Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
If you were provided this article as a plain text or PDF document, no cookies required, would you read it?
Phil Forrest
someonenameddavid
Well-known
I disagree with you that good art is always political because that stems from a neo-Marxist world view where everything is political and is subject to the whims and fortunes of who ever is in power (who ever has power is beyond criticism) Art exists without reference to politics. Once politics directs art you get those nauseating collective Chinese paintings and songs like the Lo-lo-lo song from the death throes of the Soviet Union.
f.hayek
Well-known
Or looked at from another perspective, art, along with every other human endeavor is at the service of politics in the Marxist/Maoist view of history and human activity. Aesthetics must serve some function other than exist for its own sake. Those at ease with this politicization of everything suffer from amnesia of 20th century history.
These are the benighted times we live in.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree. Not everything is about politics, nor should it be and God help us on the day when it is. Why - because politics is always ultimately about naked power - who has it, who exercises it and who is subject to it. The idea that all good art is political means simply that all art becomes propaganda in the service of a political narrative.
My deeper point is that politics sucks. It sucks because it is revolting, corrupt and self serving. And it sucks because it infuses damn near everything in our lives already; sucking the joy, the truth, the beauty and the decency out of everything it touches. Politics to me is like dog dirt. It should be carefully scrubbed from the shoes before entering the home, or for that matter the art gallery.
My second point is that it tends to be "revolutionaries" who want to remake society in the name of some utopian dream (which of course, will always end in dystopian misery - it always does) and those who are silly enough to believe them, who believe that the nature of "good" art is that it must have a political message or sub text. My art must have a message they loudly proclaim - and then usually proceed to rub the audiences noses in it with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer.
So, is this picture below good art? OK this example is overtly political - but that too is where it always ends up when art serves politics - with adoring propaganda photos or paintings of the "great leader" (of the left or the right) or in the service of whatever the narrative de jour happens to be. In short when the only "good" art is art that has a political message, all art becomes nothing more than a mechanism of mass control of the populace by those who have power - or those who want it. That is a place I do not wish to go to.
KenR
Well-known
The photographs were interesting and quite well done - many with a 4x5 view camera. The author of the article appears to have been paid by the word - waaay tooo long for me - without really saying much that couldn’t have been said in a couple of paragraphs. The author of the article is making the political statements, not the photographer.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
That sums it up for me. Well said.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Well said.
I`ve been staying away from here for those same reasons .
there`s a time and place and this isn`t it .
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
If one looks hard enough one can find things that are brutal and or racial .
In the end everything is a construct.
One can still enjoy looking at a photograph for the sake of pure enjoyment without any strings or baggage attached.
In the end everything is a construct.
One can still enjoy looking at a photograph for the sake of pure enjoyment without any strings or baggage attached.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Peterm1, I share your distaste for politics as it so often plays out in modern societies, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, whatever, including our own. It is so often about the circulation of naked power, as you say. But contemporary Structuralist thought argues (in its usual convoluted academic fashion) that this "naked power" is the tip of the iceberg. It suggests that "power" circulates through societies in many forms, of which the naked power politics of, say, Washington are only one very visible example. It also argues that power is neither ethical or unethical, but is to be judged in its exercise by the context in which it exerted, and the ends which it seeks to achieve.
Stalin, Hitler, etc. were exercising political power. So were Gandhi and King. I would beware condemning all exercise of political power with the same broad brush.
Hasn't the creation of art been an exercise in power throughout our history? When Church and State were one, artists were employed to create works which exalted the religious beliefs upon which their power depended. We still enjoy these works, and are moved by them, regardless of our beliefs, or the lack of them. Power continues to circulate in the experience of these works. They are valued, rightly, as cultural treasures; power still exists in them in their changed context as iconic examples of the Western canon, but probably very much less so as religious icons.
Power circulates, changes its form, surfaces as political coercion or aesthetic delight, in some cases through the same artwork over the centuries.
A more nuanced understanding of power can help us be better prepared to understand and resist the unethical exercise of power when it occurs. The painting of Stalin you posted is a good example. Let's not pretend, however, that there haven't been equally crude and propagandistic works produced in America. Let's call out that sort of crap whenever and wherever we see it, whether in politics, art, "political" art, or wherever power (for good or ill) is exercised.
Thanks for the considered and well-expressed challenge to my ideas! I don't mind being told that my thought are a load of crap. I do mind that so many go no farther in their assertions. Volume and vehemence alone do not make them right. And yes, that seems to be so much a characteristic of the exercise of political power!
Stalin, Hitler, etc. were exercising political power. So were Gandhi and King. I would beware condemning all exercise of political power with the same broad brush.
Hasn't the creation of art been an exercise in power throughout our history? When Church and State were one, artists were employed to create works which exalted the religious beliefs upon which their power depended. We still enjoy these works, and are moved by them, regardless of our beliefs, or the lack of them. Power continues to circulate in the experience of these works. They are valued, rightly, as cultural treasures; power still exists in them in their changed context as iconic examples of the Western canon, but probably very much less so as religious icons.
Power circulates, changes its form, surfaces as political coercion or aesthetic delight, in some cases through the same artwork over the centuries.
A more nuanced understanding of power can help us be better prepared to understand and resist the unethical exercise of power when it occurs. The painting of Stalin you posted is a good example. Let's not pretend, however, that there haven't been equally crude and propagandistic works produced in America. Let's call out that sort of crap whenever and wherever we see it, whether in politics, art, "political" art, or wherever power (for good or ill) is exercised.
Thanks for the considered and well-expressed challenge to my ideas! I don't mind being told that my thought are a load of crap. I do mind that so many go no farther in their assertions. Volume and vehemence alone do not make them right. And yes, that seems to be so much a characteristic of the exercise of political power!
PKR
Veteran
Hi Michael,
I've been on this forum for a time now. It seems, I'll now begin scanning posts for the words "camera" or "photography", etc. If they're missing, I'll move on.
best, pkr
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Well, you can run, but you can't hide. The World does intrude, and will; it's bigger than any of us as individuals. As I've argued here, what we choose to ignore says as much about us as what we choose to engage with.
No doubt to the relief of many, I'm going to quit this particular thread, having made my arguments repeatedly. This has represented an experiment for me, since I've only joined RFF recently, in March. My participation in this thread has been an attempt to engage with this community of photographers around topics of greater importance to me than gear, though I do love my toys! I wanted to see if others would join in asking the questions that to often get ignored: Just why do we invest the time, effort, expense, and for some of us, the angst in creating works in this wonderful, difficult, confusing art form? What can the pursuit of photography teach us about the world, and ourselves, if we keep our hearts and minds open to what the process offers us?
Is it presumptuous of me as a new member to dive right in to a discussion that is bound to raise hackles? Probably. But I like to challenge and be challenged, and I like a good fight, if it's a fair one. If I've made anyone uncomfortable, well, good!
I've been both disappointed and heartened by the posts here, as I expected to be. Some members warned me to not "go there". I ignored them, obviously.
No doubt to the disappointment of many, I'll be back. Right now, I'm getting ready to go shooting, some highly political photos of the magnificent New Mexico sky and landscape. Then I'm going to come home and fondle one of my Leicas. Be well!
No doubt to the relief of many, I'm going to quit this particular thread, having made my arguments repeatedly. This has represented an experiment for me, since I've only joined RFF recently, in March. My participation in this thread has been an attempt to engage with this community of photographers around topics of greater importance to me than gear, though I do love my toys! I wanted to see if others would join in asking the questions that to often get ignored: Just why do we invest the time, effort, expense, and for some of us, the angst in creating works in this wonderful, difficult, confusing art form? What can the pursuit of photography teach us about the world, and ourselves, if we keep our hearts and minds open to what the process offers us?
Is it presumptuous of me as a new member to dive right in to a discussion that is bound to raise hackles? Probably. But I like to challenge and be challenged, and I like a good fight, if it's a fair one. If I've made anyone uncomfortable, well, good!
I've been both disappointed and heartened by the posts here, as I expected to be. Some members warned me to not "go there". I ignored them, obviously.
No doubt to the disappointment of many, I'll be back. Right now, I'm getting ready to go shooting, some highly political photos of the magnificent New Mexico sky and landscape. Then I'm going to come home and fondle one of my Leicas. Be well!
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Indeed. That technique fails as soon as someone posts “How your choice of camera reveals your inherent racism.”
My sincere wish is that you examine this as well.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Thanks for taking the time to explain this idea! I concur with you entirely. There's a common perception of politics and power (which is partisan) but then, there's the other sphere in which politics and art intersect, and that's a more subtle combination. In fact, one could even say that Monet's paiting had a political connotation, as his impressionism was against the grain of prevalent, academic art. In that sense art is political... just as Diane Arbus, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans and even Weegee were on their time.
Now, time to go back to playing with my toys. Mind you, I liked these photographs too!
Michael Markey
Veteran
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
peterm1
Veteran
Thank you Retro Grouch. You are being gracious to me when I was rude to you (though not exactly deliberately!) So my cheeks are red.
