CactusJuice
Member
I don't have these thoughts about iconic photos. They didn't just appear out of thin air. There was a lot of critical and social vetting. If I could produce an iconic photo, I would. I don't have to like every iconic photo I see but I respect the talent that went into producing each one.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yes in the arts history and time have a way of weeding out the riff-raff. Most of the great work whether it's painting or photographs have strong visual elements to help us decide the validity of the piece. How fluent we are in the language that all visual artists rely on is key in helping artist communicate visual ideas.
Thats not to be confused with rules because a real understanding of this frees artists and photographers from rules. And this comes from over 2,000 years of two dimensional art.
It sometimes takes time to see how one artist of photographer influenced others. How the work might have moved the conversation and changed the language. How that artists/photographer fit into a larger art movement.
Also one great photograph no more makes a great photographer than one great at bat makes an MVP. Its more about bodies of work.
Sometimes... sure. However, you cannot compare yourself to the past and expect to get the same recognition. Times have changed and tastes change. The masters were sometimes the first person to do what they did. The "filller" in their books are by no means bad photographs by any stretch. The key usually is that they were there to make a body of work, during the right time in history, and met the right people to get their work known.
Sparrow
Veteran
"... you could not step twice into the same river"
Heraclitus
Heraclitus
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Good is still good no matter when it was created. Sometimes it takes history and time to see what is or isn't truly valid. Thats one reason many don't achieve any recognition until long after they are gone.
I think in any body of work you should think of each individual piece kind of like a piece of a puzzle with a greater whole that will be produced. In all great bodies of work each piece has definite purpose and is part of a greater and larger whole.
Heres a great short piece on Robert Franks The Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag
Certainly. I cannot disagree with any of the aforementioned.
Thanks, hadn't seen it yet. I'll check it out.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I have to say that I disagree with the whole statement. In my opinion, all art is about the individual's response to any given artefact. I also believe that any claim to the contrary is simply the denial of the right of others to hold a contrary view to that of the claimant.
I'm not so sure that what you are saying and what we are saying are mutually exclusive though. I believe that we are talking about it from the perspective of someone making art and you appear to be talking about it from the perspective of the viewer of art.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
He seem to be talking about what Weston referred to is recording the obvious and trying to argue that the obvious or the recording of the object (artefact) as a noun is in some way art which would be the farthest thing from the truth in most cases.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I rather think they are mutually exclusive, because art only exists, in my opinion, in the eye of the beholder. If you like, my belief is that the artist proposes but the viewer disposes. Therefor, I suggest, that only the viewer can judge the quality of any art and that judgement is of necessity subjective.
However, if it saves argument, I'll accept your view if you accept mine.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Indeed. That isn't the case in photography only. Take the great Italian baroque composer Antonio Vivaldi: through his entire life he struggled with debts, often having a hard time selling his (hundreds of) concertos and operas. No one even knows where exactly he's buried, after he died in misery in Wien. Only in the 1950s, over 200 years after his death, were his 4 concertos named The Four Seasons discovered, which is what the large public of our days immediately associate his name with. I bet that work isn't even what he himself would say was his best. And he did produce quite a lot of "fillers".
So I'd also say that good is still good - and the bad is still bad (both subjectively judged though) - no matter who (with or without a name) it was created by. I invite everyone to watch this video, which actually would deserve its own post here on the forum... It's about the "could-be-iconic" pictures that perfect strangers take: http://vimeo.com/71998906
EDIT / addition: One more possible reason many don't achieve any recognition until long after they are gone is simply.. poor luck. Like in the case of Vivaldi's Fours Seasons, something may be discovered (after the author is gone) purely by chance. The lack thereof may make real photography treasures be totally unknown to us as we write.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I rather think they are mutually exclusive, because art only exists, in my opinion, in the eye of the beholder. If you like, my belief is that the artist proposes but the viewer disposes. Therefor, I suggest, that only the viewer can judge the quality of any art and that judgement is of necessity subjective.
However, if it saves argument, I'll accept your view if you accept mine.
