Sparrow
Veteran
See the original post, or perhaps expand on this thought.
... I fear that is too much to ask, anyway why think about it when there is a perfectly good dogma to hand?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
So you don't think that those elements which are objective aren't in the great photographs?
I say the are so this is conversation is relevant to the OP.
I say the are so this is conversation is relevant to the OP.
Sparrow
Veteran
The OP is talking about relativism in an existential context ... the only tool we have to hit that particular nail with is perception, dogma is the wrong hammer
... 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
... 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
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Because they are good images many are still very relevant like Stieglitz's The Steerage or Steichen's Pond-Moonlight
And again your preference is very subjective. Someone else might have a different subjective preference and time will tell if Emin's piece can stand the test of time. Da Vinci has.
And again your preference is very subjective. Someone else might have a different subjective preference and time will tell if Emin's piece can stand the test of time. Da Vinci has.
Sparrow
Veteran
I was making a statement, not asking a question ... and I was making no value judgments subjective or otherwise.
Perhaps you should re-read post 63?
Perhaps you should re-read post 63?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Maybe you should be aware of what you write
"and while I accept the sistine chapel ceiling is better art than Tracey Emin's bed"
your statement says "better art" and that is better to you but I'm sure there are those that like the Emin's piece more so your statement is subjective as I stated. Its better to you.
"and while I accept the sistine chapel ceiling is better art than Tracey Emin's bed"
your statement says "better art" and that is better to you but I'm sure there are those that like the Emin's piece more so your statement is subjective as I stated. Its better to you.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Honestly I don't know how you can reconcile this line of thought with your own "if people think it is good now it has always been good" logic.
Makes me question "good" by whose standards?
MIkhail
-
It's nothing, wait until you get to Jackson Pollock's paintings!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Where are you reading that? I do believe I said history and time decide and I said also said it's always changing but I did say there are ways to figure it out on your own but that like most things takes effort and an open mind.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
LoL..............
Or Arron Siskind's, Eggelston's and Joel-Peter Witkin's photographs.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Leave poor Jack the Dripper alone!
No, really. Some of his works are most impressive but need to be seen in their full physicality. A reproduction in a book or catalog just doesn't do them justice.
...Mike
Sparrow
Veteran
Perhaps you should re-read post 63 and discus that, rather than going back to an earlier post taking one section out of context and trying to form a new argument?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The quote was taken from post #63
Sparrow
Veteran
... ah, sorry got my glasses now ... sorry for my confusion.
Anyway in the first post I made, or an early one anyway, I made it clear I don't believe in relativism is art, but I believe in absolutism even less .... value changes over time, by location and education ... that's how I've arrived at my position that "Art" is that work which is remembered over time, and exists between the conception of the artist and the perception by the viewer. The value of that work however is variable within that space.
I hope that clears it up sir
airfrogusmc
Veteran
But I wasn't responding to that. I was responding to the statement that you made in post 63.
Sparrow
Veteran
I made it clear I don't believe in relativism is art, but I believe in absolutism even less .... value changes over time, by location and education ... that's how I've arrived at my position that "Art" is that work which is remembered over time, and exists between the conception of the artist and the perception by the viewer. The value of that work however is variable within that space.
Sorry for the confusion
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I made it clear I don't believe in relativism is art, but I believe in absolutism even less .... value changes over time, by location and education ... that's how I've arrived at my position that "Art" is that work which is remembered over time, and exists between the conception of the artist and the perception by the viewer. The value of that work however is variable within that space.
Sorry for the confusion
But again that is not what I was responding to. I was responding to your statement that you made in post #63. :bang:
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I believe there are objective ways to help one evaluate work. I believe also if you look at the work of Steichen, Stieglitz, Julia Margaret Cameron and many of the early photographers you will see many visual tools included in their work. Many of the early photographers were painter or those that studied and loved painting and art. Many were fluent in visual language and its those and other reasons that some of those artists work from that time period are still very valid.
I'm thinking of David Douglas Duncan's photo of a frozen Marine with the "forever stare" (from battle fatigue) during the Korean War. You had to be there to appreciate the photo. And DDD had to bust his chops in the foulest of weather to get it.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Stieglitz and The Steerage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtav_nMdrxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtav_nMdrxE