OP
- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a "record shot" then! According to David, that's the alternative! :banghead:
and please use their services
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Whatever happened to Camera-craft?
- Thread starter chuckles
- Start date
It's a "record shot" then! According to David, that's the alternative! :banghead:
It makes sense to me. I don't find it particularly interesting, personally, but it makes sense.
What is it about the explanation that you don't understand?
- Messages
- 7,923
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
The language is a bit flowery for my taste, but it makes sense.
Why doesn't it seem sane to you?
- Messages
- 12,804
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
I understand the explanation - I just think that it is false ………. but it is (photographic) "art" - only for the rich and/or intelligent ….. I'm a poor stupid sod
We should start a thread - post you own "Burtynsky’s" landscape - we can grab a bunch of images and put that label, or any "descriptor" around them
Last edited:
Why do you think it's false? Why is it only for the intelligent?
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Pookeyhead,
That was genuinely a really generous explanation of what is now considered to be "art", particularly in relation to photography. That's not to say that I agreed with all of it, but there you go.....
I've just recently become aware of Edward Burtynsky through seeing a DVD related to his "water" project. You may be aware of it. The example of his work that you posted is interesting and I agree largely with your explanation of why he might be considered an artist. Very recently, Joe Cornish, one of our most renowned landscape photographers, described one of Burtynsky's images in very glowing terms in OnLandscape (online) magazine. You would probably hate Joe Cornish's work because it is what you would describe as "pretty", and he has no standing at all in the "art world" as it is currently defined, for the same reasons. I just find it rather sad that there is such a prejudice against straight landscapes while practitioners of the genre can be quite open about more "artistic" work.
Out of interest I'm going to post one of my own images, taken in 2009, for comparison purposes, showing coal-mine run-off in Pembrokeshire.View attachment 40310
Art or not?
That was genuinely a really generous explanation of what is now considered to be "art", particularly in relation to photography. That's not to say that I agreed with all of it, but there you go.....
I've just recently become aware of Edward Burtynsky through seeing a DVD related to his "water" project. You may be aware of it. The example of his work that you posted is interesting and I agree largely with your explanation of why he might be considered an artist. Very recently, Joe Cornish, one of our most renowned landscape photographers, described one of Burtynsky's images in very glowing terms in OnLandscape (online) magazine. You would probably hate Joe Cornish's work because it is what you would describe as "pretty", and he has no standing at all in the "art world" as it is currently defined, for the same reasons. I just find it rather sad that there is such a prejudice against straight landscapes while practitioners of the genre can be quite open about more "artistic" work.
Out of interest I'm going to post one of my own images, taken in 2009, for comparison purposes, showing coal-mine run-off in Pembrokeshire.View attachment 40310
Art or not?
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 12,804
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
I suppose I should have used "intelligent"
why, because I cannot appreciate those images as "photographic art" and see the descriptions as a "con" - the images are terrible, unattractive and meaningless ….. they, IMHO, are poor and say nothing apart from mediocracy and a con
But I am not versed or studied in the subject of photography art ….. I have not been taught to understand and "appreciate" them or had photographic art "explained" to me by the "teachers" …… I am not part of "the club" ……… I just say it as I see it ………… to me they are images that have been put forward as an illusion, I despair
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
You're welcome.
Yes, they're photographs. That's what they are, sure. Just as a Rembrandt is a painting. You seem to suggest that a photograph CAN'T be art though Bill, is that right? Otherwise I'm not sure why you are telling us that these photographs are photographs
It's achingly beautiful, but it has no context, and I don't know what I should be reading from it. The image itself could be art if I knew what I was being shown and why I was being shown it, because then I might venture an opinion beyond LIKING it as an image. As it is... I just admire it for being beautiful. Art has to do more than impress you with it's beauty and aesthetic. A sunset can be beautiful, but it's not art is it... it's just a sunset. No one created it, and it does nothing other than be there. However, in context, a shot of a sunset has the potential to be art depending on the use you put it to.
I'd need to read the book or go to the exhibition. Looking at one image from an entire show may or may not be enough here. I suspect he's got a whole series of work here and if they are doing what this one glimpse suggests they might, and enlightens me to the lives of these people, what they do, how they live, and challenges some of my preconceptions, then yes, it's art.
Again.. that first link could well be regarded as serving another purpose other than trying to wow me with prettiness, but the other two are just shots of animals with no context. They're wonderful images, but not sure they're art. Still worthy of exhibition though, as you can well imagine, otherwise the V&A wouldn't involved, but I suspect the whole exhibition, with panels, text, supporting material would be a display of art work, but I don't think posting these links are doing it any favours. He really should have supporting material for this, as I suspect it would make already brilliant work so much stronger. I'm sure there is in the book and the exhibition though.
It's not blowing me away as art, and is really just relying on it's aesthetic more than anything else. Wonderful imagery though.
It's pretty simple in this case, as far as I can tell. The artist wanted to find natural scenes that resembled impressionistic painting in the density and spread of detail. It's a simple and perfectly valid premise (though not one that particularly sets my world on fire) so I have no idea why anyone would think it was "false". He wanted to explore this idea of impressionist scenes in nature and he went and did it. Where's the deception?
Okay, you pull any of those images out and present them without context, they're not very interesting. You see them in context and you can immediately say "okay, I can see what the photographer was trying to do here." It gives you something to think about - a synchronicity between the natural and the man made - it's more than just "a picture".
In this case, as I said, who cares? I'm not terribly moved by the premise. But the fact there WAS a premise helps it along the road to being art.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,804
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
David
I've just not got this art thing - are you telling me that the artist should tell my why and wherefore before I consider it to be art or just a photograph?
I thought that it was the other way around ……… I'll just watch now and stop posting as I just cannot see that I am making any process or contributing
I've just not got this art thing - are you telling me that the artist should tell my why and wherefore before I consider it to be art or just a photograph?
I thought that it was the other way around ……… I'll just watch now and stop posting as I just cannot see that I am making any process or contributing
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Same as outlined in my critique of Burtinsky's work in my post further up. That scale, immensity... triggers that response that the sublime gives, but he's using matter that we feel shouldn't. We are so fixated on the sublime being natural.. nature at it's most awesome, overwhelming us. Here, nature is emasculated and left at our mercy. This is the sublime of our power over it, and the price we'll pay for it.
Or.. it could just be a picture of a slag heap if you have no imagination and need "wow" to grab your attention
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'll tell you what. Seeing as your intention is so screamingly obvious... YOU tell US why it's not
I'll tell you what. Seeing as your intention is so screamingly obvious... YOU tell US why it's not
Us <cough> philistines can't do that. You tell us. Is it art?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Not at all, but I just know there's so much missing there that will undoubtedly be in the book and exhibition. Art needs context, yes. Sometimes it's obvious what's going on, like Burtinsky's work, but sometimes it's not.. like Pollards work. Without explanation, Pollard's work would make no sense. That doesn't mean it's bad art. Sometimes, you need the power of the word to anchor meaning to give the work context.
It was beautiful work, and seems to cross wildlife with documentary... I think... but it's not obvious to me why he's shooting it and what he wants me to think, know or feel. I love it.. it's beautiful, but I don't know enough about those indigenous people or that wildlife to form an opinion.
Why are you trying to fit everything into little boxes. Sometimes, yes... the artist needs to provide the context in which to make such a judgement.
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that the reason I spend time with my camera on a tripod trying to get everything just right, why I spend time on experiments intended to improve my camera skills, and why I spend money improving my gear, is precisely brcause, when successful, it does make my images more interesting. Not sure what you mean by "relevant". Relevance in addition to what relevance naturally comes along as an integral part of being interesting is not something I try to give my images.
It's true that I sometimes buy stuff or acquire a skill which do not fulfil my hopes, not worth it. Generally speaking however, the images I'm getting with today's gear and today's skills are more interesting. There are some, however, that by some happy original accident of light, opportunity, and serendipity, I've been unable even to equal, despite having tried with relevantly better gear and skills, and despite the obvious technical infelicities of the original image. That doesn't mean the camera craft is irrelevant, merely that it is one important but not necessarily always essential aspect of a multidimensional whole.
Consider for example the simple case of image size. I have plenty of images that look interesting in a good A5 print which would look even more impressive and more interesting in a good A3 print, but whose technical deficiencies become irritatingly obvious at A3. It takes more cameracraft and better gear than I had seven years ago to produce a good A3 print.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,140
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd say you've answered your own implied question with the statement in the latter part of this question, but you already know that!
Moving on....idea based art rather than the purely decorative stuff isn't easy, that's the whole point - it's there to challenge and make you think, in the same way a lot of literature does. Not everyone gets it, not everyone likes it, which is why it gets accused of being elitist, maybe with some justification.
I don't like or even understand a lot of the fine art genre, but I also find a lot of amateur photography boring, derivative and / or facile. Some would say my own photography falls into that category and they maybe right. But in my time as a keen amateur photographer, I've noticed that there's a lot of amateurs who put a lot of value on camera craft and produce technically superb, boring images. Nothing wrong with that as to many amateurs the means is as important, if not more so, than the ends.
I guess it depends on the intent of the photographer, and the intended audience.
I'll add an 'in my humble opinion' as that seems to be the thing to do on this thread......
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,990
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Surely if you admit that you can't tell whether it's art, you can't logically deny that it is. The solution to your problem would appear to be to go away and learn what art is. I can't see that that's your intention in this thread, as all you do is refer to specific examples and query their status as art. Better by far to go away and understand the general principles and then apply them. More work though, I think
Surely if you admit that you can't tell whether it's art, you can't logically deny that it is. The solution to your problem would appear to be to go away and learn what art is. I can't see that that's your intention in this thread, as all you do is refer to specific examples and query their status as art. Better by far to go away and understand the general principles and then apply them. More work though, I think
I didn't admit anything. I asked Pookeyhead if it was art.
- Messages
- 512
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
You're welcome.
Yes, they're photographs. That's what they are, sure. Just as a Rembrandt is a painting. You seem to suggest that a photograph CAN'T be art though Bill, is that right? Otherwise I'm not sure why you are telling us that these photographs are photographs
It's achingly beautiful, but it has no context, and I don't know what I should be reading from it. The image itself could be art if I knew what I was being shown and why I was being shown it, because then I might venture an opinion beyond LIKING it as an image. As it is... I just admire it for being beautiful. Art has to do more than impress you with it's beauty and aesthetic. A sunset can be beautiful, but it's not art is it... it's just a sunset. No one created it, and it does nothing other than be there. However, in context, a shot of a sunset has the potential to be art depending on the use you put it to.
I'd need to read the book or go to the exhibition. Looking at one image from an entire show may or may not be enough here. I suspect he's got a whole series of work here and if they are doing what this one glimpse suggests they might, and enlightens me to the lives of these people, what they do, how they live, and challenges some of my preconceptions, then yes, it's art.
Again.. that first link could well be regarded as serving another purpose other than trying to wow me with prettiness, but the other two are just shots of animals with no context. They're wonderful images, but not sure they're art. Still worthy of exhibition though, as you can well imagine, otherwise the V&A wouldn't involved, but I suspect the whole exhibition, with panels, text, supporting material would be a display of art work, but I don't think posting these links are doing it any favours. He really should have supporting material for this, as I suspect it would make already brilliant work so much stronger. I'm sure there is in the book and the exhibition though.
It's not blowing me away as art, and is really just relying on it's aesthetic more than anything else. Wonderful imagery though.
Haha, I looked at that 'homepage' image of Yarrow's and typed out a whole reply and then delved a little deeper into his site and yes indeed, he gives context and reasoning behind the cattle herd image. I therefore believe you are right and the book/exhib would provide much more depth to his work than is apparent on the front page of his website regarding the indigenous people. I then had to delete my response as I believe that series is indeed artistic!
Chris, It's impossible to make or pass comment on your work because we haven't seen it but taking technically perfect images doesn't necessarily make them more interesting does it? Only if the OOF or noisy or badly composed image etc takes away from the message or reason for you taking it in the first place. I think the point is that there is nothing wrong with taking record/pretty photographs, its just that they aren't artistic generally and there are billions of them out there already.
OP
- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My wife is very much in to 'art' - knows it, studied it and becomes totally immersed in it - qualified even! I've been 'feeding' her snippets from this thread and the only sane and printable response is "is he deliberately saying these things to provoke a negative response?" Thereby rests my case!
Context? What exactly are you expecting as context? You have receding horizons, dusty atmosphere, Masi warriors (I assume) compression of perspective and yet no context? It tells me a story and that can't come from no contextual connections can it? Come on - the King's new suit of clothes (which I believe you quoted - forgive me if I'm wrong) springs to mind.
If that has no context then your vision is being dimmed and the intellect is being challenged - mine that is!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 512
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
What 'context' do those things (dusty, receding, Masi) give you? They are the practical/tech things in it not an emotional context? Its 'achingly beautiful' but not artistic in and of itself. However, if you read his words on the series and the other work accompanying it as part of the series within the site itself then he does give it context and an emotional overview making the series artistic imo.
simon ess
Just call me Roxanne.
- Messages
- 9,610
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm reminded of a very long weekend I spent with a chap who had spent his entire adult life, about 40 years, trying to prove that The Green Children of Woolpit were deposited on Earth by a malfunctioning alien matter transfer system.
When I pointed out that the word "green" changed it's meaning according to context he refused to accept it. Remarkable really. He was certain that the context he had imposed upon it must be correct.
So, what context are you applying to this single picture? As Rich points out, you have described features of the picture, not its context.
Is it about The Masi, or cattle, or resources, or tribal life, or Africa or any one of many other possible things?
The book or exhibition will provide that context.
The sky is not blue. It's bronze.
When I pointed out that the word "green" changed it's meaning according to context he refused to accept it. Remarkable really. He was certain that the context he had imposed upon it must be correct.
So, what context are you applying to this single picture? As Rich points out, you have described features of the picture, not its context.
Is it about The Masi, or cattle, or resources, or tribal life, or Africa or any one of many other possible things?
The book or exhibition will provide that context.
The sky is not blue. It's bronze.
- Messages
- 9,037
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe it's the Engineer in me that stifles esoteric appreciation!
One defintion of context .... "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood." Seems straight forward to me - I can make it fit within that image - the struggle, the hardship, the grind of living - I can feel it all - heat, dry arid, conditions and yet strikingly and beautifully portrayed!
In fact, it raised quite a number of emotions in me - not least of which was empathy.
One defintion of context .... "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood." Seems straight forward to me - I can make it fit within that image - the struggle, the hardship, the grind of living - I can feel it all - heat, dry arid, conditions and yet strikingly and beautifully portrayed!
In fact, it raised quite a number of emotions in me - not least of which was empathy.
Last edited:
Same as outlined in my critique of Burtinsky's work in my post further up. That scale, immensity... triggers that response that the sublime gives, but he's using matter that we feel shouldn't. We are so fixated on the sublime being natural.. nature at it's most awesome, overwhelming us. Here, nature is emasculated and left at our mercy. This is the sublime of our power over it, and the price we'll pay for it.
Or.. it could just be a picture of a slag heap if you have no imagination and need "wow" to grab your attention
Thank you but I'm afraid I'm still baffled
Is this a personal interpretation of the picture or does he somewhere explain what it meant to him? Does it mean the same to everyone who considers it art or do different people consider it art for different reasons? I like to think I have imagination - perhaps wrongly! - but I don't find the picture triggers it or in any way inspires me.
- Messages
- 512
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- No
And therein lies an interesting point....
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There seems to be a lot of careless logic being flung around in this argument. I agree that taking technically perfect images doesn't necessarily make them more interesting. I was arguing that there are some cases where technical imperfections make photographs less interesting, no more than that. You seem to agree with that. That seems to me to be reason enough for someone wishing to take interesting photographs to work on bettering their cameracraft.
I stuck to the the term "interesting" in my reply because I was replying to a specific claim that technical perfection was irrelevant to the interestingness of a photograph. I avoided the use of the terms "artistic" and "art" because those depend so much on context positions in the philosophy of art that it's easy to define "artistic" in such a way as to make technical perfection an irrelevance.
OP
- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is that good or bad? Should I be worried?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you but I'm afraid I'm still baffled
Is this a personal interpretation of the picture or does he somewhere explain what it meant to him? Does it mean the same to everyone who considers it art or do different people consider it art for different reasons? I like to think I have imagination - perhaps wrongly! - but I don't find the picture triggers it or in any way inspires me.
Yes, he explains. It's not my personal interpretation at all, although I agree with him entirely. Without knowing what Burtinsky thinks, not everyone would come to the same conclusion, no, but once you do know, it's pretty hard to argue with him. Hence it has made you think about something you wouldn't have by yourself. It's made yo look at the land in question in a different way... perhaps made you think about those things a little more deeply. Possibly even changed your opinion.
What do you mean by inspire? Inspire to create work of your own? Why is that important to Burtinsky? Whether it inspires you depends on whether you LIKE it. We're back to liking again, and whether you like it has nothing to do with how good it is. I don't like it in that sense. I wouldn't hang it on my wall, no. Then again, that wasn't why it was created
Physically it is a newspaper, just as Lik's work is a photograph. However, you CAN argue whether the Sun is quality journalism or not. Photograph = Newspaper. Art = Journalism in that equation. The Sun may be a newspaper, but it is not quality journalism. Lik's work is a photograph, but it is not art.
How can it be art? Says nothing, does nothing... we've been through this.. You can find work exactly the same, but technically better on Flickr... so how does that equate to [from his own bio] "Peter Lik has spent over 30 years pushing the boundaries of fine art". How is doing what hundreds of thousands of others do on Flickr pushing boundaries? What boundaries is he pushing do you think? Please... I must be really stupid here, because I've got no idea what fine art boundaries he's pushing.
The guy has no idea what fine art even means.
He's experimenting with how his painting influences affect his photography. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.
I have not considered that, no... I've never seen your work. You could be right. I'd like to see how though. I can't imagine how gear, tripods etc. can make it more interesting. Technically better perhaps, which is often good I agree... but the interest comes from what you shoot, and why you shoot it surely.. not from the gear used. I suppose there's an exception to this if you rely on special techniques or practices... in which case I would agree with you completely. Not seen your work though... does it rely on any special techniques? If so, is it the technique itself that's interesting, or does the technique add to my reading of the subject in some way?
I mean that.. for argument's sake... you take a landscape. It may be beautiful, and beautifully shot. I may admire it. Then I walk away and never think of it again as long as a live simply because it's just another beautiful landscape amongst millions of others. That would be because it has no relevance. Yet Fay Godwin's landscapes stay with me... because they made me think. Adams' even.. stay with me, not because they're so beautiful, but the work, in conjunction with his words, made me think. I didn't agree with him... I think the idea of wilderness is crap... there's no such thing and hasn't been for over 300 years now.. but it made me think. Barbara Kruger... definitely NOT pretty... definitely NOT something you'd "like" but how can you deny the relevance? She's challenging so many important things with that work. It gets up so many people's noses for all the RIGHT reasons... it made me think. Ingrid Pollard I posted earlier on.. made me think.. made me think HARD.... Made me re-evaluate my own values actually... it actually made me think of black people differently. None of these artists I'll forget... ever. Yet all the people who's work yo look at on Flickr.. you'll have forgotten them in 10 minutes.
Quality of imagery can be improved with gear, sure. I'm still not getting how it makes it more interesting though.
You've already nailed yoru colours to the mast so fas as I'm concerned. As usual.. yet again.... you're only reason for being here is personal.
I asked you why it WASN'T art.. which is just as valid a question. You didn't answer... so I assumed you weren't that interested in discussing it.
A pretty poor case if I may say so LOL. I can just as easily level the same accusations at any number of people in here.
Yes, you have all those... and I can see all those... but that only gives me context in as much as I know it's probably somewhere around Kenya etc... those things you just listed DESCRIBE the image and therefore the place it was taken... yes. At this descriptive level I can, and indeed DO still appreciate the image. I went to great lengths to explain how much I liked those images. However, Seeing dusty horizons, Indigenous people, compression of perspective [this is purely technical and actually of no relevance at all] tells me nothing about the place or the people that I've not already seen in National Geo time and time again. Romanticising of Africa. You have to remember I never actually discounted this as art either. I think it's very powerful work. However, I felt I needed more information. WHY is he showing me this? Is it just to show me beautiful photographs? Is there something about Kenya he wants me to know.. other than it can be beautiful? Don't we all already know that? Again I need to stress that I'm not being negative about the work... it's stunning, but we're getting back to the matter of liking = art. There are craft skills, and talent on display, but that has long since ceased to be a pre-requisite of art alone. I strongly suspect the CONTEXT i want here is actually present... but in his books and in his exhibition. I think he needs that context on his website so people can go deeper than just admiring how good he his, and instead make people think about the subjects he's shooting, and that makes me ask the question as to whether that was his motivation after all... showing off. A trait very common amongst photographers... "Look how good I am". This brings us full circle. In this day and age when gear can do this for you... how valuable is that really? I'm not sure he's telling me the full story with the work. I'm almost certain that this romanticised view of Kenya is not accurate at all.
What story is it telling you? I think it's telling me "a" story... I'm not sure it's really telling me anything important. It's not really challenging what I already think I know about Kenya (which admittedly is not much).... but that's the point. He clearly spent a great deal of time there, and I suspect he did so to make "good work" that people will like on a surface, aesthetic level... stuff people WILL want to hang on their wall. Fair enough.... I agree. I WOULD hang some of those on a wall. That alone doesn't make it art though, surely. Decorative art perhaps... but that's something else entirely. Horse brasses or Franklin Mint plates are decorative art too.
Nothing wrong with the work.. I think it's brilliant.
I just thought it was relying on the same trope that so many images rely on. Romanticism and this idea of Africa.... it's playing the Lion King card quite heavily and clearly aimed at a market. The kind that buy expensive coffee table books and subscribe to Nat Geo. All images have SOME context, but usually at the detonative level.... the literal level.
^this
And vice versa. Sometimes images become sterile when they're too perfect. Ultimately, the technical aspects of an image shoudl be appropriate for the use it's being put to. Most amateurs strive for technical perfection for no reason other than to show off how good they are. Again... technical perfection is easy these days, so by itself, is a measure of precisely nothing.
I'm not checking all that for typos.... sorry.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No. You don't have to like art. You don't have to understand it. You don't need to appreciate it. My question is, why do people who neither like it, appreciate it or understand it go to such lengths to decry it? Why not just ignore it and get on with what you are good at?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
One last word on "context".
Without me telling you what I wanted from the work, you'll look at it, and you'll bring YOUR understanding of the image to it. Your understanding will, or at least coudl be very different from mine. The point of EXPLAINING the work is to make you think differently about a subject you may already have very fixed views upon. (homeless people are worthless drug addicts... the lake district is beautiful... etc.). Words anchor meaning in an image.
The idea that a picture speaks a thousand words, and that therefore a good image needs no words is an ignorant standpoint.
"The multitude of meanings in a photograph makes it risky, arguably even irresponsible, to trust raw images [....] Letting a
picture speak its thousand words can result in a thousand deceptions" (see Sandweiss 2002:326–333; Schonberg and Bourgois 2002).
Without me telling you what I wanted from the work, you'll look at it, and you'll bring YOUR understanding of the image to it. Your understanding will, or at least coudl be very different from mine. The point of EXPLAINING the work is to make you think differently about a subject you may already have very fixed views upon. (homeless people are worthless drug addicts... the lake district is beautiful... etc.). Words anchor meaning in an image.
The idea that a picture speaks a thousand words, and that therefore a good image needs no words is an ignorant standpoint.
"The multitude of meanings in a photograph makes it risky, arguably even irresponsible, to trust raw images [....] Letting a
picture speak its thousand words can result in a thousand deceptions" (see Sandweiss 2002:326–333; Schonberg and Bourgois 2002).
OP
- Messages
- 4,463
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I want to understand it... I want, and indeed to a point, to appreciate it. Ignore it? I'm married to an artist!
My late father made an interesting point... it involved a pile of bricks (now in the Tate Modern?).... he was a bricklayer and said he did that every day. Did it challenge his thinking? It certainly challenged his appreciation fair play --- go figure! This where me and (modern?) Art struggle to understand one another
Pookeyhead, is this art?
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/EarlyLandscapes.html
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Who cares? It's just a word.
That Burtynsky shot is the sort of thing for which I put my camera up to my eye, have a look and think "no" before moving on.
Steve.
That Burtynsky shot is the sort of thing for which I put my camera up to my eye, have a look and think "no" before moving on.
Steve.
- Messages
- 104,526
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't get all this "is this art?" stuff. If a group of 5 year-olds get up on stage at school with recorders and play a tune, no one asks "is this music?" it might not be good music but it is music.
If I bind some paper with random words on into a book, no one asks "but is this a book?", you might not like the content but it is a book.
Essentially if it is created as art by an artist IT IS ART, it might not be any good, you might not like it. The debate is not about deciding what is art, we get to decide what we like and we get to add weight to the good vs bad debate.