What do YOU think of this photography?

[Instantclassic]

"As a creative process, art entails making something up or transforming something that already exists. A photograph freezes a slice of something that already exists. I am reluctant to consider the image that results as a deliberate work of art unless the photographer did something to alter the image beyond setting exposure and framing the scene. I.e., an image that accurately and faithfully reflects the scene in front of the lens is not art." wgerrard, 8 hours ago

I think the key words here are existence and reflexion. The idea of objectivity is abandoned for reasons of no common standpoint globally or in time. To follow this thought through you need some basic training in thinking skills and the history of comprehending form and content.

The unsophisticated viewer thinks that objectivity is something outside us that can be studied without interference of our belief systems in a broader sense and our cognitive responses.

Slicing out an ordinary piece in our context and putting it up deliberately together with other slices of so called reality makes up a new way of looking at things. The end result is not entirely obvious and can be recognized in many ways. Layers of meaning gives us also the urge to look upon ourselves and our way of reacting.
This self objectifying process can be threating but constitutes the everyday situation for
all of us. Recognized or not.

Me? -I fondle with my cameras

 

[Chris101]

That triptych is the best thing in that pdf portfolio, I think. It's arresting both in a conceptual sense, as abstraction, and in its literal subject--it works on all levels, for me.
...

I dunno if it's the best series in the portfolio. I also liked the hedge trimmer and the numbered dogs a lot. And the rocks made me laugh. Especially considering that someone had made an art object of them in the first place!

I did find the Bloody Mess the easiest to critique however. With a lot of photography and painting, I have great difficulty in expressing in words my reaction to it. The visual arts are a non-verbal means of communicating ideas.

Does it not stand to reason that words cannot adequately describe the concepts/feelings conveyed by a purely visual piece?

 

[Chris101]

Yes, I don't find HIS art compelling to look at a second time. But, now, I may look at others art for a few more seconds anyway, and try to see what the artist is communicating. But not for too long though.

But I may take stab at this style, to see if I can do a better job of communicating than this photographer. Just another challenge to expand my scope of imagery a little. I may fail horribly.(probably will) ..That's OK, I will learn something though.

EDIT: Image added. So, This type of art is to convey an idea. the image has the elements of the idea, but not the actual end result of the idea itself... Am I close? the person looking at the image will follow through in their mind what the elements are suggesting as the intent of the elements.

I'm with you DNG. I rarely get absorbed into other's art. But I can stare at my own work for years.

By the way, I like your interpretation. The toilet is a bit cliche, but at least you didn't put goldfish into the blender.

 

[wgerrard]

"As a creative process, art entails making something up or transforming something that already exists. A photograph freezes a slice of something that already exists. I am reluctant to consider the image that results as a deliberate work of art unless the photographer did something to alter the image beyond setting exposure and framing the scene. I.e., an image that accurately and faithfully reflects the scene in front of the lens is not art." wgerrard, 8 hours ago

I think the key words here are existence and reflexion. The idea of objectivity is abandoned for reasons of no common standpoint globally or in time. To follow this thought through you need some basic training in thinking skills and the history of comprehending form and content.

The unsophisticated viewer thinks that objectivity is something outside us that can be studied without interference of our belief systems in a broader sense and our cognitive responses....

I have to admit you discussion of objectivity leaves me baffled. Likewise your assertion about "thinking skills" and "comprehending form and content", which I read as suggesting that those who tell us they appreciate art believe they have superior intellectual skills.

We should not be led to understand that we have uncovered some deficiency in ourselves when a self-proclaimed work of art leaves us cold and uninterested. That represents the failure of the artist, not of ourselves. The things people create do not acquire special value when they are labeled "art" and we have no obligation to feign appreciation for something that fails to interest us.

 

[DNG]

Yes, I don't find HIS art compelling to look at a second time. But, now, I may look at others art for a few more seconds anyway, and try to see what the artist is communicating. But not for too long though.

But I may take stab at this style, to see if I can do a better job of communicating than this photographer. Just another challenge to expand my scope of imagery a little. I may fail horribly.(probably will) ..That's OK, I will learn something though.

EDIT: Image added. So, This type of art is to convey an idea. the image has the elements of the idea, but not the actual end result of the idea itself... Am I close? the person looking at the image will follow through in their mind what the elements are suggesting as the intent of the elements.

I'm with you DNG. I rarely get absorbed into other's art. But I can stare at my own work for years.

By the way, I like your interpretation. The toilet is a bit cliche, but at least you didn't put goldfish into the blender.

Yes, did a little research on "Conceptual Art", and found an Artist from the 60's, example of a urinal taken straight on. I thought I'd try it with a bit more compositional air to it. The Blender: I just started making "Smoothies" as an alternative to "Sweat Tea". So, I put the elements that are used in the blender. Got-a say, This type of Art requires a few minutes to think about what the elements are communicating.

At the begining of this thread, I had a limited viewpoint on this type of art. I thought is was a waste of time. But, now, I see a little bit of what is all about. Very "Far Out Man" type of art. Started in "Hate/Ashberry" maybe, were the "Cool Cats" hung out!!!

 

[Instantclassic]

The idea of pure subjetivity transformed to an objectified "art" is what constitutes bad thinking skills.
All of us have the potential to react upon the gallery pictures exposed in this thread. Some people use their own emotional reactions to justify the use of the term "art". If pure subjectivity is the norm I will not object. But when the same subjective response is used to claim some kind of objectivity for all of us there must be something wrong. The only way out is dismiss the epistemic value of congruence.
I beg to differ

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think the main fault in the OP's argument is that he thinks 'art' should exist to entertain him in some way.

Dear Steve,

Why is that a fault? What else is art for, after all? 'Entertainment' exists on many levels, from slapstick to the purely cerebral. It it doesn't entertain me on one level or another, or of it entertains me insufficiently, this helps me to form my opinion of its worth to me.

'Art' is what society labels as art: nothing more, nothing less. Some sections of society attempt to terrorize others into rejecting certain kinds of art, and valuing only other kinds, whether via Hitler's 'Degenerate Art' exhibition or via displays of semiotic pyrotechnics. I spit upon them all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Dear Steve,

Why is that a fault? What else is art for, after all?

Art should entertain somebody, but it obviously cannot entertain everybody. The statement "it does not entertain me, it is not art" is either naive or rudely egocentric.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Art should entertain somebody, but it obviously cannot entertain everybody. The statement "it does not entertain me, it is not art" is either naive or rudely egocentric.

Well, I certainly wasn't making that statement, and I don't think many others were, either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

The statement "it does not entertain me, it is not art" is either naive or rudely egocentric.

Of course it is. So is the implication, "It is art. If you don't like it, there's something wrong with you."

No one here seems to be making that implication, but it is almost inevitably part of any discussion of the nature and role of art.

Labels have power to shape our thinking. We look at the photos in question one way because they have been tagged as art. If they were tagged with "Checking Out My New Summicron", I submit we would look at them another way.

 

[kitaanat]

To be frank, I have not spent too much time looking at the tree photographs. They didn't strike me as particularly remarkable, but I am aware I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing them. I might come to a different conclusion if I had, and therefore I am hesitant to voice a definite verdict.

Arjay, I think the same way on the tree pictures but you reminded me about "Waiting_for_Godot", a stage performance which my teacher told me in an introduction to performing arts class. It's a story of 2 people waiting for someone name "Godot" whose never come. (see the detail in the link above). My teacher tell me that people see this is a boring performance but the same story have some effect on a prisoner.

IMO, Those tree have some form of pattern when it comes together but I will spent more time looking and find the meaning if the pictures are more attractive or the picture show me that the photographer give much effort to take it.

( Tell you my secret, I learn more English through various thread on RFF too. )

 

[Roger Hicks]

Allegedly - I have never verified the story - the Godot in question was a cyclist. Beckett noticed two people staying long after the other competitors had passed; asked why; and was told, "Nous attendons Godot" (We are waiting for Godot). I have never worked out whether this adds to one's appreciation of the play or detracts from it. I lean towards the former, as almost anything adds to my enjoyment of the Theatre of the Absurd, and it's quite hard to detract from it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Arjay]

Hilarious - I love those Godot comments...

You know, of course all those speculations about meaning hidden in art could also be a game of discussing the emperor's new clothes (Non-Western readers might want to check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor%27s_New_Clothes). Because, this speculation can also be interpreted as a social interaction with the aim to show off competence in the appreciation of art as a means to impress one's fellow men.

 

[Turtle]

Just to clarity the OP and some earlier points:

Entertain, no. Stimulate, challenge, engage, intellectually interest, yes. Generally I find things that challenge or engage me 'entertaining' or 'stimulating' even if the emotions/thoughts/residue are less than joyful in teh classical sense. I don't expect everyone to have the same definition of what they expect art to do for them, but I would be amazed if 'simulation' and 'engagement' are not in there somewhere.

 

[Chris101]

Yes, did a little research on "Conceptual Art", and found an Artist from the 60's, example of a urinal taken straight on. I thought I'd try it with a bit more compositional air to it. The Blender: I just started making "Smoothies" as an alternative to "Sweat Tea". So, I put the elements that are used in the blender. Got-a say, This type of Art requires a few minutes to think about what the elements are communicating.

At the begining of this thread, I had a limited viewpoint on this type of art. I thought is was a waste of time. But, now, I see a little bit of what is all about. Very "Far Out Man" type of art. Started in "Hate/Ashberry" maybe, were the "Cool Cats" hung out!!!

Well 'tis true. I compare all art to hallucinations I experienced 40 years ago.

Of course it is. So is the implication, "It is art. If you don't like it, there's something wrong with you."
...

There seems to be a lot of fear of that, but I have never heard it myself.

Arjay, I think the same way on the tree pictures but you reminded me about "Waiting_for_Godot", a stage performance which my teacher told me in an introduction to performing arts class. It's a story of 2 people waiting for someone name "Godot" whose never come. (see the detail in the link above). My teacher tell me that people see this is a boring performance but the same story have some effect on a prisoner.

...

THANK YOU! Waiting... was required reading in high school (also 40 years ago) and so I never actually read it. Your synopsis is perfect, and informs me that I made the right decision. (ps, American high school in 1970, and the life of a prsoner is not so different.)

 

[dan denmark]

'conceptual' may mean 'narrative' when an image is taken into the context of its sequence...where it sits amongst other similar images. these may also represent a cultural mirror of a society or an individual's state of mental creativity. conceptual is innateness of an understanding at a level not pedestrian but of an introspective creative process. when an image is taken out of its context it may appear to lose its strength. not all work is necessarily meant to 'hang' alone but more exist in a sequence like a book or the walls of a gallery exhibition space. it is the sum total of these narratives which justify the work not whether it is alone as a single benchmark. this is the elusive (to some) notion of art and what it may be to some...but rarely to all...equally. journalistic documentation is not necessarily art but it is also not necessarily hangable out of its story (narrative) parameters. but in a book it may sit well on one's coffee table or academic bookshelf. and lastly, a single image may not be hangable but it may provoke discussion.

this is validating all on its own.

-dd

 

[Jarle Aasland]

I highlighted part of your text because implicitly, it sounds like the definition of photojournalism. There, we natually all expect that a photograph must ba able to stand for itself, delivering its message without any supporting words.

Interesting thread. I may write a longer, more well-founded reply later, but being in the news business myself, I felt like commenting this particular statement.

I agree that a good journalistic photo should be able to stand for itself, but this is rarely the case. In fact, I can't think of a single photo ever captured that doesn't benefit from a caption. Even the most iconic ones, like Robert Capa's Death of a loyalist militiaman and D-day photos, Nick Ut's napalm girl, Eisenstaedt's VJ day in Times Square, Alberto Korda's classic Che Guevara portrait, and so on. If nothing else, I'd like to know the time and place the photo was captured.

Recently, look at this year's World Press Photo. Without a longish caption, it's a worthless photo, in my opinion. This one is discussed in another thread, btw (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86065).

Jarle

 

[Instantclassic]

The World Press Photo of this year is a part of demonizing Iran to make a military intervention more acceptable further on.
The people of Iran have no Weapons Of Mass Deception.

 

[bbrovold]

Regarding the "art" in the original post, I wish I knew how to say "crap" in 50 languages'. To me, photography is in the image and not the display of the image or montage, etc.

 

[Instantclassic]

Regarding the "art" in the original post, I wish I knew how to say "crap" in 50 languages'. To me, photography is in the image and not the display of the image or montage, etc.

I think your opinion is just that. No argument and no idea about what constitutes your own opinion. No dialogue and no intention to learn.

We do not need more of that in any language.