife says I can be a good philosopher, as I like thinking and not doing, and I take all other sides of an argument except hers.
I think :) my art/photographic way of ending up with images in my camera forms a triangle. On one corner, the art of using a camera and it's settings [personal proficiency rating at 15%]. The second corner is the art of putting arty ideas into a picture [personal proficiency rating at 5%]. The third corner is the art of using opportunity/happenings to make the image [personal proficiency rating at 40%].
The difference between photographers lie in the length of the three legs of the triangle. Some are happy to see some corners close to one another, and others need them miles apart.
I also see all photographs to be inside the triangle, agreeing with  mariuca that art does creep in everywhere, as does knowledge of using a camera, etc.
I must confess that I an unable to plan any shot before it has "presented itself". So my planning never starts more than 2 minutes before the image is in the bank. My brain has no moral issue switching between taking the 376'th cricket action shot, and then taking an art shot of the shade across the pitch. Or even cropping an art piece out of an image afterwards on the computer.
This thread has clarified my thinking about the subject no end, and I do want to thank  posthumous for starting it off so eloquently. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:46:32 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
It does not all have to be art. It does not always have to tell a story or have some greater implied meaning. |
Agreed, and I don't think that is expected, and is not likely to be possible. I see Don's post, in part, as a process. For example, I truly love the coast, and enjoy shooting seascapes. Some are strictly pretty because nature presented a beautiful scene or moment. I have no shame in documenting this scene, and I enjoy it for what it is. I also enjoy attempting to photograph the same scene with more thought and connection. I believe the point of the thread is to discuss art, not to proselytize the concept and/or process. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:53:09 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Correct. In a very narrow sense though. ART shall creep in everything, don't you agree? |
I don't agree. When someone paints a sign in perfect letters that says "Mechanic wanted", is it art? Does the medium make it art? Then art's definition has to be broadened and therefore diluted. I think it's perfectly possible to take many photographs that are completely artless (in the sense that art wasn't intended). Art isn't everywhere. It's only specifically where it was meant to be. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 12:47:43 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
I believe the point of the thread is to discuss art, not to proselytize the concept and/or process. |
Right, I'm not interested in a discussion here of whether anyone in particular *should* be doing art. That's your own business
Another unfortunate trend in dpc forum threads is that talking about art often devolves into talking about talking about art.
Art is not science. You can't prove that something is art. That doesn't mean you can't discuss whether or not something is art!! It doesn't mean you can't come up with principles that make sense to you, useful definitions, and try to apply them to your own work and the work of others. That's what I enjoy doing. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 12:51:32 PM · #30 |
To produce art we must breathe art. I love this thread.
Those things that people call pictures that tell us where we are or who we are there with or what toy we like most - those are just documents. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 01:26:47 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It doesn't mean you can't come up with principles that make sense to you, useful definitions, and try to apply them to your own work and the work of others. |
I don't get this idea. I have always viewed art as a force something akin to the power and flow of water.
An artist then becomes quite simply a conduit for that energy.
I don't know that a limited set of principles and useful definitions may hold a truly active force called "art."
If this post offends...I've given up apologizing...;-)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2011 01:28:34 PM · #32 |
The most difficult part of seeing the art here is the basic format. We see a lot of small images in out forays through the portfolio of other. For me, art of a serious nature needs to be taken in slowly, it has to stew, and make connections within itself and in my thoughts.
Unless we give a piece the conceptual space it needs it can never be art. To use Louis' example of the sign painter, there can be no art in the "Mechanic wanted" sign; but transport him to the land of brush calligraphy, and he is drawing from an artistic tradition going back thousands of years. His product can be art, if he is good enough, because his audience expects the possibility of art.
In a well curated gallery where the images are big and far enough apart that they can command attention, the experience of viewing an image is very different than on an on-line gallery, or in a magazine, or flitting by on a television set.
We all have our aesthetic preferences, our favored styles, or methods of display, and tend to find the best and label it art most comfortably within those preferences. The hard part is seeing art where you are not looking for it. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 01:49:33 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
To produce art we must breathe art. I love this thread.
