First posts to Gallery with CV 35/2.5 and CV 15

[djon]

Beauty was said by Koiti Motagawa, a once-famous Japanese research psychologist, to be the result of pleasure that's hard-wired into the eye itself...he said we liked some eye experiences (eg certain curves or the golden mean) more than others because of the way the eye is constructed. But then it was discovered that ten or twenty years of his research and publication was faked, or at best a matter of bad science and self-deception. 🙂

 

[Theo-Prof]

Photography, like other relationships with existence, it addressed better by honest people than by theologians. Words about "important" things are valuable when written by poets and novelists. People who can, do.

Today's horror in London is the work of religionists, guided by theologians.

Djon,

Had you read this entire thread you would have seen that I was reluctant to address theological matters in this forum. I did so only after Dominic expressly asked me to. I commented because I believed that he was seriously interested in hearing what I might say. While it appears that Dominic and I have differing views on matters philosophical and theological, we have been able to carry on a collegial and respectful conversation without name calling or hateful accusations. However, I am disappointed that your comments directed at me do not rise to the same level. I continue to hope for greater things from members of this forum and hope that you and I might be able to coexist peacefully.

Kevin

 

[FrankS]

Hi guys,

Before there is a response to the last response, let's all just take a breather and walk away for a while. If either of you needs to take this farthur, please do so via personal messages to each other, please.

 

[dominicLF]

Ugly Pix

Ugly Pix

Dominic,

You make some very interesting points. However, I have to disagree with you on at least one point. I do not grant that being made in God's image necessitates that we are made of the divine substance. When theologians use the phrase "creatio ex nihilo" they mean only to say that God did not use previously existing materials; God not only created all that we see but also the "stuff" out of which it is made. Nor when theologians say that God created out of "nothing" do we mean that God used some substance called "nothing." For one thing this just opens up another whole can of worms; predicating existence to "nothing," i.e., calling "nothing" a "something." So, I do not think that the concept of the image of God necessitates a pantheism or panentheism, much less that all that we see is merely an emanation of God, or the "One," (e.g. Plotinus).

Your comments about the image of God and BAD pictures is an interesting point. Theologians have said for millennia that something has gone terribly wrong with humanity's ability to reflect acurately the image of God. I could go on but I don't want to "preach."

I would like to read more about your comment on theodicy. I think you mean that if everything that exists emanates from the divine substance (which I do not think I must grant), then whatever is or whatever happens is just the outworking of God. Thus if we grant that God is Good, then everything that happens is Good by definition (even bad photos). I think this is what you mean but I may be mistaken. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What I would like to hear someone comment on is the question of aesthetics itself. Certainly someone in the forum would be willing to contribute their thoughts on the notion of beauty itself and from where it derives. This could be an interesting conversation.

Kevin

Hey, Kevin, I bet you didn’t think your pictures of wildflowers would be so incendiary!

You understood where I was coming from perfectly. However, I certainly was not arguing that pantheism is the only intelligible description of creation, just that I have some sympathy for the position and that it is a position that makes sense out of your claim that photography shows us the Image of God. I take Spinoza’s arguments as instructive. Something must me created by something with at least the same or more force, vivacity, and substance. That is the relation of God to Creation. Thus, when we see something expressed in a photo, we see also the traces of its causal connections to the divine substance. The extent to which we can see divinity through the art is Beauty. To the extent that these connections are obscured (or inaccurately reflected, as you put it) you have ugliness—Bad Pics. Since everything proceeds from God, it’s all good, but there are varying degrees to which things are ordered toward that goodness. Thus even the bad pics show us something.
As it is, your description of creatio ex nihilo is nothing short of miraculous and probably appeals more to revelation or tradition than reason. So, as I see it, this problem of the BAD PIC (or UGLY PIC, to keep us in aesthetics) looms. What is really being expressed? Is it always God, or were you just focusing on the positive?

 

[Theo-Prof]

. . . . . . . As it is, your description of creatio ex nihilo is nothing short of miraculous and probably appeals more to revelation or tradition than reason. So, as I see it, this problem of the BAD PIC (or UGLY PIC, to keep us in aesthetics) looms. What is really being expressed? Is it always God, or were you just focusing on the positive?

Dominic, as I see it an appeal to revelation or tradition is an appeal to an authority, just as reason is an authority; just one of several possible authorities. (Even science makes appeals to authority.)

My original comments about the image of God were directed more towards the issue of the urge we have to be creative than the product of that creativity, or even the relative merits of that product.

But moving on to the issue of aesthetics, I am curious about members' views on aesthetics and photography. What makes a "good" (or rather "beautiful") photo beautiful? This certainly raises the issues of truth and beauty itself, but that is probably too large of a topic for this forum. However, It would still be good to read what people think.

Kevin

 

[FrankS]

I don't think of photographic images as beautiful or not. I look at an image and it is either interesting or boring to me, which is something personally subjective. I find an image interesting or boring based on my set of lifetime experiences and personality traits.

