tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Technique is only part of the picture. No pun intended.
Many people have made technically good art, which turned out uninteresting.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I am not talking about technique at all. And if you watch the video of the reading of what Stieglitz had written it is dealing with esthetics as am I. See post # 36
://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2200276&postcount=36
Stieglitz made both esthetically valid images and technically sound images. In fact the image in question was the beginning of an art movement that actually allowed photography to start being taken seriously as an art form. Before this image photography was mostly pictorial (even Stieglitz) which were photographs trying to imitate painting. For photography to stand on its on it had to do the things that it did best and this image some historians believe was the beginning of straight photography which really didn't hit full stride until a decade or two later.
://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2200276&postcount=36
Stieglitz made both esthetically valid images and technically sound images. In fact the image in question was the beginning of an art movement that actually allowed photography to start being taken seriously as an art form. Before this image photography was mostly pictorial (even Stieglitz) which were photographs trying to imitate painting. For photography to stand on its on it had to do the things that it did best and this image some historians believe was the beginning of straight photography which really didn't hit full stride until a decade or two later.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Where are you reading this? Technique as I am referring to deals with nuts bolts of it all. The shutter speeds , f/stops etc. As far as esthetics have you opened and read anything I posted?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I did, and Stieglitz was speaking about composition, diagonal lines, shapes, etc. I presumed you posted the link to point out that his work was "objectively" good. But you can only be objective about technique, not aesthetics. If aesthetics had any intrinsic value, then art around the world would not display so many varied approaches and aesthetic goals, I'd think.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Esthetics can be discussed objectively. I'm not talking about rules. I am talking about visual language that is over 2000 years old and is in a constant state of subtle change. Being fluent in the language frees you from rules because what works in say A if the same approach is applied in B it fails miserably. Here:
http://www.slideshare.net/jaimehdz/language-of-visual-art
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm
And from the bottom of page 1 in the last link
"The important point to remember is that we should all feel free to like or dislike what we will, on grounds of personal taste. HOWEVER, please note that there is a distinction between personal taste or preference and objective judgements of success or failure in a work of design or art. It is possible to recognize that a work is successful and significant, even though it does not suit our personal taste. It should be clear that unless one can lay claim to a high level of expertise it is rather immoderate to condemn a work as "bad" just because one doesn't like it. It is important for an artist to understand this distinction, and even more so for a designer, who will surely be called upon to do creative work in a framework of someone else's tastes and ideas.
It is possible to learn how these objective judgements are made."
From being fluent in the language makes these statements valid. These photographers were all fluent.
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals
http://www.slideshare.net/jaimehdz/language-of-visual-art
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm
And from the bottom of page 1 in the last link
"The important point to remember is that we should all feel free to like or dislike what we will, on grounds of personal taste. HOWEVER, please note that there is a distinction between personal taste or preference and objective judgements of success or failure in a work of design or art. It is possible to recognize that a work is successful and significant, even though it does not suit our personal taste. It should be clear that unless one can lay claim to a high level of expertise it is rather immoderate to condemn a work as "bad" just because one doesn't like it. It is important for an artist to understand this distinction, and even more so for a designer, who will surely be called upon to do creative work in a framework of someone else's tastes and ideas.
It is possible to learn how these objective judgements are made."
From being fluent in the language makes these statements valid. These photographers were all fluent.
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
...or not as the case may be.
:angel:
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Ok, how the heck do you say something is objectively "good" as an artwork, and then say there are no rules? YOU CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE WITHOUT STANDARDS. IF A QUALITY CANNOT BE MEASURED IT CANNOT BE OBJECTIVELY GAUGED. This is not that hard to understand.
You CANNOT measure aesthetic value objectively. Any scale you devise will be arbitrary on some level. Period.
Further design is an entirely different world on the basis of objective success. If a design does not live up to the design intent it is not successful. Although aesthetics will have some role in whether or not the design is successful or not, they are not the end all, be all of the matter. Nor can they be objectively judged good or bad because - there is no objective way to quantify the "goodness" of aesthetic values. Art obviously is different because while it has intent, it does not have a specific function really - unlike say a chair. A chair with one leg that cannot stand up on its own would be a design failure, no matter how beautiful it may look. On the other hand a chair with one leg that cannot stand up on its own may be perfectly valid as an artist's expression about some thought or other, and if interesting enough and conveying the message the artist has to an audience, may be successful as a work of art. Whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not though is an entirely different issue.
