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

<p>Oscar Wilde once said " a work of art dies the moment you understand it" Working on the basis that

photography is an art form (as much in the creative sense as in the technical one), I've often pondered this statement

when viewing creative (manipulated) images. My question is, does creative photography lend itself to life and death

(in the metaphorical sense) based on the viewer's understanding of it?</p>

<p>Oscar Wilde is quoted for having has said many things some of which are pearls. This one I'm not sure, unless he wanted to imply that a work of art you will never understand by logical thinking. It reminds me of a title in the press a couple of years ago that read: " "Artist" starves a dog to death as a work of art" (Off subject!). <br>

The real question on whether "does <i>creative photography lend itself to life and death ?</i>" needs in my opinion more elaboration before a meaningful discussion can be expected. </p>

<p>

<p>In the current context, life = a continued appreciation and interest to the viewer, while death = a lack of interest once observed and understood. This is the metaphor with which Oscar Wilde refers to "a work of art dies..."<br>

And so the question remains, does understanding the photographer's intent in his/her creation (and therefore remove any query with which we initially view it) make that image any more or less appreciative and interesting to the viewer?</p>

</p>

<p>If one thinks of "understanding" as a simple matter of fact or as an on/off switch, I supposed one might concur with Wilde's sentiment. I think of "understanding" as a process, as something which evolves and changes over time. My "understanding" of most works of art has changed over time. That doesn't mean I didn't understand them before. For me, understanding is not something fixed. It is very much alive.</p>

<p>"Understanding" is also a tricky word when it comes to art. I don't "understand" art in the same way I understand a text book, nor would I want to. Just <em>trying</em> to "understand" art the way one would a text book could very well kill the experience.</p>

<p>In any case, I don't think a true work of art dies. People do. My understanding or lack thereof, my relationship to the work of art, affects me, not the work of art, unless it is somehow an interactive piece.</p>

<p>Monet's haysticks remain no matter what I think of them.</p>

<p>Its a sound-byte thats a simplification of truth. I think a lot of people do or would gain great pleasure from something they understand but which isn't (yet) understood by others generally/ their peer group/ their friends/whoever. <br>

If he'd said that " a work of art dies the moment most people understand it" . Or " the nature of enjoyment I get from a work of art changes at the point when I think I understand it" I'd buy in more strongly</p>

<p>Irony is also an art to be understood ;-)</p>

<p>If the viewer is another photographer, there are odds the structure of the photo is laid bare to him simply by his looking at it. The naive viewer sees a magical vision, mysteriously wrought, while the photograph can't help but see the joins and stitches. Gah. I am not a morning person...</p>

 

<p>It isn't really necessary to understand a work of art to enjoy it no matter what its form. A work of art must be experienced through some sort of interaction where understanding is not part of the equation. I think Wilde was saying that understanding kills the experience of interacting with a work of art.</p>

<p>Interesting quote. How about " a work of art dies the moment you CREATE it ". For creating art, being both maker and viewer, is understanding it, but it's more an understanding of the creative and technical process behind the making of the artwork. <br>

And this creative and technical process is not something the artist wants the viewer to be too much concerned about, it's that what comes to live true the means of these processes, the artwork itself, that's important, that needs to stand on its own. <br>

</p>

<p>The painter Georges Braque said something similar- "The only valid thing in art is the one thing that cannot be explained. To explain away the mystery of a great painting would do it irreparable harm..."</p>

<p>It's precisely the thing you <b>can't</b> get your head around, that you can't get a firm handle on, that keeps a work of art (music, words, visual, etc) interesting, and keeps you coming back to it. As Glenn alludes to above, art is a sensual thing, and there's not much logic or understanding involved with the senses. It applies to creating, too; the best work is made when the artist at least partly pulls from the subconscious, or intuition, and experiences that mystery for him/herself. </p>

<p>Over-obvious work in any type of art is one of my pet peeves, because there is no life in it; it's born dead.</p>

<p>"Without mystery there is no art" - Ellis Vener December 30, 2008</p>

<p>You can quote me on that.</p>

<p>" a work of art dies the moment you understand it" </p>

<p>Art: Interesting quote. Without knowing the full context surrounding his remark, I think it is not complete or appropriate. If the search for knowledge leads to an answer, and that answer dies once one has comprehended it, then little progress beyond that point would take place, at least in a linear fashion. Once we have crossed one bridge of understanding, we go on. The work is not dead, but becomes a past experience, sometimes to be revisited with pleasure. </p>

<p>Newton's law of gravity has not died in the approximately 400 years since its formulation, but it has led others to revisit it and modify it for conditions unknown to Newton. As a law it still works for us, is still alive. So a work of art, once understood (partially, at least), does not die, but remains in the consciousness of those who have interpreted it and provides fuel for the imagination thereafter. </p>

<p>I think Wilde might have been saying only that one goes on from one experience to another, that the human mind cannot stay with one single law or image forever. We are always searching. He was probably stating what many of his generation already recognized, although I do not know the full context of his remark.. </p>

<p>Ellis once wrote that "without mystery there is no art". This is surely right, but without some elements of understanding you would not be able to grasp that there is a mystery at stake.<br /> If you wish a totally subjective, individualistic approach to the mystery then it all is a question of placing the work of art within your own history of events, experiences and thoughts. Surely you will find a mystery hidden somewhere between you and the work of art.<br /> If you wish to approach works of art from a more contextual frame of reference: an understanding of the artist, his time, his artistic reference (ex Braque-Picasso) you might be able to approach an understanding of the mysteries the artist tried to express. This is by some called "<em>understanding works of art</em>"<br /> You might wish to approach works of art by both manners. For you to choose <br /> It is all a question of what you the viewer want to get out of a works of art. After all works of art have become consumption goods!</p>

<p>Anders once wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If you wish to approach works of art from a more contextual frame of reference: an understanding of the artist, his time, his artistic reference (ex Braque-Picasso) you might be able to approach an understanding of the mysteries the artist tried to express. "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> To paraphrase a once powerful politician:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How can you know unless the artist told you, what mysteries and artist tried to express. More to the point it seems more likely to me that artists generally are not trying to express mysteries, they are trying in their work to solve mysteries that thye themselves only get a fleeting glimpse of. perhaps by getting them out on paper or in steel or even into a digital form they are trying to get them out of their heads so they can take a deeper and more prolonged look at them.</p>

<p>Here's another thing i recently realized and what I wrote earlier is at a tangent to this thought:</p>

<p><strong>"Aesthetics is the continuation of war by other means" --Ellis Vener December 27, 2008</strong> .</p>

<p>As individuals we are always at war with something or someone or some part of ourselves. The mystery for you to solve is: What are you at war with? Do these wars ever end? And if they do end, how do they end? And when they do end, do you stop needing to be creative and imaginative?</p>

<p>"...they are trying to get them out of their heads so they can take a deeper and more prolonged look at them."</p>

<p>In a similar vein, my wife says I photograph things that catch my eye, so that I can look at them closely to try to figure out why they got my attention.</p>

 

<p>I must be an exceptional person that actually learn from reading and speaking to others, when it comes to understanding art. The learning process never ends, so no danger that the works of art would die - following the words of Oscar Wilde. Reading the writings of Rothko makes me better understand his paintings. Reading about the life of Picasso makes me better understand his works linking it closely to his own life periods. I experience art mainly through knowledge and analysis (of others, or my own) although I always have what I would call a guts feeling about anything see, but which I value only as a very first step into "understanding" a work of art.<br>

When it come to my own modest artistic expressions (photos, paintings) it is altogether another story.<br>

One P.S. without connection to the subject: I find it very intriguing that most Americans (?) here on PN so often seem to distrust the need for education and knowledge when we speak about "understanding" cultural aspects of life such as arts. The US has one of the highest educational attainment levels in the World. I would have thought that they should <i>know</i> better. Or, is there something I haven't understood?</p>

<p>While the above question is a valid one the quote on which it is based is taken somewhat out of context. Wilde was hardly famous for his conformistic ideas about art. Far better than I can explain that he has done so himself in one of his other, quite often used, quotes: <em>"Illusion is the first of all pleasures"</em></p>

<p>In other words, maybe we shouldn't take all of this too seriously.</p>

<p>"I would have thought that they should <em>know</em> better. Or, is there something I haven't understood?"</p>

