Concepts Off topic and general arguments

[AndrewFlannigan]

...but I do like to suffer for my art, darling

...as the masochist said to the sadist!

However (putting on a serious face) I've often wondered just why people listen to "art experts". It's always seemed to me that a fundamental part of "art" is whether it appeals to an individual or not. How it was made, who made it, when and where it was made: these are all secondary matters.

 

[Ed Sutton]

A photograph of a piece of ephemeral art (e.g. Richard Long's A Line Made by Walking) is all about the process and the photograph is of secondary importance as a record (or a cynic might suggest, as a marketable artefact...).

 

[droj]

It's always seemed to me that a fundamental part of "art" is whether it appeals to an individual or not.

That would seem to miss a significant concern. I'm not interested in whether something appeals to someone, or not - but I'm crucially interested in how it appeals to them. For someone to say "I like that" is in no sense explanatory. Let's do some digging.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

For someone to say "I like that" is in no sense explanatory.

We'll have to agree to disagree completely on that.

To me, "I like it" or "I don't like it" is the sole decision to be made about "art as art".

Of course, there are many discussions to be had about the technical aspects of any object. "Is a picture sharp", "is the pot truly circular", "are the bedclothes in the correct form of disarray" (OK, the last is, I think, a joke).

 

[droj]

To me, "I like it" or "I don't like it" is the sole decision to be made about "art as art".

But that doesn't explain anything. We can ignore the technical, yes, that's not what I'm on about. It's about how the piece works. How we experience it. What is its nature?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's about how the piece works. How we experience it.

I had hoped I made my position clear in my previous post. There really is nothing I can add to that.

 

[Ed Sutton]

To me, "I like it" or "I don't like it" is the sole decision to be made about "art as art".

That's fine for you, but not for others. As has been stated repeatedly on this forum, it's possible to appreciate a work without liking it.

 

[sirch]

are the bedclothes in the correct form of disarray

As you said on another thread, that is the kind of thing that Terry Pratchett's auditors would be considering. You have stated your views on art many times on many threads and repeating the same thing over and over does not make it correct or convince anyone. It is delusional to think that a multi-billion pound industry and cultural phenomenon depends solely on what one person likes.

 

[droj]

I had hoped I made my position clear in my previous post. There really is nothing I can add to that.

So you refuse to engage ...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But that doesn't explain anything. We can ignore the technical, yes, that's not what I'm on about. It's about how the piece works. How we experience it. What is its nature?

You'll have to ask someone else. I've explained my position and you're beginning to annoy.

 

[droj]

I've explained my position

Which is entrenched ...

 

[Ed Sutton]

You'll have to ask someone else. I've explained my position and you're beginning to annoy.

In case you missed it: "This is a forum for people who like to chew the fat over more esoteric, artsy, philosophical, etc. concepts about photography as a visual medium."

Concepts - READ THIS FIRST - Photographic Concepts

Introducing a new forum Forums-> Ideas and Inspiration-> Photographic Concepts This is a forum for people who like to chew the fat over more esoteric, artsy, philosophical, etc. concepts about photography as a visual medium. If you enjoy serious, deep and thoughtful discussion then if you set...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It is delusional to think that a multi-billion pound industry and cultural phenomenon depends solely on what one person likes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but seems that you are assuming that the art world is a unit, in some sense like a commercial company or a military regiment. To me, it is clearly a gestalt of millions of disparate decisions and agreements between individuals.

We know that extremely complex objects, such as biological cells, can arise spontaneously from the combination of simple atoms, given a particular set of circumstances. It seems entirely sensible to me that the phenomenon of the "art world" might arise in exactly that way, from the interaction of simple human drives ranging from pleasure (I like it) to greed (I can sell it) around which complex decisions, agreements and opinions are formed.

You are taking my binary viewpoint to be confrontational and simplistic when it is, in truth, based on 60 years of viewing, evaluating and making images. It is thus, if truly simplistic, the simplicity that comes from experience and is not intended to be offensive. If asked to explain why I like something, I cannot because I have come to the conclusion that attempting to analyse an image is always, in the event, exactly as Pratchett presented the attempt - ultimately futile.

 

[sirch]

Enough of this, let's keep it on topic, which is "Do you care about your photography".

@AndrewFlannigan you have said your piece and I am tired of hearing it, it's probably best if you toddle along and play somewhere else. As has been pointed out above I set this forum up as a place for open minded discussion of photographic concepts and it is a distinct forum so that it can be more tightly policed because conceptual threads are often subject to trolling and people who just want an argument for the sake of it. There is no point in saying the same thing in different ways over and over, it just becomes annoying and does not progress the debate.

 

[droj]

It seems entirely sensible to me that the phenomenon of the "art world" might arise in exactly that way, from the interaction of simple human drives ranging from pleasure (I like it) to greed (I can sell it) around which complex decisions, agreements and opinions are formed.

If I'm allowed to reply - quite so!

... attempting to analyse an image is always, in the event ... ultimately futile.

Not at all, it's an invaluable exercise that can increase understanding.