You CANNOT measure aesthetic value objectively. Any scale you devise will be arbitrary on some level. Period.
Further design is an entirely different world on the basis of objective success. If a design does not live up to the design intent it is not successful. Although aesthetics will have some role in whether or not the design is successful or not, they are not the end all, be all of the matter. Nor can they be objectively judged good or bad because - there is no objective way to quantify the "goodness" of aesthetic values. Art obviously is different because while it has intent, it does not have a specific function really - unlike say a chair. A chair with one leg that cannot stand up on its own would be a design failure, no matter how beautiful it may look. On the other hand a chair with one leg that cannot stand up on its own may be perfectly valid as an artist's expression about some thought or other, and if interesting enough and conveying the message the artist has to an audience, may be successful as a work of art. Whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not though is an entirely different issue.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I too, agree with the Tuna.
Sparrow
Veteran
This one? "... and while I accept the sistine chapel ceiling is better art than Tracey Emin's bed but I insist both are art, and that, that may not always be the case"?
...if so then yes, I stand by that
without getting bogged down with a particular genre or artist I think the following;
I believe in Bertrand Russell's definition of existence, therefore as we are both discussing it for the purpose of our discussion the art does in fact exist.
I believe that artists create things to communicate and conceive their imagined art before its production.
I believe that in the viewing of that art the viewer perceives the created work, but that perception does not necessarily communicate what the artist intended.
Therefore the artist conceives, the viewer perceives and the art inhabits the space between the two
PS I also believe the the post number 63 reference was a result of my myopic inadequacies
airfrogusmc
Veteran
And again we are all free to like and dislike what ever and theres nothing wrong with that but whether one piece is better art than another is really subjective but the reality is real art is not competitive. One persons view of the world, if its truly honest, can not be more valid than someone else's, just different. It's their reality. This is now running in circles so I am outta here. I will take PMs.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Learning the things I posted links frees you from rules. There is no one right way to make any image. These tools will free you from rules and its what artist, designers and photographs use every day. I do in the commercial world I work in. I work with art directors, graphic designers and other visual professionals that rely on this stuff everyday. My personal work relies on my ability to use these visual tools and again they are not rules. What works in A may or may not work in B.
Sparrow
Veteran
A work which is conceived and not perceived can have an existence? comprehension is a requisite I would think
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I honestly cannot tell if you're being a troll or not at this point.
So you disagree with your own idea earlier stated, that work that is good is always good, even if unappreciated? That if an audience judges a work good now it has always been good?
You cannot reconcile that thought with your statement above.
All of which implies that "good" can be objectively evaluated. But you cannot objectively evaluate the "goodness" of a piece. What is "good" aesthetically is entirely up to perception and nothing more. There are no rules or standards which are not at some level arbitrary about judging what is good or bad aesthetically.
One could note for instance that a lot of people still don't care for impressionism. Probably the most important aspect of impressionism is its place in history in taking painting down a new path, which of course could not be appreciated fully right at the start. Does that mean it was good all along, before anybody even knew where it was going or what influence it would have? Or did it become good only after people recognized its importance?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
And now come the personal attacks just because you clearly do not understand the links I posted. It's not just me that believes this. The more fluent you become in your visual language skills the more you become free from rules. Is that so hard to understand? Many of the artist and photographers I posted have very similar philosophies as I pointed out with their quotes. One thing that's certain is the return to Plato's Cave can be dangerous LoL
From Jerome Eddy and the book Cubists and Post Impressionism:
"It is the characteristic of little man to ridicule everything he does not understand" -Jerome Eddy
And with that PM me because it's official I am outta this thread.
From Jerome Eddy and the book Cubists and Post Impressionism:
"It is the characteristic of little man to ridicule everything he does not understand" -Jerome Eddy
And with that PM me because it's official I am outta this thread.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I would figure that if you understand the point you're trying to make you could explain it here. I'm not arguing against visual language skills or any of that. I'm just trying to grasp how one can say that something can be objectively good, truly good, and at the same time say that there are no rules for what is good. You cannot say that something is objectively good - and then say there is no right or wrong way to judge whether it is good or not. That doesn't make any sense.
This I suppose takes us back to the original post.
This I suppose takes us back to the original post.