A picture that has always bothered me

mabelsound said:
When I say "truth" I am talking about the spirit of the scene--whether here Erwitt has captured it. I don't think he has captured what's interesting about the way people are looking at those paintings, and what they might be thinking about them. Rather, I think he's chosen a possibly non-representative moment in order to make a clever, but ultimately empty, visual joke.
Click to expand...

Well, this statement is really the beginning and the end of your opinion, isn't it? Nothing wrong with your opinion- some will agree, others won't. This has been a great thread, BTW, so thanks for starting it. In a thread not long ago, someone asked about critique, and it got me thinking about how much I missed solid critique and discussion of our work as an art student in college. This thread reminds me of the frustrating and pointless aspect of critique- that we sometimes come to an impasse of differing opinions, and that often leads to heated argument, the answer to which is generally merely that "art is subjective (and we may have different responses to it)".

As for the absurd, I am all for it. I wish I could find a sort-of famous picture some of you may remember from another forum which would often come out at times like this: there would be a statement such as "I have no idea what you are talking about, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on it's head", followed by, you guessed it...

EDIT: I found it....http://heresabunnywithapancakeonitshead.com/

Anyway, thanks all for one of the best threads here in a long time....
 
Last edited:
Regardless of whether one "likes" the Erwitt photo or not is only important personally to the viewer - to debate the image with others means accepting it for what it is. To question a photographer's choice of angle, film type, format etc. is kind of rediculous - the negatives are fixed and the print is made - it's just not productive to question how it was made, or to place value judgements on the character of the photographer based on one image, one portfolio, or one experience at a show. People (especially other photographers) should be able to understand that yes, there are always a million other outcomes a photographer could have come up with, but the finished photograph holds the one and only image the photographer chose to become the final piece. Debate the one image and not the myriad non-images.

As in the Arbus photograph - one of her most famous - there is no "lie" about it simply because she chose an image someone feels was unlike all the others on a particular roll of film - she didn't draw the image up - the image was made from life. Editing one's negatives is part of the process - we shouldn't even be allowed to see the images she didn't use anyway - they are not the final work, and didn't express her vision - or she would have printed them. All we have is what's there as put forward by the photographer.
 
drewbarb said:
Well, this statement is really the beginning and the end of your opinion, isn't it? Nothing wrong with your opinion- some will agree, others won't. This has been a great thread, BTW, so thanks for starting it. In a thread not long ago, someone asked about critique, and it got me thinking about how much I missed solid critique and discussion of our work as an art student in college. This thread reminds me of the frustrating and pointless aspect of critique- that we sometimes come to an impasse of differing opinions, and that often leads to heated argument, the answer to which is generally merely that "art is subjective (and we may have different responses to it)".
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, except with the word "pointless." You don't have to arrive somewhere profound in order to get something out of the journey. The most interesting questions, to me, have no answers. I mean, yeah, ultimately, it's just my opinion, but the point of debate is to see where other people are coming from, to challenge them, and more importantly to challenge oneself. Which I like to think we've done here!

Frustration is good. It means you've cut through the crap and gotten to the difficult part.
 
williams473 said:
Regardless of whether one "likes" the Erwitt photo or not is only important personally to the viewer - to debate the image with others means accepting it for what it is. To question a photographer's choice of angle, film type, format etc. is kind of rediculous - the negatives are fixed and the print is made - it's just not productive to question how it was made, or to place value judgements on the character of the photographer based on one image, one portfolio, or one experience at a show. People (especially other photographers) should be able to understand that yes, there are always a million other outcomes a photographer could have come up with, but the finished photograph holds the one and only image the photographer chose to become the final piece. Debate the one image and not the myriad non-images.

As in the Arbus photograph - one of her most famous - there is no "lie" about it simply because she chose an image someone feels was unlike all the others on a particular roll of film - she didn't draw the image up - the image was made from life. Editing one's negatives is part of the process - we shouldn't even be allowed to see the images she didn't use anyway - they are not the final work, and didn't express her vision - or she would have printed them. All we have is what's there as put forward by the photographer.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that--I think I overstated my case using the word "lie," which is imprecise and intended to stir things up. Even "manipulation" has turned out to be a dirtier word than I thought...I mean only that artists are sneaky, they're performing a kind of sleight-of-hand, and whether you like them or not depends heavily on whether or not you're buying their act. It never stops being an act, though.
 
mabelsound said:
I don't disagree with any of that--I think I overstated my case using the word "lie," which is imprecise and intended to stir things up. Even "manipulation" has turned out to be a dirtier word than I thought...I mean only that artists are sneaky, they're performing a kind of sleight-of-hand, and whether you like them or not depends heavily on whether or not you're buying their act. It never stops being an act, though.
Click to expand...

Yes - I agree with you that the simple acct of photographing anything is a manipulation of reality, and takes life out of context, but yeah, "lie" seemed a bit harsh.
 
mabelsound said:
I don't disagree, except with the word "pointless." You don't have to arrive somewhere profound in order to get something out of the journey. The most interesting questions, to me, have no answers. I mean, yeah, ultimately, it's just my opinion, but the point of debate is to see where other people are coming from, to challenge them, and more importantly to challenge oneself. Which I like to think we've done here!

Frustration is good. It means you've cut through the crap and gotten to the difficult part.
Click to expand...

Not to sound like a mutual admiration club (especially since my opinion of the Erwitt photo that started all this is different from yours) but I agree with your statement above. What I think is pointless in the critiques I was remembering is not the discussion itself (which is indeed valuable in and of itself, as the point of the whole exercise); what is pointless is carrying on with a argument when it's devolved to the point of "it means this!", "no, it means that!". When you get there, it's time to go have a drink.
 
mabelsound said:
WM, there is no right way to look at a piece of art.
Click to expand...


I certainly didnt mean to suggest that there was a right or wrong way to look at a piece of art. So long as you are cognisant of the fact the the way that you are looking at art places you in a laughing stock in the eyes of the artist who's work you are ilodizing, deconstructing or trying to make a paradigm, whatever, then you are free to look at things however you like. Believe me, its very amusing for the people on the other side of the glass, so to speak. The biggest error that most "scholars" who engage in this think is to overlook, in their arrogance, that they might be looking at things the wrong way. Only the artist knows his motivation, and without that information available to you it seems fairly pointless to drone on with some analysis about it.

Its a cool photo. It looks cool. Thats probably biggest compliment you can pay an artist as opposed to trying to impress him with some philosophical study of what he was trying to say that you have all wrong. Thats really what this all boils down to is just trying to impress with intellect, most artists I have ever known would much rather be appreciated for their output rather than "impressed" by how much thought their work provoked. I can only speak for my first hand interactions in life though and its a great big wide world full of all different personality types. We all need to laugh though, so carry on :)
 
If I took the license to talk down to people there would be no question that that is what I was doing, Im a very forward and blunt personality. Certainly not my intention, anyway, thats something you do to someone face to face not behind a keyboard anonymously on the internet. There is no reward in talking down to someone if you dont suffer the slightest risk of getting hit in the face as a result :)

Im merely relaying my experience, with this activity, in the presence of the people who have created the work under scrutiny. What is suprising, I thought at least, was that the response from commercially distributed directors, musicians and photographers all echoed the same kind of comic pity towards these kinds of discussions. One would think it might be limited to some kind of stuffy academic circle, but you get the same cringe there as you get from a fan at a rock show spewing the same stuff. I think if more people realized how their own personal genius was being received, these discussion would elevate themselves up above from where they always get mired.

edit to add, when you guys show your work, dont you have to suffer the most ridiculous things being said to you? this is hardly something relegated to masterworks. I would think that all of us could share in the experience of some "genius" coming up to you having completely figured out your work trying to impress you with his cavalier analysis of some throw away snapshot you took and just threw in the show because it looked cool with the other 5 pieces you really wanted to show but needed some filler because the show called for six pieces...
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth said:
So long as you are cognisant of the fact the the way that you are looking at art places you in a laughing stock in the eyes of the artist who's work you are ilodizing, deconstructing or trying to make a paradigm, whatever, then you are free to look at things however you like. Believe me, its very amusing for the people on the other side of the glass, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap what the artist would think? Honestly? And I say this from long experience. I've published six books of fiction, have read many dozens of devastating reviews of them, been subject to all kinds of, to my mind, misguided questions about them. But it is my readers' right to think what they want about my stuff, and to interpret it differently from my intent. It may frustrate and disappoint me when they don't see it the way I do, but it's inevitable. And I would never consider a single one of them to be a laughingstock for failing to "get it." Never. Anyone who takes the time to form an opinion of me has my eternal gratitude, even if they hurt my feelings in the process. Maybe this discussion would piss off Elliot Erwitt, but I'm not here to impress Elliot Erwitt. I'm here to discover and analyze what I do and don't like.

You don't last long in art without a little humility, I think. Or at the very least, enough arrogance to float above it all.
 
So that's it? The point of expressive activity has only to do with offering something up for unreflective consumption? It's cool or not cool, and that's that?

That just isn't any fun. Before today, I had never thought about the photograph in question. I'm not sure I'd ever even seen it. I liked it more the more I thought about it, though. If that makes me parallel to a fan at a rock show spewing something, I guess I'll live with it. I mean, it's not worth it to me to live in fear of the "cringe" of the artist. I enjoy talking about it all too much . . .
 
Encinalense said:
Totally. Still, this discussion, to quote another of my heroes, is the kind of thing"that separates humans and robots . . . from animals and animal robots."
Click to expand...

With that in mind, has anyone yet managed to create a "hit photo" generator, like that hit-song-writing software the record industry is now using?

[rf geek]Yeah, it's called a Canon DSLR.[/rf geek]
 
The main thing is that this picture, broadly put, is a lie. At the moment he took it, the men were indeed looking at the nude,
and the woman was indeed looking at the clothed model. But, doubtless, the men were in front of the other picture mere moments before, or after.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is that Erwitt waited for the "decisive moment" to snap this pic.......I thought that was the point.
I'm sorry but I don't get your argument.

All photographs rely on timing, often what we see in a still picture wasn't their seconds before, and is gone seconds later. Again THAT"S THE POINT.
 
Travis L. said:
So what your saying is that Erwitt waited for the "decisive moment" to snap this pic.......I thought that was the point.
I'm sorry but I don't get your argument.

All photographs rely on timing, often what we see in a still picture wasn't their seconds before, and is gone seconds later. Again THAT"S THE POINT.
Click to expand...

Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

Obviously we all hope to capture the moment that we think says something important. What it comes down to is that I didn't like the little wink that accompanies this particular moment.
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--
Click to expand...

OK, fine- no problem having an opinion, but don't think it's more than that.

mabelsound said:
I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense- now you are being silly. You have no business speculating on the truth of "the scene in question". You weren't there; to make a comment about an image as being irrepresentative of the scene is not only arrogant but absurd. Every photographer exercises editorial perogative, both when we choose what moment to make an image, and when we choose what images to display. To say one is "lying"- I'm sorry, I'll retract that- "a kind of dishonesty" (whatever- same thing)- because of what they share is ridiculous.
 
mabelsound said:
Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

Obviously we all hope to capture the moment that we think says something important. What it comes down to is that I didn't like the little wink that accompanies this particular moment.
Click to expand...


This has to be the strangest thread I have seen here in a while. But this last statement is hilarious. What a bunch of bull****.
 
mabelsound said:
Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty. I explained this in an earlier post, and kind of retracted the word "lie"; I agree now that it was too strong for what I was trying to say. I had used it to be provocative.

Obviously we all hope to capture the moment that we think says something important. What it comes down to is that I didn't like the little wink that accompanies this particular moment.
Click to expand...

I'm speechless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom