"a work of art dies the moment you understand it" (Oscar Wilde)

<p>Many good philosophers are dismissive (actually, I might even say "most"), but they are not "simply" dismissive. They argue their points thoroughly and back up what they say. Socrates probably set the precedent for arrogance. There's actually a certain charm involved. But better to read these writers thoroughly and not make judgments from extracted quotations.</p>

<p>The point is much more often Understanding than Argument. I find that if I set out reading any philosopher in an argumentative mode, I don't get much out of it. I begin with Acceptance and move to Argumentation later.</p>

<p>So, does this mean that once a person understands the fundamentals of photography (exposure, lighting, framing, etc.) that a person will lose their appreciation for good photography?<br /> <br /> My opinion would be "no". Actually, understanding what it takes to produce a good photograph has increased my personal appreciation for photography.<br /> <br /> Anyways, just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Your 2 cent worth is a sound investment here Keith. I believe the 'technical' understanding you refer to above can make one appreciate a photo more. However, sometimes one can understand why it is they appreciate it because the viewer has this technical understanding themselves (i guess I'd refer to this as 'objective' understanding) and sometimes they don't because although they may not necessarily understand the technical dynamics required to achieve the end result, they understand it's impact on their visual senses (could this then be 'subjective' interpretation?). I would suggest that Wilde viewed the latter as 'killing art' when it is taken from that 'subjective interpretation' and manipulated into a 'collective meaning' and titled "critique", as if a work or 'art' can ever be dissected (a discussion for another forum i would suggest)</p>

<p>Perhaps Wilde assumed the word ONLY in his quote. (He liked to be concise.) If we ONLY understand the Mona Lisa or understand it ONLY in the way we would understand a textbook about paint pigment and composition, we have missed the work of art before us, or the work of art is dead to us. Appreciating the Mona Lisa as art requires an esthetic approach and judgment and to only understand how it works or what it means or what its historical experience is, without that esthetic approach, would mute its effect. There is a reason an advertising poster with a picture of a seated woman generally affects us differently from the painting called "Mona Lisa." But that reason is not that we understand one and shouldn't understand the other. And if we approach the poster as we do the painting, the poster can be art. Many posters are. And not because I stopped understanding them, but because my appreciation of them takes a certain turn.</p>

<p>"a work of art dies the moment you understand it" (Oscar Wilde)<br>

If you know what he meant by this, it then follows that the work of Oscar Wilde is dead. In that case, the quote no longer applies.<br>

:)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Clever deductive reasoning Lou, only, I haven't decided if Wilde's writings are a work or art (sacrilegious i know).<br>

Fred, YES, that makes sense to me now. "ONLY", when assumed in this quote helps deal with the struggle I've always had with it when viewing art. I've always assumed Wilde would have added this word had he intended to rather than assume his audience would assume it.<br>

I think if we "only" understand the technical aspects or 'art' we have missed something special. It suggests that art can be discussed and analyzed technically and once done so one can move on. As this forum thread shows, art and even our interpretation of art is more complex than that and so can always be discussed, reviewed, debated and so on (and in so doing keeping art alive). This word "only"reminds me of an earlier posting you made regarding your gallery ("...There will be a fair amount of natural light, but of course its effects will vary depending on time of day and season of the year...."). I bring it up because it seems appropriate to my point that, although the technical aspects of 'art' can be collectively agreed upon (which in itself kills a work of art), all other aspects of it (metaphor, meaning, intent, symbolism etc...) are forever changing to the viewer. How much more so then would these aspects change or vary between viewers! The debate we have on a work or art's meaning, intent, symbolism etc... may happen as much within ourselves as it does between each other. For me, this ultimately suggest a work of art can never be viewed the same way twice and therefore can never die.</p>

<p>I would only add here that the inner debate I refer to is often based as much on external factors such as light of day, positioning in a room etc... as it does the internal factors such as our mood at the time or rather the frame of mind with which we view it, the knowledge and/or experiences gained since our last viewing etc...</p>

<p>One can "understand" linear logic and linear verbal exercises, philosophy and scientific analysis, but one cannot "understand" poetry, acting, or the "art" that sometimes illuminates the kind of output to which we commonly and carelessly attach that label (some painting, poetry, literature, and photography are art... in unusual instances).</p>

<p>The actors in his plays are more significant artists than is Wilde.</p>

<p>We routinely "understand" Wilde's work, but we do not understand the artists, the spirits who bring it alive.</p>

 

<p>Neither Wilde nor this topic seem related to photography any more than Victoria or Kipling was.</p>

<p>Have I missed something? How does Wilde relate to photography?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John--</p>

<p>Wilde's quote talks about art. Some folks consider some photography art. There you have it.</p>

<p>"Wilde's quote talks about art. Some folks consider some photography art. There you have it." - Fred G</p>

<p>Fred, You're not even trying :-)</p>

<p>He's as relevant to art as he was to McCain's Vietnam experience (they both suffered, both addressed perpetual youth, both know about narcissism, and both wrote).</p>

<p>This thread may be history's only attempt to connect Wilde to photography..it is of course prolix, and ridiculously far off-topic. Photo.net does have a more appropriate Forum...it's OT here.</p>

<p>Try to find any significant reference to photography by Wilde, or to him by a significant photographer, somewhere other than on this thread. Nobody's cared enough here.</p>

<p>I do know something potentially very relevant, but since nobody here cares about Wilde's art (obviously), they've neglected to mention Dorian Gray.</p>

<p>We were talking about Wilde's quote and you are correct that we were not talking about Wilde.</p>

<p>Dorian Gray seems more relevant than John McCain.</p>

<p>Bringing up Dorian Gray is an astute and valuable contribution and makes room for a much more fruitful conversation about photography and Wilde than has been done so far.</p>

<p>Say more about it.</p>

<p>Fred, I think a new thread, started by someone else, would be better. This one deserves the OT Forum.</p>

<p>I'm resuming a project that may touch on Dorian Gray. </p>

<p>Re-printing (new Epson 3800) environmental portraits of a woman and a man, both about 75, I'm seeing reflections of their beautiful youth, as well as beauty in their wrinkle. The beauty that tempted me to make the exposures wasn't immediately evident (I didn't "understand" it), perhaps because of my own issues with age (at 65!) . These prints are helping me reschedule delayed, promised portraits.</p>

<p>Wilde seems better known, and more significant, for his suffering than for his art. That's how he relates to John McCain.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Perhaps for the purpose of this thread someone will attempt to explain Wilde's relevance to photography or to art. I mentioned one connection, you got the point. Let's see if anybody else is literate.</p>

<p>You are in a better position to start a thread about Dorian Gray & Photography than I am. I have no dog in this fight, but could :-)</p>

<p>John, refer to the very 1st thread on this subject and see that the quote was used as a 'reference' point with which a discussion could be made on photography and it's depiction as "art" or artistic expression. The quote in and unto itself isn't so much the point here, (John K:"Have I missed something?") and yes you have missed something.</p>

<p>"...the quote was used as a 'reference' point with which a discussion could be made on photography and it's depiction as "art" or artistic expression." - Art</p>

<p>Art, Thank you for clarifying. Why did you not attempt to ask that earlier?</p>

<p>Wilde seems important to you...I can't believe you'd quote him if he wasn't.</p>

<p>Are photography and art inherently Oscar Wilde-related in your mind? How?</p>

<p>Do you know his historic significance? Have you read him?</p>

<p>You now appear to consider the quote irrelevant: seems unfair to his ghost.</p>

 

<p><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p>"Why did you not attempt to ask that earlier?"<br />perhaps it would never have led us to this point:)<br />"Are photography and art inherently Oscar Wilde-related in your mind? How?"<br />simple answer is no. However, I reflect on photography as a form of art or artistic expression. I reflect on art with that quote in mind in an attempt to "understand" (there's that word again) it, or asses whether I agree with Wilde or not.<br />"Do you know his historic significance? Have you read him?"<br />I know of his works but don't claim to always understand him or agree with him. I'm not fond of his plays but find his style of critique amusing at the very least. I see a contradiction in his thinking (when I read 'De Profundis',a work of spirituality and faith and then read his sarcastic approach to the world he lives in) which I can relate to (this is the importance you ask about in the above thread) I suspect though, that this sarcasm towards society stems from the injustices he perceived of the justice system after his release from prison (as evident in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol' ).<br />My appreciation and understanding of his works probably IS an OT forum thread though:)<br />"You now appear to consider the quote irrelevant: seems unfair to his ghost."<br />I see nothing in what I have written that would give you that interpretation. What I have suggested is that "The quote in and unto itself isn't so much the point here" because I apply no immediate relevance to photography with the quote. As I have suggested the quote is a reference point for this forum, a prelude or footnote to the discussion at hand 'does understanding a work of art, in this case photography, lend itself to a living or dieing of that work'. The quote helps apply context to my original question and that is its purpose here<br />On a personal level the quote and the works of Oscar Wilde have influenced some of my perspectives and are far from being irrelevant of insignificant. I suspect his ghost haunts me often John:)</p>

<br /> </p>

<p>It's good to remember Wilde, of course. <br>

Almost nobody responded to the question as it was framed with a quotation that wasn't expanded adequately upon ... wasn't strong enough, by itself, for the purpose. I do see the connection.<br>

Photography is not "art" any more than a product's catalog description is "art." There's an art possibility, but not an art likelihood. The same applies to sculpture and painting. That someone with a beret declares his work art does not make it so. Art is rare.</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/world/europe/15mosaic.html?em</p>

<p>how do u know when u have understood it?</p>

<p>what a read!! great discussion here...</p>