Cartier-Bresson - Surrealism and communism!

The wonders were build with the help of engineering but what made them the wonders was not only engineering but other things as well. Ever heard of the Stendhal syndrome this complete sensory overload happens when one views art or architecture not engineering feast.
 
I can sort of see the argument that all opinions are relative ... that is they may have equivalence to a third party, so all the viewers of a piece of are worthy of the same respect.

However I can't extend that equivalence to the artists who produce it, well not just artists really ... I don't accept all plumbers are equal or all doctors produce work of equal value, I've always thought such things have a hierarchy ... perhaps that's just my competitive pre PC education
 
I don't agree, I'm afraid, Dominik. I'm more impressed with St Pauls as a feat of engineering than anything else. That's what makes it great - human thought and accomplishment - though the creative context in which it sits is obviously important.
 
That's because you see it with today's eyes and that's the problem. At the time it was build it was a wonder of technology and art(architecture). The same applies to Alexander's wonders today they are nothing special but with the knowledge humanity had back then it's a different matter. Furthermore Alexander's wonders are often a culmination of art and science (natural and engineering) so saying engineering and scientific achievements are worth more than say the pyramides of gizeh shows a lack of knowledge the pyramids were technological and scientific wonders and not only architectural wonders the same applies to the hanging gardens or the coloss of Rhodes. They were scientific and engineering wonders first and art second.
 
I have to add that the division between science, art, religion and engineering is barely 200 years old before that they were seen as being part of one thing not unrelated disciplines like today. In a way I prefer the old way no liberal arts vs sciences B.S.
 
DominikDUK said:
I have to add that the division between science, art, religion and engineering is barely 200 years old before that they were seen as being part of one thing not unrelated disciplines like today. In a way I prefer the old way no liberal arts vs sciences B.S.
Click to expand...

This is the key flaw in your previous post. Science and engineering were not distinct disciplines at the time, and only the Enlightenment has crystallised any sort of distinction between architecture and civil engineering.

Personally, though I do not share a faith with Wren, yet I can still share a sense of wonder, presented with a great achievement.

fwiw, though I come from an engineering background, my degree is in the social sciences, and I have worked as a creative artist, so I'm not one for those false dichotomies myself.
 
Rodchenko my post was more to counter sejanus who felt that great iart s less important than engineering and scientific achievements while in reality there is no difference between them at least not at the time of Alexander.
 
Ansel said:
What I am not so sure about is the surrealism.. Not seen any of his images that are surrealistic. I wonder what they have discovered in this latest exhibition. Probably just marketing to get people to go and see it.
Click to expand...


I went to the exhibit last week, and I found hardly anything new, except for some "Lost and Found" photos he did for a paper way early in his "career" (quotes not mine).

I read that English article a few weeks ago, and I found it highly amusing. It was a little like the 6th grade student that runs back home and tells the whole family that the Columbus didn't discover anything, the Vikings were there first --without getting into subtle points, of course, without which render that statement completely glossed with misrepresentations.

The exhibition was well-presented, properly organized "thematically" and "chronologically". Huge turnout, even during holiday season (for my fellow English-speakers across the pond: yes, two-week school vacation that is not Summer, Christmas or Easter-related; a very un-Capitalistic thing to do)

Anyway, back to the point: there were some photographs grouped under "Surrealism" (to be in tune with the Pompidou theme du jour), which, like most Art™, may depend on the eye of the beholder. Strong hints of it (Surrealism) can be seen, as was previously pointed out, if you re-examine certain photos; some more evident than others. One can disagree on whether that's true, just like one can disagree that B&W doesn't really exist, and it's just really shades and/or absences of Gray/Grey.
 
Rodchenko my post was more to counter sejanus who felt that great iart s less important than engineering and scientific achievements
Click to expand...

Excuse me. When did I mention "iart"? 🙂

However, I don't believe in "great art". I think it's a phrase invented by elitists to foist their likes and dislikes on others. Beauty, as the saying goes, is in the eye of the beholder and no beholder's opinion carries more nor less weight than the next beholder's opinion; just as my opinion on this matter carries neither more nor less weight than the opinions of anyone else.
 
I don't accept all plumbers are equal or all doctors produce work of equal value, I've always thought such things have a hierarchy ... perhaps that's just my competitive pre PC education
Click to expand...

I agree with you that there is a difference in skill levels in all endeavours. However, that is only true where you can state an objective standard: "this doctor's patients have less pain, after treatment, than that doctor's patients, where all started from the same level of pain" or "this plumber installs a faucet in a shorter time than that plumber, where the starting conditions are similar and the faucets work as well in each case".

What objective standard can you point to in art? A Dutch Realist painting is better than a French Impressionist painting? Perhaps both are better than an Australian dot painting or a Navaho Sand Painting? Define better, define art, perhaps, even, define painting.
 
Sejanus sorry for the typo it's of course art and not iart which is probably patented by apple. 🙂 Great art the way I meant it is art that appeals to a lot of people and has an effect on them as opposed to "great art"that appeals to a few acdemics and brings money to galleries and art collectors like saatchi. Personal taste and that's what really defines the quality of art for oneself is subjective, defining great art by parroting some art historian or critic is rarely great art but great commercial success or networking. And I absolutely agree beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so are scientific/technical achievements and so on. If all had been said and done it comes down to personal taste and opinion.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Excuse me. When did I mention "iart"? 🙂

However, I don't believe in "great art". I think it's a phrase invented by elitists to foist their likes and dislikes on others. Beauty, as the saying goes, is in the eye of the beholder and no beholder's opinion carries more nor less weight than the next beholder's opinion; just as my opinion on this matter carries neither more nor less weight than the opinions of anyone else.
Click to expand...

... do you do the same with the artists themselves too, or do you think some better than others? ... (I ask out of interest not debate)
 
I like the way my thread's developed! Sorry ... carry on!

(FWIW, I also think today's separation between the arts/humanities and science is unfortunate. Worse, the polarisation has been to the detriment of both.)
 
... do you do the same with the artists themselves too, or do you think some better than others?
Click to expand...

I either like a particular item or I don't. I'm not really interested in the provenance. I know that the sellebrity culture wants consumers to idolise individuals but I find that rather "ickey". Do you worry who made something or do you base your liking on the object itself?
 
Sejanus this is one of the reasons I love medieval art the artist is nearly always unknown and only the quality of the work counts. Today the name is more important than the work screw that.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I either like a particular item or I don't. I'm not really interested in the provenance. I know that the sellebrity culture wants consumers to idolise individuals but I find that rather "ickey". Do you worry who made something or do you base your liking on the object itself?
Click to expand...

... yes I can rerate to that, and mostly agree, but that that doesn't precluded making a valuation of the worth of their work, does it?

I object to the commodification of art too BTW
 
but that that doesn't precluded making a valuation of the worth of their work, does it?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have a blind spot there. I can understand rating draughtmanship, in a technical sense, but I can't see how you can measure taste, it's just too personal, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flyfisher Tom
Henri Cartier-Bresson on the 'key' to a great photograph and "Geometry"
Replies
15
Views
2K
Magus
M
Z
Directions in Photography
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Poptart
P
Back
Top Bottom