Flat, soulless and stupid.

photomoof said:
Could have fooled me, I thought painting was something entirely different, good to know.

I should have known better than to go for that bargain MFA!
Click to expand...

Da Vinci recording anatomy. Painters throughout history doing studies of specific locations over the course of weeks, months, etc. to record light/judge and understand light. Picasso, a master already as a young teenager, experimenting and inventing different styles, often hearkening back to more archaic styles of painting. Different styles emerging from every part of the globe. Different techniques. Different tools. Different ingredients in paints and inks. Different mediums, be it canvas, scrolls, ceilings. Further, many of these painters were also sculptors, scientists, inventors, writers. We've had 35,000 years of development when it comes to painting. And as a permanent art, it is more adaptable, simple, and close to the human condition as art can get. Sculpture, song, etc. are similar in that regard. And I know sculpture predates painting, but I don't know about song (probably)

If you think photography has anything approaching the complexity or pedigree of painting or any of the other traditional fine art, then I have news for you.
 
Think too many of us are comparing 'subjective views' to 'eternal truths.' since UH OH addressed his remarks to me I direct my reply to him. [first may I respectively suggest you not put incorrect words into my mouth - I am quite good at doing that for myself.] However, I note that several people here voiced similar sentiments. So I hasten to assure all that I never suggested it is not interesting, or even important, to know how a final project was arrived at. I am saying the final work should not be judged on that. When I view an object of art I do not withhold judgment until a little sign informs me how long the artist worked at his product, or whether his fingers bled when he ground his pigment. Don't think anyone whispered of Rembrandt that it is rumored he did not hand- carve his frames. As to your sister and her friend's art, Uh Oh, I am puzzled as to them growing "their own pulp." As in forest do you mean? I am also puzzled, forgive me, at the statement "pretty cutting edge in the states right now." Wow. Are you talking all parts of the US - I mean like rural areas and big cities? .................. Or only on college campuses and maybe in some art galleries? I feel self-conscious in admitting I have never heard of that kind of art. Though I will readily admit I like very much the looks of it - and also of your niece's lovely sculpture ........................ and I liked them both without even knowing how hard they worked to produce them. Further - in judging the "value" [not monetary] - as in "classic" for instance, applied to work that stood the test of time, not was "cutting edge" at any one point in history.

But I confess I do not travel in such rarefied circles. I have spent my life producing commercial art [now referred to as graphic art, but sadly, I pre-date this vocational correctness.] And while your relatives find abhorrent the idea of "rich people" collecting their stuff, [how do they prevent it I must wonder?] and as you nicely point out do not need the money, I only have the fact that people were willing to pay me for my work - without ever asking whether it was making me breathe hard - as confirming it had any worth - to anybody, rich or poor.

Works of art, mostly do, I think - and should - stand on how they strike the viewer or listener. The rest is sophistry, or misplaced intellectualism, needless [though fun] analyzing, and sometimes posturing.

footnote: By the way the whole business of people thinking they have discovered some secret about painters in finding they used, some form of tool such as one version or another of camera oscuri is silly. If you enjoy a steak prepared by an outstanding chef, before praising him, do you ask if he raised the cattle, rounded it up and carved it from the bone?

But, speaking of carcasses, is this horse now beat enough?
 
Ugh, Pattern Recognition was such a sellout pos. Count Zero cleansed of the cyberpunk. Terrible. Go to a used bookstore and there will be 4 copies of pattern recognition and maybe a virtual light. And what the hell happened to Neil Stephenson? Sow Crash and then all downhill to REAMDE, which instead of describing something happening, or existing, it's alluded to in generalities in context of the societal structure. Long and so boring.
 
Yes right, I'm not the most conscientious speller, but I did like Sow Crash.

:)

"THEY sent A SLAMHOUND on Turner’s trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT. He didn’t see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel.