<p>Probably. Is it off-topic for the thread or the forum? I think your observation is true. There is something about the direction the Humanities have taken the past several decades that is not appreciated by the average American, I think.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is with great delight that I read the postings on this topic. Thank you all for your thoughts<br>

Fred "I think of "understanding" as a process, as something which evolves and changes over time."<br>

I too have come to this understanding of "understanding" a work of art Fred. I don't think it ever dies unless, as you say, you try to understand it as you would a text book.<br>

Ton "Irony is also an art to be understood ;-)" agreed Ton. would you classify it as abstract:)?<br>

Don "Gah. I am not a morning person..."<br>

That's ok Don, to take another of Oscar Wilde's quotes "only dull people are brilliant at breakfast":) It's better to be 'bright'. I like your suggestion that the "naive viewer sees a magical vision" I hope to always remain naive. For me, naivety helps my evolution of understanding and interaction with art</p>

<p>Glen " I think Wilde was saying that understanding kills the experience of interacting with a work of art."<br>

yes he was. But as long as that understanding is an ongoing process, the interaction is ever evolving too.<br>

Phylo, " a work of art dies the moment you CREATE it ".<br>

I think this may be true (sometimes) for the creator rather than the viewer.</p>

<p> Arthur, "I think Wilde might have been saying only that one goes on from one experience to another"<br>

I would suggest Arthur, that Wilde considered his meaning of 'death' as the process in which art stops being questioned, appreciated and interacted with.</p>

<p>Ellis I like that quote. It reminds me of another quote (i cannot recall from whom) "war is politics, by other means"</p>

<p>Again I reiterate my gratitude for everyone's thoughts here</p>

 

<p>A work of art once understood by the viewer that results in an epiphany is timeless. Nice discussion. Another interesting quote for Photo.net is from Susan Sontag who said,<br /> <em> "So successful has been the camera's role in beautifying the world that photographs rather than the world, have become the standard of the beautiful."</em></p>

<p>i don't think we can ever really understand a work of art because there are so many layers on which we can understand art and create it. some artists don't even try to understand their own work, it's more an intuitive response. as the viewer, we make judgements, apply a label or impose meanings and cease interacting with a work of art, seeing instead only those preformed ideas, fixed at point in time. it is the conversation that dies.</p>

<p>1. There is art without mystery.<br>

2. Understanding means not understanding. Who can brake this kung for me?<br>

3. Certain member of one royal family said once: "To understand or not to understand? That is the question." Retorically, I suppose. But he himself, being wise enough, did not come up with answer.<br>

4. Why would anybody try to understand the work of art, exept for he/she is real stupid?<br>

5. Answering OP question "Does photography lands it self ..." I will say no, it does't. And why should it? Even in metaphorical sense.<br>

6. I often think that many people misunderstand and abuse the concept of understanding at the expense of other senses they have in general.<br>

7. My New Year Message for Art heads is: Stop your self trying to understand anything, just sort of try to relax and go around not understanding. You can also try to recite magic mantra I now put forward for your all. I do not understand it - I do not understand it - I just do not understand it - .... focus your attention on deep circular breathing at all times and this alone wil bring you to anothes side just fine. I promise.</p><div></div>

<p>I mean you can't kill damn thing by understanding it or something like that..</p>

<p>Ilia, <i>can't</i> or <i>can</i> ?</p>

<p>Not the biggest Oscar Wilde fan, but I guess you could say he was ahead of his time in predicting the attitude of the current art world which seems to be that senseless mystery is somehow more meaningful than purposeful symbolism. I don't buy any of it. If you really don't have anything to say, then why bother showing your work? And if you don't want people to understand what you have to say, then why bother showing your work? That being said, for me personally one of the biggest thrills I have personally in viewing artwork is attempting to understand what the artist was trying to communicate, or at the least, what he was thinking about when creating a work. It has never been my personal experience that this pursuit "kills" any of these works or my enjoyment of them, but then again, I am not interested in novelty and not understanding something doesn't make it more amazing to me, but quite the opposite. I guess some people prefer to be in awe in ignorance and some people prefer to be in awe in understanding. How and why just makes the universe even more beautiful to me.</p>