Those things that people call pictures that tell us where we are or who we are there with or what toy we like most - those are just documents. |
Is art reductive? If it is "just" a document, a tool which tells us who, what, why, where, does it automatically fail the art screening test? Would not the vast majority of the work in art museums around the world fail that test? Rembrant's The night watch or Velazques' Las Meninas are certainly meant to document, yet the method used to document those gatherings made them two of the finest examples of painting in western art. When we set up filters intended to cull wheat from chaff, it is best to look into our pile of discards and see what we have thrown away from time to time, just to make sure the filter is doing what we want it to do.
Message edited by author 2011-09-14 13:54:15. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 03:09:51 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
To produce art we must breathe art. I love this thread.
Those things that people call pictures that tell us where we are or who we are there with or what toy we like most - those are just documents. |
Is art reductive? If it is "just" a document, a tool which tells us who, what, why, where, does it automatically fail the art screening test? Would not the vast majority of the work in art museums around the world fail that test? Rembrant's The night watch or Velazques' Las Meninas are certainly meant to document, yet the method used to document those gatherings made them two of the finest examples of painting in western art. When we set up filters intended to cull wheat from chaff, it is best to look into our pile of discards and see what we have thrown away from time to time, just to make sure the filter is doing what we want it to do. |
Wow. Sorry. I do use words poorly and no, I did not mean there is never art in a snapshot candid or something of the like. The documents I was referring to would be things like a straight on picture of a kids new toy with no kid in it. Something emotionless. This was my way of agreeing that art isn't everywhere. I hope that's more clear! |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 03:48:24 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by posthumous:
It doesn't mean you can't come up with principles that make sense to you, useful definitions, and try to apply them to your own work and the work of others. |
I don't get this idea. I have always viewed art as a force something akin to the power and flow of water.
An artist then becomes quite simply a conduit for that energy.
I don't know that a limited set of principles and useful definitions may hold a truly active force called "art."
If this post offends...I've given up apologizing...;-) |
I'm not at all offended. However, you say that you don't get the idea of defining art, and then you go right ahead and define art and principles by which you can judge what art is. "Let's see.... is this a force? Is the photographer being a good conduit for art?" etc. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 04:24:47 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Writing about art is like dancing about architecture.
But....
There are many truths about art, but when you begin to lay down the laws, the limitations and the definitions, they will tend to sneak around and bite you in the butt. Style can be narrowly defined, and can move within an aesthetic philosophy. Art can not. Art is the spark of the divine wrought out of concrete matter, the ephemeral caught, if only for that moment. When a viewer feels that a style that differs from theirs is bereft of art it says less about the constraints of art than the constraints of the viewer. |
+1 for the post, +3 for using the word bereft. Excellent comment to an excellent post by Posthumous.
I used to try, inarticulately, to argue and define the "fine art" quality of photographs vs. paintings, sculpture, etc. This thread sparks it up from a common starting point without animosity. great discussion. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 05:19:13 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by posthumous:
It doesn't mean you can't come up with principles that make sense to you, useful definitions, and try to apply them to your own work and the work of others. |
I don't get this idea. I have always viewed art as a force something akin to the power and flow of water.
An artist then becomes quite simply a conduit for that energy.
I don't know that a limited set of principles and useful definitions may hold a truly active force called "art."
If this post offends...I've given up apologizing...;-) |
I'm not at all offended. However, you say that you don't get the idea of defining art, and then you go right ahead and define art and principles by which you can judge what art is. "Let's see.... is this a force? Is the photographer being a good conduit for art?" etc. |
Oh Dear...obviously, I left waaaay too much space between the lines for you to read...(I mean that nicely...lol) ;-p
I did not define art AND principles and I did not define the conduit as something to be judged as good (or bad). I just stated that art exists merely as a force or form of energy whereby the artist becomes the conduit. I left out the part where the art object becomes the manifestation of that energy unique to the conduit. BTW, when does the presence of art travel above the arrogance of judgment and more along the lines of the unconditional and unfettered expression?