I was not deliberately "dissing" you though, I just strongly disagree with any proposition that art (especially good art and more especially "great" art) must be or is by its nature, always political. Some people, whose viewpoint on life tends always to be political see everything through a political lens - often when one delves into it, one finds that this is because of the way they were trained when at university or sitting at the parent's dinner table or whatever, and they have never gone beyond this to explore other dimensions. Was Matisse's work political? Monet? Degas? Van Gogh? They may have sometimes had a political point to make in their art, now and then, but mostly I cannot see it.
For the most part, I believe that these people made art because that's what they were driven to do by an internal need to create something of beauty in the world. Great art has a way of talking directly to the human soul. It does this through line and form and beauty mostly. There is something in it which is universal. And that perhaps is what great artists are striving to do in my opinion - speak directly to other's souls (if you want to use that terminology - not meaning to be religious here).
And it follows that when people look at art and see a political message in it, this is because that is the lens through which they see the entire world and they are programmed for this by their upbringing. But perhaps it is no different than me looking at the moon and seeing "the man in the moon" or at the clouds and seeing a "horse" or a "duck" or something else that I recognise, because that is what my eye and brain are trained to see. To be honest though, I also want to avert my eyes when I do see something that is overtly political. The world has become far too political in recent years (due in large measure to social media I think) and my mindset right now is that I simply prefer to avoid that game which is sewing discord and is now poisoning everything. (What's the old joke - politics is the world's second oldest game. But its practitioners sure as hell behave like it is the world's oldest game).
It all kind of reminds me of this Monty Python scene too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw
And the way people sometimes see stuff in art that is not there also reminds me of this great scene from the old movie "L.A. Story". Very funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsN40iv5nzg
peterm1
Veteran
Thanks Mike. Much appreciated.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Peter, I signed off on this thread, but you've lured me back in! Please, no offense taken; your post was not rude. I asked, originally, that people be passionate, but civil, and let 'er rip! I appreciate that you did just that. I can come on pretty strong myself, and it would be hypocritical of me to dish it out if I can't take it.
My academic background is in art, and it is one of the overriding passions in my life. I care about it very deeply. It's easy, but wrong, to insist sometimes that others experience it just as I do. But I think that art is important enough that we should come to it with as much self-awareness as possible, and as much openness too, in order to do justice to the artist's attempt to connect with us. That means learning about the history of art and how it functions in our society, and past society. Sometimes that process of learning can feel overwhelming. It's like going out in the garden to dig some carrots, and unearthing the ruins of Troy: What do I DO with all this?
Well. Sometimes what I do is retreat into the safety of analysis, tracing the political or religious or technical threads that constitute the backstory of a work. But at a certain point, it's necessary to just to stop and experience the presence before me. I think that, at that point, you and I would both be experiencing what we call beauty, in much the same way. We're actually not very far apart in our shared love of that experience, I think.
One of the most wonderful aspects of engaging with art is, for me, that moment when I observe an artist experiencing the world just as I would. Vermeer sees a yellow house in Delft and is so struck that he simply has to record his experience of it. Centuries later, I see his painting, and every part of me says "YES!". I've seen that light, striking a bright wall, miles and centuries apart from Vermeer, but I KNOW it! It's a connection with another human that makes me feel freed for a moment of the isolation and loneliness of the human condition.
Peter, I've seen your images posted on RFF, and I think that many of them are quite beautiful. There's a haunting and mysterious quality to them that I greatly enjoy. I hope you can see that all my analytical blather doesn't get too much in the way of experiencing good work!
One last point. The picture you posted of Stalin has been nagging at me, and I've studied it a bit. It's a piece of hack work, but compared to a lot of what I see in galleries here in Santa Fe, not half bad. The artist had a reasonable command of his medium, a decent sense of color and light and atmosphere. Consider this: if Stalin and his companion were replaced by a respectable 19th century Parisian bourgeois and his wife, would this picture offend you so? Or, that substitution having been made, would it have then been equally offensive to the Party bosses in the Kremlin? Would anyone even bother to notice this picture if it were not of this monster? Context isn't everything, but it makes a difference.
But this IS bad art, the worst sort. It makes use of the pretty conventions of art, beauty, if you will, to lull us into a worshipful attitude towards a mass murderer. This is why I find the painting so troubling, and a fine example of why we often need to be on guard when we encounter art, even while we are giving ourselves over to its beauty. There is this moral and political dimension, finally, to the experience of art. The analysis of the experience, the self-reflection involved in the encounter, is necessary before we let ourselves succumb fully to the beauty.
A highly recommended book, small but dense, is "Beauty in Photography" by the photographer Robert Adams. He wrestles well and eloquently with these complicated issues, and provides a number of valuable questions with which to approach art. Too bad I don't enjoy his photography as much as I do his writing. In his photos, his political agenda gets too much in the way sometimes, and his environmental concerns lead him to create dull and visually unresolved images that are essentially just illustrations of an idea. Yes, I said it: His art is sometimes too political, and suffers for it. You can quote me.
Loved the Monty Python clip, one of my favorite scenes. Sometimes I catch myself sounding like the aggrieved peasant....
My academic background is in art, and it is one of the overriding passions in my life. I care about it very deeply. It's easy, but wrong, to insist sometimes that others experience it just as I do. But I think that art is important enough that we should come to it with as much self-awareness as possible, and as much openness too, in order to do justice to the artist's attempt to connect with us. That means learning about the history of art and how it functions in our society, and past society. Sometimes that process of learning can feel overwhelming. It's like going out in the garden to dig some carrots, and unearthing the ruins of Troy: What do I DO with all this?
Well. Sometimes what I do is retreat into the safety of analysis, tracing the political or religious or technical threads that constitute the backstory of a work. But at a certain point, it's necessary to just to stop and experience the presence before me. I think that, at that point, you and I would both be experiencing what we call beauty, in much the same way. We're actually not very far apart in our shared love of that experience, I think.
One of the most wonderful aspects of engaging with art is, for me, that moment when I observe an artist experiencing the world just as I would. Vermeer sees a yellow house in Delft and is so struck that he simply has to record his experience of it. Centuries later, I see his painting, and every part of me says "YES!". I've seen that light, striking a bright wall, miles and centuries apart from Vermeer, but I KNOW it! It's a connection with another human that makes me feel freed for a moment of the isolation and loneliness of the human condition.
Peter, I've seen your images posted on RFF, and I think that many of them are quite beautiful. There's a haunting and mysterious quality to them that I greatly enjoy. I hope you can see that all my analytical blather doesn't get too much in the way of experiencing good work!
One last point. The picture you posted of Stalin has been nagging at me, and I've studied it a bit. It's a piece of hack work, but compared to a lot of what I see in galleries here in Santa Fe, not half bad. The artist had a reasonable command of his medium, a decent sense of color and light and atmosphere. Consider this: if Stalin and his companion were replaced by a respectable 19th century Parisian bourgeois and his wife, would this picture offend you so? Or, that substitution having been made, would it have then been equally offensive to the Party bosses in the Kremlin? Would anyone even bother to notice this picture if it were not of this monster? Context isn't everything, but it makes a difference.
But this IS bad art, the worst sort. It makes use of the pretty conventions of art, beauty, if you will, to lull us into a worshipful attitude towards a mass murderer. This is why I find the painting so troubling, and a fine example of why we often need to be on guard when we encounter art, even while we are giving ourselves over to its beauty. There is this moral and political dimension, finally, to the experience of art. The analysis of the experience, the self-reflection involved in the encounter, is necessary before we let ourselves succumb fully to the beauty.
A highly recommended book, small but dense, is "Beauty in Photography" by the photographer Robert Adams. He wrestles well and eloquently with these complicated issues, and provides a number of valuable questions with which to approach art. Too bad I don't enjoy his photography as much as I do his writing. In his photos, his political agenda gets too much in the way sometimes, and his environmental concerns lead him to create dull and visually unresolved images that are essentially just illustrations of an idea. Yes, I said it: His art is sometimes too political, and suffers for it. You can quote me.
Loved the Monty Python clip, one of my favorite scenes. Sometimes I catch myself sounding like the aggrieved peasant....
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Darlings,
Define "political". This is seeming to be the problem. Many people seem to think that "political" means something external to human relationships. Maybe like "ideology" or "regime" or "polity" or "government".
Polity is not necessarily politics.
Humans always have political maneuvering between their self-interest internal or external. That tension is also "political".
Two persons in a space will engage in a political relationship.
One person may engage in a political relationship between object and self. Or ego, id, and super-ego.
Broad subject for this Italian broad....
XOXO
Mme. O
Define "political". This is seeming to be the problem. Many people seem to think that "political" means something external to human relationships. Maybe like "ideology" or "regime" or "polity" or "government".
Polity is not necessarily politics.
Humans always have political maneuvering between their self-interest internal or external. That tension is also "political".
Two persons in a space will engage in a political relationship.
One person may engage in a political relationship between object and self. Or ego, id, and super-ego.
Broad subject for this Italian broad....
XOXO
Mme. O