Because he had a good agent, he had a good contract. Because he had a good contract, he was in Singapore an hour after the explosion. Most of him, anyway The Dutch surgeon liked to joke about that, how an unspecified percentage ofTurner hadn’t made it out of Palam International on that first flight and had to spend the night there in a shed, in a support vat.

It took the Dutchman and his team three months to put Turner together again. They cloned a square meter of skin for him, grew it on slabs of collagen and shark-cartilage polysaccharides. They bought eyes and genitals on the open market. The eyes were green."
 
Yeah this argument was settled almost century ago yet there are those that are still fighting a war that has been over since the birth of straight photography. The problem is there are so many photographs that have such little real content today because there are millions of photographers creating images that don't go beyond the obvious. As a viewer, you look, you see, no reason to stay and look. Immediate gratification. The work of many of the great photographers demands more than a quick glance. A great quote by Ralph Gibson on the subject.

"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson
 
NO! I'll stick to gibson. That glibertarian **** doesn't do it for me, it's not even sci fi. That one about the monks was almost worth the slog. Not a whole lot out there these days.

:)
 
photomoof said:
Stewart knows his art history. :)

When I was getting my MFA, I slept a lot, they were always waking me during slide shows.
Click to expand...

Yes. How is Samourai's statement If you think photography has anything approaching the complexity or pedigree of painting or any of the other traditional fine art, then I have news for you. romantic?
 
Hmmm Didn't know degree of difficulty or a pedigree = art....

With photography a big part of the art is in the seeing. Seeing the scene complete at the moment of exposure. With digital that is a shifting process but in some ways has always been. See the work of Uelsmann and you can even go back to the near the beginning, Henry Peach Robinson.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Hmmm Didn't know degree of difficulty or a pedigree = art....

With photography a big part of the art is in the seeing. Seeing the scene complete at the moment of exposure. With digital that is a shifting process but in some ways has always been. See the work of Uelsmann and you can even go back to the near the beginning, Henry Peach Robinson.
Click to expand...

... sadly to a avoid all art being equally valued one has to accept that the critics and connoisseurs know more about the work than these chaps on rff who can remember the names of more than six artists :)
 
LoL but i was very serious when I was in school. Had a family to support and the GI bill didn't go to far so shot weddings on the weekends and school during the week. It all paid off.

It took film photograph over 80 years to find it's voice. I wonder were the digital revolution will take us. It is just an infant now. I'm sure it will find it's own voice. Probably not the voice, including myself, most now want it to be...
 
Shirley Creazzo said:
Think too many of us are comparing 'subjective views' to 'eternal truths.' since UH OH addressed his remarks to me I direct my reply to him. [first may I respectively suggest you not put incorrect words into my mouth - I am quite good at doing that for myself.] However, I note that several people here voiced similar sentiments. So I hasten to assure all that I never suggested it is not interesting, or even important, to know how a final project was arrived at. I am saying the final work should not be judged on that. When I view an object of art I do not withhold judgment until a little sign informs me how long the artist worked at his product, or whether his fingers bled when he ground his pigment. Don't think anyone whispered of Rembrandt that it is rumored he did not hand- carve his frames. As to your sister and her friend's art, Uh Oh, I am puzzled as to them growing "their own pulp." As in forest do you mean? I am also puzzled, forgive me, at the statement "pretty cutting edge in the states right now." Wow. Are you talking all parts of the US - I mean like rural areas and big cities? .................. Or only on college campuses and maybe in some art galleries? I feel self-conscious in admitting I have never heard of that kind of art. Though I will readily admit I like very much the looks of it - and also of your niece's lovely sculpture ........................ and I liked them both without even knowing how hard they worked to produce them. Further - in judging the "value" [not monetary] - as in "classic" for instance, applied to work that stood the test of time, not was "cutting edge" at any one point in history.

But I confess I do not travel in such rarefied circles. I have spent my life producing commercial art [now referred to as graphic art, but sadly, I pre-date this vocational correctness.] And while your relatives find abhorrent the idea of "rich people" collecting their stuff, [how do they prevent it I must wonder?] and as you nicely point out do not need the money, I only have the fact that people were willing to pay me for my work - without ever asking whether it was making me breathe hard - as confirming it had any worth - to anybody, rich or poor.

Works of art, mostly do, I think - and should - stand on how they strike the viewer or listener. The rest is sophistry, or misplaced intellectualism, needless [though fun] analyzing, and sometimes posturing.

footnote: By the way the whole business of people thinking they have discovered some secret about painters in finding they used, some form of tool such as one version or another of camera oscuri is silly. If you enjoy a steak prepared by an outstanding chef, before praising him, do you ask if he raised the cattle, rounded it up and carved it from the bone?

But, speaking of carcasses, is this horse now beat enough?
Click to expand...

Hi Shirley,
1st apologies for "putting words in your mouth", not my intention. It's easy to misunderstand posts on a forum, and this very often happens right here, and I've seen many a flaming argument over a complete misreading of a post LOL

It seems to have made you suspicious of my juxtaposition of other modern mediums in which process, from start to finish, is an intregal part of the art or craft, or at least pretends to be.

Yes they grow their pulp in gardens:

L1016422 by unoh7, on Flickr

As to whether it's "cutting edge" or even "art":

"I feel self-conscious in admitting I have never heard of that kind of art."

I'd say if it is art and you have not heard of it that, might support my contention, LOL. I would not know much about it myself, if not for my sister. And I'm certainly no expert. But it's a new and very interesting trend in no way confined to universities, and I see examples on the walls of a number of my well to do computer clients.

But really fine book making is not new at all and has a deeper historical progeny than photography: consider illuminated manuscripts. It's been lately re-invented in very interesting ways.

"such rarefied circles" oh come on, Shirley. It's the information age. Anyone can travel, or at least keep up with any circle they choose. This just seems like a put down of academia.

"I only have the fact that people were willing to pay me for my work - without ever asking whether it was making me breathe hard - as confirming it had any worth - to anybody, rich or poor."

Van Gogh and Maier didn't even have that. Meanwhile at the same time, people now obscure were raking it in. :)

This attitude--who cares about the rich collectors-- surprised me too, and last nite, my wife objected, noting many great artists dependence on patrons.

In fact Universities today are some of the greatest patrons of art and science. I imagine that historically many artists have been selective in choosing their patrons, so really, on consideration, it's nothing new, and I admire it.

"Works of art, mostly do, I think - and should - stand on how they strike the viewer or listener."

In one instant? In one viewing? In five viewings? With no context? With no reflection on process? Practically every new medium has started out by striking proponents of status quo or dominant mediums as ghastly.

"strike" implies it all happens in an instant. I don't think you really mean that. But I will go ahead. Like all of us I see a million shots, and a few are really striking. Stunning. Like beautiful people.

That's great. Like picking a mate on Tinder.
http://player.vimeo.com/video/111080451
Maybe that's the hallmark of the medium of photography. Or not. Think Maplethorpe.

Of Course in Photomoof's "real world" first impressions can be very misleading. :)

"If you enjoy a steak prepared by an outstanding chef, before praising him, do you ask if he raised the cattle, rounded it up and carved it from the bone?"

The provenance of ingredients in cuisine is a big deal for many patrons, and certainly effects the outcome in many cases. In fact, it might taste great, and you're dead by sundown.

"But, speaking of carcasses, is this horse now beat enough?"

By the "how it strikes you" art ethos, if I'm reading it right (unlikely), one blow should be enough, right? A single strike.

Some horses are tougher than you think and might just give the beater a kick in the head, from the afterlife, as it were... LOL

Anyway, your posts have me thinking, and we have a discussion. That's what I like, as opposed to the penchant for cute dismissive quips so common in forums, they are just meaningless snaps by and large :) Selfies. With some exceptions, I admit. OK some of them are pretty dang funny like "I prefer bag threads, myself"

God forbid any of us learns anything new here :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom