... greater than its parts?

S

Sparrow

Veteran
Local time
12:29 AM
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
12,418
Can the sum, of a photographer's work, be greater than the constituent parts?

It's an argument often made by people in support of one photographer or other that I don't recall being made in other artistic genera.
 
Stewart,

This is true of all forms of art, and is a basic concept within art history. Even the greatest artists are judged by their overall body of work. Consider someone like Gianlorenzo Bernini. Any of his individual sculptures seen alone is incredible, but what makes him truly great, the greatest sculptor in history according to many historians, is the fact that he was able to produce work of such quality consistently over a very long lifetime in a variety of media (carved marble, cast bronze) and on top of all that he was a talented architect.

Michelangelo Buonorroti was another artist whose individual work is incredible. Even he had done nothing but paint the ceiling of the Sistina, he would be regarded as a great artist. The fact that he could paint, draw, carve stone and cast bronze, and was a great architect, is what makes him a giant, head and shoulders above merely "Great" artists.
 
Trent Parke says that individual photographs mean less to him. He is always thinking of the book. There is an interview with him in the inaugural M Magazine from Leica. I bought Parke's Minutes to Midnight for my daughter on her birthday. What a book.
 
Chris,

So a poor Bernini is improved in some way simply because of its provenance?

... and how about Caravaggio, only about eighty canvasses and many of those are 'reprints'?
 
Since the sum is a different thing from the component parts, I think it follows that it could be better.
Frank's, The Americans is the often cited example, isn't it?
 
Richard G said:
Trent Parke says that individual photographs mean less to him. He is always thinking of the book. There is an interview with him in the inaugural M Magazine from Leica. I bought Parke's Minutes to Midnight for my daughter on her birthday. What a book.
Click to expand...

... yes I see that, when I did my Corfu book I ended up taking a lot of shots out that I was happy with as single photos, which meant going back and reshooting (though eh?) ... so in that case it worked the other way round
 
It's an interesting point and I think art appreciation operates at different levels.

I'm no art historian nor have I really studied art in any depth. I like what I like and my view of two pieces of the same artist's work can be poles apart. For instance, I like some of Picasso's work but wouldn't have any of his cubist works in my house. Equally, I've seen some photos taken by Martin Parr that I really like but I find others to be like seaside postcards and family snaps.

I don't expect people to agree with me but I don't make my decisions lightly. I'm not even sure that having an in-depth knowledge of art theory or even a specific artist's work will change everyone's views of the artist's work "overall". I suspect that most people will see Michaelangelo's "David" and his Sistine Chapel ceiling and be immensely impressed. Similarly, Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" and "Starry Night". There will be others who won't. Most probably wouldn't be able to name more than a couple of works by any given artist - though they may recognise other work by the artist's "style".

Therefore, other than for those who have studied / are familiar with an artist's body of work, I'm of the opinion that the majority will (rightly or wrongly) make a decision about an artist's body of work based on the artists best known works.

Then there's who's in fashion, how much the piece of art was auctioned for......
 
Paul Jenkin said:
It's an interesting point and I think art appreciation operates at different levels.

I'm no art historian nor have I really studied art in any depth. I like what I like and my view of two pieces of the same artist's work can be poles apart. For instance, I like some of Picasso's work but wouldn't have any of his cubist works in my house. Equally, I've seen some photos taken by Martin Parr that I really like but I find others to be like seaside postcards and family snaps.

I don't expect people to agree with me but I don't make my decisions lightly. I'm not even sure that having an in-depth knowledge of art theory or even a specific artist's work will change everyone's views of the artist's work "overall". I suspect that most people will see Michaelangelo's "David" and his Sistine Chapel ceiling and be immensely impressed. Similarly, Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" and "Starry Night". There will be others who won't. Most probably wouldn't be able to name more than a couple of works by any given artist - though they may recognise other work by the artist's "style".

Therefore, other than for those who have studied / are familiar with an artist's body of work, I'm of the opinion that the majority will (rightly or wrongly) make a decision about an artist's body of work based on the artists best known works.

Then there's who's in fashion, how much the piece of art was auctioned for......
Click to expand...

Yes I think that too, I have studied art and I don't know all of every artists work ... it's a nonsense to suggest anyone could.
 
I don't know if the whole can improve the quality of the individual part, but it can alter our understanding of it. If you saw only a single Arbus photograph your understanding of it would be one thing. But seeing more of her work would familiarize you with her sensibilities, interests, concerns, and in turn, enhance your understanding of the original piece. Hence, the importance of the body of work.
 
I'm on the other side of that fence ... and Diane Arbus wouldn't be my choice of specialised subject, I find it difficult to split her from Sontag's different assessments of her, and not let the suicide alter my thinking, the more I know the less I like her it seems.
 
But her work looks like her work. Liking it or not has little to with the fact she created work that reflected her. So she killed herself? So did Francesca Woodman and she was still an amazing photographer and like Arbus created a very dark body of work that was honest because we know the outcomes of both.
 
... a good career move then? ... I've always tried to take each work as I find it, knowing it and the authors history beforehand seems to be the opposite of honesty to me
 
Sparrow said:
I'm on the other side of that fence ... and Diane Arbus wouldn't be my choice of specialised subject, I find it difficult to split her from Sontag's different assessments of her, and not let the suicide alter my thinking, the more I know the less I like her it seems.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying... that Sontag's writing and Arbus' own suicide have influenced your understanding of her work?
 
Art in its purest form is a reflection of what the artist is honestly going through in life and a must do for the artist. In both of these cases they were both clearly troubled. it shows in their work thus HONEST.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Art in its purest form is a reflection of what the artist is honestly going through in life and a must do for the artist. In both of these cases they were both clearly troubled. it shows in their work thus HONEST.
Click to expand...

No, you can't just stick in a few superlatives and insist your version of the world is correct
 
Help me along.

So if you only knew 1 of Arbus' photos, Sontag and knowledge Arbus' personal history might influence your understanding of it, but seeing more of her work would not?
 
gns said:
Help me along.

So if you only new 1 of Arbus' photos, Sontag and knowledge Arbus' personal history might influence your understanding of it, but seeing more of her work would not?
Click to expand...
... so to sum up that's a yes then? ... to my original question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom