| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2012 05:06:42 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"The inventions of philosophy are no less fantastic than those of art: Josiah Royce, in the first volume of his work The World and the Individual (1899), has formulated the following: 'Let us imagine that a portion of the soil of England has been levelled off perfectly and that on it a cartographer traces a map of England. The job is perfect; there is no detail of the soil of England, no matter how minute, that is not registered on the map; everything has there its correspondence. This map, in such a case, should contain a map of the map, which should contain a map of the map of the map, and so on to infinity.'
—Jorge Luis Borges, "Partial Enchantments of the Quixote", Other Inquisitions, 1964 |
Sounds like a definition of fractals to me ... |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 05:01:36 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I am thinking of printing out all of the DPC threads trying to define art and making a giant fine art paper maché sculpture out of them. When I am done, you can all critique it before I light it on fire. |
That somehow actually sounds like fine art, Art... |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 05:00:52 PM · #3 |
| I am thinking of printing out all of the DPC threads trying to define art and making a giant fine art paper maché sculpture out of them. When I am done, you can all critique it before I light it on fire. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 03:55:47 PM · #4 |
"The inventions of philosophy are no less fantastic than those of art: Josiah Royce, in the first volume of his work The World and the Individual (1899), has formulated the following: 'Let us imagine that a portion of the soil of England has been levelled off perfectly and that on it a cartographer traces a map of England. The job is perfect; there is no detail of the soil of England, no matter how minute, that is not registered on the map; everything has there its correspondence. This map, in such a case, should contain a map of the map, which should contain a map of the map of the map, and so on to infinity.'
Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe I have found the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictions."
—Jorge Luis Borges, "Partial Enchantments of the Quixote", Other Inquisitions, 1964
Message edited by author 2012-08-12 15:56:22. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 03:51:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by rooum:
The Map is not the Territory. |
+1! |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 02:13:16 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by inshaala:
(next question - someone please define for me what makes a chair a chair... and when does it become an "armchair" or "sofa"? different people will have different answers...) |
If you cut the legs off a chair it's no longer a chair, therfore it's a chair because we see and name it's purpose, it's really just a pile of wood ;-) the same can be said of everything. |
Alfred Korzybksi's theory of general semantics. The Map is not the Territory. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 01:15:08 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
(next question - someone please define for me what makes a chair a chair... and when does it become an "armchair" or "sofa"? different people will have different answers...) |
If you cut the legs off a chair it's no longer a chair, therfore it's a chair because we see and name it's purpose, it's really just a pile of wood ;-) the same can be said of everything.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2012 01:09:29 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Venser:
...all I can decipher is that it means whatever the photographer wants it to mean. |
I think, if you replaced the (above) phrase 'wants it to mean' with 'needs it to mean' you'd be closer to the truth.
The second troubling term is the word 'mean', of course.
As some Edward Dahlberg pointed out decades ago now: "Meaning is that which exists through itself".
The following was my response to someone questioning the purpose of artists in society. As such it is not strictly about art, but, I believe, equally relevant:
'Art is what results when things come together 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 a roof. Despite an unorthodox need to dissociate, so they may fine-tune their feelers and commune with forces yet unrealized, they cannot live in a vacuum.
This and the refusal to conform is viewed with suspicion and frequently misunderstood as an arrogance of privilege by those who lack this characteristic 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 utility until after they have failed or died and no longer present a perceived threat to a society who, by and large, opposed them while they were still laboured and lived. A society without art is a society in decline. When any village continues to exist without acts that dignify its existence, it's survival can only be measured by counting.'
Message edited by author 2012-08-12 13:11:19. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 12:57:49 PM · #9 |
Certainly not qualified to answer the question but i'll give it a go. So - "fine" when applied to photography denotes (to me at least) that something more than just crafting a photo has occurred - i liked John's line: "Technique is a given, but it goes beyond a superficial display of technique, it wields emotion like a sword...".
It may be easier to define it by saying what it isnt - and the following are "imo": It isnt commercial photography (to depict a product (physical or conceptual)), it isnt a happy-snap (but may in the viewer's eye look like one), it isnt overprocessed (ie it is a photograph first and that whether it is digital or film should be difficult to judge - remember this is a three-word-long concept "fine art photography"), it isnt "something you would put on your wall" (i used to have a photo of Kurt Cobain on my wall, it definitely wasnt fine art photography), it isnt anything anyone can judge objectively.
The above is subject to change based on cultural shifts in perception and the interaction of viewer and "artist" - hence my last point. "Fine art" is currently the upper echelons of artistic society doing the same thing the "social" society do with members clubs and their membership criteria (blackballing etc) - if you dont fit, you aint part of the club. 100 years from now, a turd on a urinal may be considered fine art if it is accepted as such by the community. Currently i think that is called "modern art" or more colloquially: "anything goes"...
You will probably recognise it when you see it and define it "fine art", but your perception of it will differ from the next person who may not define it as such. So the ill-informed (all of us) are essentially told what fine art is by the less ill-informed "artistic elite" - anyone can put fish in a plugged in blender in a gallery, only some people have the "authority" to call it art. So essentially fine art as a concept is moveable over time, but defined by the relationship between the viewing community and the "artist".
Not sure that brought anything to the table, but hopefully food for thought.
(next question - someone please define for me what makes a chair a chair... and when does it become an "armchair" or "sofa"? different people will have different answers...) |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 10:51:29 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Well done Cory, you uncovered some informed producers of art ;)Gladly the article separates the art/photo/technique cycle and reinforces the 'first get it right in the camera' approach. I see that it is a must to work hard to produce and appreciate fine art, both getting your vision across and understanding others' artistic expression. The tools and techniques used are important but shouldn't get in the way of the message, but you have to remember this is a learning site and people are developing skills. Often problems with interpretation result from critiquing technical aspects only and relying on the image to do the work. So the emphasis of what determines fine art depends just as much on the viewer as the creator. Fine art is an expression of the senses and intellect, it is ephemeral, elusive, enduring and eternal as emotions and the human condition, it is contradictory and challenging, alluring and infuriating at times. Technique is a given, but it goes beyond a superficial display of technique, it wields emotion like a sword, sometimes subtle other times not, but it cuts all the same. So before you can think of critiquing you have to explore your own emotions, not something a lot of people do intuitively, it's not easy. Try looking at your emotions and apply it to DPC, keep it simple. I can see anguish , despair , love and devotion , hope , humour , innocence , distress , tenderness/sentimentality , melancholy . Maybe not the best choices, but ask yourself, what emotions does this image evoke, what features about the image allow me to connect and identify a message or feeling, is the artist inviting me to look further, deeper into the image by being ambiguous, vague, satirical, humourous or is it a direct confrontation. We are all looking outward in our leaning here, a lot of the time we forget that looking in is equally, if not more, important. |
Loving this mentality. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 10:48:15 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Cory:
CNN seems to have an answer... Not that I agree or disagree. :) |
I read the whole thing & now I have a new question -- What the heck is ORGANIC PHOTOGRAPHY????? We may be arguing about the wrong thing. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 09:33:42 AM · #12 |
Biography: It is great to see all the creativity people have on short notice in these competitions. I am glad I stumbled upon this site! I have not even been here a year and I feel I have come a long way because of the comments and examples of other photographers here at DPC.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2012 09:09:13 AM · #13 |
"Fine art photo" 3 random user reactions...
Person 1: "???"
Person 2: "Simply majestic... it connects with me so much that I have tears in my eyes.... it speaks volumes, i have not words, oh dear i can't look away from it..."
Person 3: "5" |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 08:35:05 AM · #14 |
| Well done Cory, you uncovered some informed producers of art ;)Gladly the article separates the art/photo/technique cycle and reinforces the 'first get it right in the camera' approach. I see that it is a must to work hard to produce and appreciate fine art, both getting your vision across and understanding others' artistic expression. The tools and techniques used are important but shouldn't get in the way of the message, but you have to remember this is a learning site and people are developing skills. Often problems with interpretation result from critiquing technical aspects only and relying on the image to do the work. So the emphasis of what determines fine art depends just as much on the viewer as the creator. Fine art is an expression of the senses and intellect, it is ephemeral, elusive, enduring and eternal as emotions and the human condition, it is contradictory and challenging, alluring and infuriating at times. Technique is a given, but it goes beyond a superficial display of technique, it wields emotion like a sword, sometimes subtle other times not, but it cuts all the same. So before you can think of critiquing you have to explore your own emotions, not something a lot of people do intuitively, it's not easy. Try looking at your emotions and apply it to DPC, keep it simple. I can see anguish , despair , love and devotion , hope , humour , innocence , distress , tenderness/sentimentality , melancholy . Maybe not the best choices, but ask yourself, what emotions does this image evoke, what features about the image allow me to connect and identify a message or feeling, is the artist inviting me to look further, deeper into the image by being ambiguous, vague, satirical, humourous or is it a direct confrontation. We are all looking outward in our leaning here, a lot of the time we forget that looking in is equally, if not more, important. |
|
|
|
08/12/2012 12:00:43 AM · #15 |
| CNN seems to have an answer... Not that I agree or disagree. :) |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 09:20:49 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 07:52:57 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Can anyone define an informed consumer of art (AKA a pocket calculator) ? |
An 'Informed Consumer of Art' is someone who was just told they ate the centerpiece. |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 03:33:30 AM · #18 |
| A thought in the hand is worth two in the pocket. |
|
|
|
08/11/2012 02:35:40 AM · #19 |
| Can anyone define an informed consumer of art (AKA a pocket calculator) ? |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 05:40:40 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
It appears to me that to define fine art photography would be akin to keeping a handful of thought in your pocket. |
Unless you're a hobbit!
The answer to the riddle of what's in your pocket may just get you into a whole heap of trouble! ;-P |
It won't get you into trouble, but your adopted cousin is screwed! |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 05:24:46 PM · #21 |
I guess I have a more basic question of what activates the imagination beyond the occupation of pixel space by the dreaded "comfort zone"...
Is that answer in Ben's pocket too?
Inquiring minds want to know...;-) |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 04:05:38 PM · #22 |
| I am profligate with handfulls of thought... |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 03:54:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
It appears to me that to define fine art photography would be akin to keeping a handful of thought in your pocket. |
Unless you're a hobbit!
The answer to the riddle of what's in your pocket may just get you into a whole heap of trouble! ;-P |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 03:23:49 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
It appears to me that to define fine art photography would be akin to keeping a handful of thought in your pocket. |
Coat pocket or jeans pocket? |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 03:16:25 PM · #25 |
| It appears to me that to define fine art photography would be akin to keeping a handful of thought in your pocket. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:53:27 PM EDT.