P.S. Gosh...I suppose I should be banished to IKEA now. That's okay...I need some new chairs for my patio...;-)
Message edited by author 2011-09-14 17:32:36. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 05:46:19 PM · #38 |
IKEA's a good one. Whatever you get there will as a rule show little or no craft and require similarly little craft to assemble/install.
I know someone who once taught at the royal college of art (or whatever it's called). He spoke of students who insisted e.g. on lying on the floor because they got more inspiration that way. He was actually teaching them to mix paint at the time, so god only knows how that hangs together, but apparently he said: 'You can't be an artist if you can't mix fucking paint.'
You can be in my dream if I can be in yours. Bob Dylan said that. Art is craft. I said that. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 06:26:15 PM · #39 |
This is what i've been thinking about recently...
"Today Darger’s work can be found in museums and galleries, and although his work is deemed popular and a “hot” commodity, the Realms paintings still haven’t been determined as art or non art. "I can’t get myself unstuck from an assumption about the importance of intent in art. Especially intent with regard to communicatingâ€Â¦this assumption has led me to conclude that the work of Henry Dargerâ€Â¦ is not 'Art' becauseâ€Â¦he had no intention of ever showing it to anyone, meaning it was not created with the intent of communicating anything with anyone, and that then made it something other than 'Art.'" – Ed Winkleman, New York Art Dealer and owner of Winkleman Gallery.
Now, i love Henry Darger's reams of images and i disagree totally with Winkleman's assessment but i am interested in his idea that for something to become art it must demonstrate a willingness to communicate full stop, let alone communicate 'something'. Of course, for 'Art Business' yeah (Winkleman is an art dealer after all) but as a nebulous idea of what is art 'is' i'm not with him at all. Is the 'art object' even an object if it falls in an empty forest. etc
Message edited by author 2011-09-14 18:55:54. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 06:49:40 PM · #40 |
| How to judge intent. We all know those people who oppress one with their ostensible desire to communicate. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 07:36:06 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art. If you want to transition to art, you can't do this simply by putting symbols in your photographs. You need to change your entire approach. The photograph must no longer be the slave of the subject. The subject must become the slave of the photograph. The photograph must have a life for you if it is to have a life for anyone else.
|
Before it falls off the main page, this is a "must read", again and again |
Always loving to be the devil's advocate in these conversations, how would you feel about Michaelangelo's David? What is it other than a very realistic representation of the human form writ larger than life? Most would consider it a clear example of "art", but they will grasp at nebulous terms when describing why it is so. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:05:27 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by posthumous:
If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art. If you want to transition to art, you can't do this simply by putting symbols in your photographs. You need to change your entire approach. The photograph must no longer be the slave of the subject. The subject must become the slave of the photograph. The photograph must have a life for you if it is to have a life for anyone else.
|
Before it falls off the main page, this is a "must read", again and again |
Always loving to be the devil's advocate in these conversations, how would you feel about Michaelangelo's David? What is it other than a very realistic representation of the human form writ larger than life? Most would consider it a clear example of "art", but they will grasp at nebulous terms when describing why it is so. |
Michelangelo never met David. So obviously, he was not documenting David. You don't spend days chipping away at marble to "document" someone. Clearly, you are creating an art object. Really, Doc, what a terrible counter-example. You can do better! LOL |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:12:57 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
I did not define art AND principles and I did not define the conduit as something to be judged as good (or bad). |
I didn't say anything about good or bad. I just defined art, like you did. There's no categorical difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. We're both offering our own theories about what art is. I just went into slightly more detail.
Originally posted by hihosilver:
BTW, when does the presence of art travel above the arrogance of judgment and more along the lines of the unconditional and unfettered expression? |
When is a yam a sweet potato? What's your point? Do you think art should never be judged? |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:24:07 PM · #44 |
| my.nose.bleeds with these discussions. lemme digest |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:28:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You don't spend days chipping away at marble to "document" someone. Clearly, you are creating an art object. |
Well you do really. What is the thousands upon thousands of statues and monuments in Egypt going back 3000 years or so if not to 'document' someone quite beautifully in stone?
But, yes, i 'd say that those object are 'pretty' as is intended.
Message edited by author 2011-09-14 23:30:58. |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:43:30 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by posthumous:
You don't spend days chipping away at marble to "document" someone. Clearly, you are creating an art object. |
Well you do really. What is the thousands upon thousands of statues and monuments in Egypt going back 3000 years or so if not to 'document' someone quite beautifully in stone?
But, yes, i 'd say that those object are 'pretty' as is intended. |
They may be pretty, but certainly there is significant investment of self. Now document must be defined. ;) |
|
|
|
09/14/2011 11:50:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Michelangelo never met David. So obviously, he was not documenting David. You don't spend days chipping away at marble to "document" someone. Clearly, you are creating an art object. Really, Doc, what a terrible counter-example. You can do better! LOL |
I disagree. You are right on Michaelangelo never meeting David, but are you implying that the statue would be different to a viewer who doesn't know who David was or one who was deceptively told it was a statue of someone else? I doubt the magic or art of the piece is caught up on the persona of the subject. Heck, we know many artists of the time used Biblical themes and subjects only because it was their ticket to a paycheck. So I agree it wasn't his objective to "document" David, but it WAS his objective to document the human form. At least he meant to replicate the human form in marble accurately (a sculpting verion of "in the sharpest detail possible").
But you do hit on something important. It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. If someone sets out to document something just to document it, that motive will rarely produce art. But someone may wind up documenting something quite accurately and produce art because their motive was elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2011-09-15 00:00:42. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 12:18:04 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Writing about music is not supposed to be music; it’s not even supposed to be a substitute for music. There is plenty of superb writing about music, and it contributes much to the understanding and enjoyment of music. |
Curiously, as a deaf person, I got my first deeper appreciation of music from the poetry of Conrad Aiken, who spent a lifetime attempting to merge poetry with music in a very structured way. His longer poems, for example, are structured into symphonic forms. But it was actually the following that opened my eyes (and remember, my eyes served double duty as my presumptive ears):
At a Concert of Music
Be still, while the music rises about us: the deep enchantment
Towers, like a forest of singing leaves and birds,
Built, for an instant, by the heart’s troubled beating,
Beyond all power of words.
And while you are listening, silent, I escape you;
And I go by a secret path in that dark wood
To another time, long past, and another woman,
And another mood.
Then, too, the music’s cold algebra of enchantment
Wrought all about us a bird-voice haunted grove;
Then too, as now, I returned to an earlier moment,
And an earlier love.
Alas! Can I never find peace in the shining instant,
The hard, bright crystal of being, in time and space?
Must I always seek, in the moment, an earlier moment,
And an earlier face?
Absolve me! I would adore you, had I the secret,
In all the music’s power, for your face alone;
I would try to answer, in the world’s chaotic symphony,
Your one clear tone.
But alas, alas; being everything, you are nothing.
The history of all my life is in your face,
And all I can remember is an earlier, more haunted moment,
and a brighter place.
— Conrad Aiken
I typed the above from memory (it doesn't seem to be on the web, so it may not be exactly right... but close enough, I think...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2011 12:26:59 AM · #49 |
| I'd suggest the question of art or not art did not arise for the likes of Michaelangelo. He went to great lengths, including running of the risk of capital punishment, to study and record the human form. He did so faithfully and realistically. David even has stonemason's hands. In the context of this thread, though, and the usefulness of the object ... |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 02:21:09 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ubique:
Writing about music is not supposed to be music; it’s not even supposed to be a substitute for music. There is plenty of superb writing about music, and it contributes much to the understanding and enjoyment of music. |
Curiously, as a deaf person, I got my first deeper appreciation of music from the poetry of Conrad Aiken, who spent a lifetime attempting to merge poetry with music in a very structured way. His longer poems, for example, are structured into symphonic forms. But it was actually the following that opened my eyes (and remember, my eyes served double duty as my presumptive ears):
R. |
Bear, I hear you. :)
Thank you for sharing the poem. |
|