What you like and dislike is very subjective. Art on the other hand is not as suggestive as many think. We can certainly dislike some work but understand fully why it is important and considered art. And there are lots of things that we like that are not art. This can be said for any art form.
However, if it saves argument, I'll accept your view if you accept mine.
Sounds good to me.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Oh, I think art is very "suggestive", when it's not being blatant.
As to the argument that art has objective value, I simply think that to be a mistaken opinion. As I said to JS, I'll accept your opinion if you'll accept mine.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I'm not sure how you can mesh the above with the below.
Can you clarify?
Are you saying that if something was considered "good" in 1913, it is still good in 2013?
Or are you saying that even if it wasn't considered "good" in 1913, but we see it as such now in 2013, then it was good all along?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I would say what you like and dislike is subjective and that quite alright but again history show that art isn't as suggestive as many think. And i never said " that art has objective value" but I do think there are objective ways to evaluate art. Everything is not art.
Heres a couple of things I think that support my statement.
http://www.slideshare.net/jaimehdz/language-of-visual-art
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm
From the bottom of the first page in the last link and I agree.
"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."
Heres a couple of things I think that support my statement.
http://www.slideshare.net/jaimehdz/language-of-visual-art
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm
From the bottom of the first page in the last link and I agree.
"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."
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm saying good is good and sometimes it takes time for the masses to see what is good. It was good in 1913 it just wasn't seen by the masses as good. Remember impressionism was not well received in its day.
The post impressionist Van Gogh is just one of many that would fall into the ranks of not being recognized during his time.
A great quote by The great dancer Martha Graham.
"No artist is ahead of his time. He is his time; it is just that others are behind the times."
Martha Graham
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That's a good example of what this thread was originally about. It's an "Ipse dixit" and everyone is expected to accept it. In my opinion, such statements are so much empty text.
Now, if you were to talk about objective standards of draughtsmanship, or of craftsmanship, then that would be entirely different. In the former case you could measure how accurately the scene was recorded, in the latter, you could measure how smooth the finish or how tight the joint. Of course, there would be a different discussion to be had about setting those standards but it would be a discussion about objective criteria and therefor valid, in my opinion.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It's not luck really, it's marketing. The most famous artists are probably more famous than their artwork. Everybody knows Picasso's name, but how many people could name more than one or two of his paintings off the top of their head? Basically nobody.
People like Warhol, Dali, Picasso - promoted the hell out of themselves to get where they were. And it's nothing new of course, even Hokusai put on "exhibitions" painting giant images solely for the sake of getting attention from a crowd. Bach was better known in his own day as a performer of music rather than a composer, and so on.
Look at Atget for example - he was hardly diddling about in secret his whole life, but it wasn't until his work was promoted by others that it started to get serious attention. Atget didn't see his own work as art, so he didn't push it as such. It took Man Ray and others to push it to build his reputation.
The number of memorable artists who are "discovered" is a drop in the bucket of those who blew their own trumpet incessantly throughout their career. Heck if Atget didn't sell his photos in a shop, he wouldn't have even gotten noticed by the people who promoted his work after his death. Think about how many Atgets and Lartigues are still out there undiscovered.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
That's the problem though. What's "good" changes based on people's experiences. What wasn't good in 1913 - wasn't good in 1913. If it is good now, it's only because now we have experienced things which have changed how we perceive things to be good.
There is no such thing as inherent good. Good is always subjective. A boat is good for crossing water. A boat is bad for crossing a mountain. So is a boat a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on the circumstances. Though one could argue that a boat is objectively good for crossing water, it is also objectively bad for crossing a mountain. So it is still not inherently good, even if objectively good or bad depending on context.
Art I think is much the same way. It's just art. Whether it's good, or whether it's bad depends on the circumstances. Sometimes what was good decades ago isn't good today. Sometimes something that just confused or bored people decades ago, is today very interesting and good. It doesn't become good retroactively, because people's ideas of what was good were different long ago, and we don't have time machines to go back and convince them otherwise.