I don't think there are any objective measures of truth or beauty (beyond the most general and obvious attraction of males to a female form, appreciation of pristine nature, or perhaps human spirit.)

As an example of my point is how people react to sunset photos. In the beginning of my photography experience I strove to take "beautiful" sunset picturres. After 30 years of photography, I find sunset photos trite while other folks declare, "How beautiful!"

Art appreciation depends to a huge extent on what the viewer brings to the table, rather than being about absolutes.

This is just my personal opinion, formed by my personal experiences and personality traits.

Interesting topic!

 

[djon]

I'm generally in agreement with Frank's comments except that I'm less inclined to label a thing "trite" if its well done. I admire good commercial work, no matter how shallow. Like Frank says, it has to do with what you bring to the table...I was challenged for fifteen years by shallow commercial work.

Avedon is my idea of an ultimate photographer, along with Penn and Weston. They photograph objects, nudes, and personalities with jaw-dropping insight. I've never understood how people put higher value on the work of Ansel Adams, yet I'm a backpacker and have spent a lot of time in Adams' mountains. I like the sex in Weston and the excitement and sophistication in Penn and Avedon and the driven character of all three more than I like isolated artists specializing in rocks and trees (maybe it's like Ronald Reagan said, you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all :-(

 

[back alley]

impact.

it's all about impact.
if the pic makes me go wow or not.

joe

 

[djon]

http://www.haskins.com/PentaxCal/Pentax_01.html

Go wow ? 🙂

Djon

 

[FrankS]

Here's another question: when you look at a picture, do you think about the subject or the image of the subject, or both?

 

[djon]

I don't think about it initially. See Joe's statement about "impact."

It's only an image, not necessarily an image "of"something. If it's strong it stands alone. If I think about it, it's because I'm curious ...but that's stage two and it's not nearly as important as the first response.

 

[FrankS]

Another way to put this is, do you see the TV, the TV screen, and the image on the TV screen; or do you (figuratively) "stick your head inside the TV" and connect completely with the subject in the image without regard to the medium?

Do you hold a picture of a flower in your hand and say: this is an image of a flower, or do you say: this is a flower?

Does the distinction matter?

 

[djon]

Frank, what do you do in those situations? 🙂

 

[Doug]

when you look at a picture, do you think about the subject or the image of the subject, or both?

This may be connected to the visual sophistication of the viewer. I've often been frustrated by the reactions of some to my proud display of a favored photo, when their entire reaction is based on the identification of the subject. If the photo subject isn't immediately identifiable, then such a viewer is puzzled and cannot react. Some will buy a piece because it agrees with the color scheme of the place they plan to put it. I think it takes more visual education to notice and appreciate the non-subject attributes, essentially the art aspects of the piece. But there's no doubt the subject and how it's handled has a major impact!

 

[FrankS]

Doug, you're supporting the idea that art and art appreciation depends on what the viewer "brings to the table".

Djon, I guess it's because of my photography background/experiences (what I bring to the table) I usually analyse the image as a photograph first, then I connect to the subject. This can be seen as a jaded viewpoint, lacking the spontanaity of a child's ability to see beauty without filters/too much thinking. I think that sometimes with a really powerful image (subjective, on my part) I can connect with the subject first, before the meta-cognition kicks in.

 

[dominicLF]

Flowers

Flowers

Another way to put this is, do you see the TV, the TV screen, and the image on the TV screen; or do you (figuratively) "stick your head inside the TV" and connect completely with the subject in the image without regard to the medium?

Do you hold a picture of a flower in your hand and say: this is an image of a flower, or do you say: this is a flower?

Does the distinction matter?

Great distinction, Frank. One might take it another layer further. When you hold a flower in your hand, do you say "this is a flower", or do you say "this is a particularly beautiful instance of Flower"? Do you see the flower or the Beauty that underlies it? Even what you are calling the actual "subject" is really representational to the extent that it is beautiful, to the extent that it represents Beauty well. Theologians might make this distinction as idolatry vs iconicity. An idol purports to be what it represents. An icon is like a window into transcendence. What do our photos do in this regard? Do some photos have impact in themselves, or do they owe their impact to something else. If it is something else, what? You can trace the something else causally. From photo to subject and composition, from subject and composition to ideas about beauty and the significance of the subject matter, from this aesthetic standpoint and sense of significance to….what further?

 

[FrankS]

Do some photos have impact in themselves, or do they owe their impact to something else. If it is something else, what?

This something else, which theologians would want to characterise as an absolute thing of some sort, I believe, depends on what the viewer brings to the table with him/her. Some photos are going to be powerful to some people and do nothing for others, based on their particular experiences to date.

(Can you tell I'm a humanist? although I do believe in a divine, but not in the sense of a God who messes about in people's lives.)

 

[djon]

When I see a flower, I am struck by awe. The more I look at it, the more awe, the more I know about it, the more awe. The more I know, the more questions I have and the more awe I have. The more answers I'm given, the less awe. Ergo...