Aesthetics and Representation in Photography

Its a supported theory that when observing photos or any art in particular,

that we judge a pieces worth by comparing it to inbuilt instinctual

references. An example of the "innocent eye" is portrayed in Tanseys artwork,

where a cow is shown a lifelike painting of a bull, with scientifical dressed

men waiting eagerly for a reaction. It could be said this is the basis of the

basic rules of photography, such as dynamic lines and rules of third, and that

art is just an extention for an appreaction of naturally created beauty.

However this doesnt account for representation by an artist, or societys

norms. A flower doesnt not connote beauty if it is a lilly on a coffin. So

what is more important, or do they have equal properties that should be

considered on judgement.

 

Im writing a piece for my studies, and by no means would consider having

anyone on this forum do my work, but i would like a broader perspective on the

subject, than just the books im reading. Scolars like Arthur Danto would say

that art can be anything, as long as it is subject to criticism and

recognition by "the art world" consisting of knowledgable people. Movements

such as conceptualism apply no aesthetic value at all, but base their artistic

merit on what something can mean or represent. In photography however, and

what im trying to argue is that representation and aesthetics are equal in

merit, but only a "great" photo can exist when the two are combined, one

without the other only leads to repetition or plain stupidity. Aesthetics

understanding without representation creates basic patterns and similarly

repeating copies of shapes you'd see in nature. Lines running from corner to

corner, clones of basic rules. Representation without aesthetic value leads to

uninteresting confusing photos that do nothing to tempt a viewer into deeper

thought, and only become apparent with background understanding or text. Roger

Scruton would disagree with me and even says that a photo is incapable of

representing anything, and that photography isnt art, in so much as it is just

a pure carbon copy of something that we already appreciate, you do not

appreciate a photograph, you only appreciate its subject, where as art you

appreciate how the subject was created.

 

Do you think that the greatest photos follow a similar pattern? Do you think

this or another reason is why some photos stick out more than others, or do

they just apply a greater aesthetic than most. Id like to know what you

everyone thinks is the reason that we appreciate some works more than others.

If anyone has any text or books that they would like to suggest in the

subjects of aesthetics, representation and the philosphy of photography of art

i would be very appreciative.

 

Thanks for reading.<div></div>

"A flower doesn't not connote beauty if it is a lilly on a coffin."

 

What you mean is "seeing a flower doesn't stir up the aesthethic response of " beauty" if it is a lilly on a coffin."

 

But you are wrong . It may still be beautiful and bring up thoughts of the beauty and fragility of life while simultaneously stirring the dual emotional responses of sorrow at someone's passing while stirring one's fears of pending mortality.

 

School must be back in session.

 

here is the one thing you must know about what great photogrpahy or other arts are all about: paying attention.

How does that fussy thesis deal with the images of D-Day landing by Robert Capa?

Follow up:

 

"here is the one thing you must know about what great photogrpahy or other arts are all about: paying attention."

 

Everything else is just technique of some sort.

Daniel--

<p><p>

One of the statements you made that, if reconsidered, could help in a fuller

understanding: <i>A flower

doesn't connote beauty if it is a lily on a coffin.</i>

<p><p>

Why not? Are you assuming that death

can't

beautiful?

<p><p>Even if death/coffin is ugly to the viewer, couldn't the

lily still represent beauty or in fact be perceived as beautiful (as a contrast to the coffin) in

that image?

<p><p>

A good start might be to read excerpts from Plato's

<i>Republic</i> and Aristotle's <i>Poetics</i>. They pretty much

covered the territory and set the tone for the debate about art's purpose.

<p><p>

When speaking of

representation and esthetics, I think one has to be mindful of <i>perspective</i>.

Generally,

when we speak of representation (I prefer

to think of it as <i>presentation</i> rather than <i>representation</i>, more the

Aristotle camp), we are speaking of representing a perspective, not of representing some

fixed reality which can somehow be

grasped by an artist or anyone else for that matter.

Sorry, Ellis, was writing while you were submitting a similar point.

<i>Its a supported theory that when observing photos or any art in particular, that we judge a pieces worth by comparing it to inbuilt instinctual references. </i><P>

I know that it's a <b>repeated</b> theory; it's highly debatable how well-supported it is. If an image's "worth" is founded on inbuilt instinctual references, it's odd that the "aesthetic sense" varies so widely across cultures, among individuals, and throughout different eras.

Tansey's painting is a satire.

 

Maybe the original post in this thread is too.

My wording may not have been quite as helpful as i had intended. What I ment by that statement, is that although people feel that the first response to photography is instinctive, this doesnt account for social conditioning, i.e a flower is beautiful but in a certain social perspective its meaning changes. But the point i was trying to emphasis is that using this form of presentation is equally as important in the creation of a photograph as is the subject itself, one without other leads to what i described.

 

Mike has made a very good point of which i had not considered, does the capture of extreme moments, and events of social importance also effect how we judge a photo, and why?

 

"here is the one thing you must know about what great photogrpahy or other arts are all about: paying attention."

 

True, technique is something everyone can master, and so is quoting. However what is the basis behind that statement, what attention can you pay to something that makes your work better, what effects the overall ability to wow someone. Is it visual, is it personal, or is it a combination of to many unknown factors.

Ellis i do not mean to be rude, but if i am struggling to put across my point clearly im sorry, but i dont think your responses are helpful.

And it was john that mention Capa sorry!

Before one postulates "inbuilt instinctual references" might want to produce some evidence for them. Caution is suggested: Postulating them seems to spring from the same motive that in Victorian times compared the relative beauty of humanity's races.

 

As a secondary matter, Daniel B. seem not to understand the meaning of "instinctual," as he's prefaced it with "inbuilt," which is equivalent to saying the blood is reddish red.

Meanings deepen with each breath you take, each word you read, each thought you form.

Ellis, Nicely expressed...I partially agree...

 

...but I don't think "meanings" deepen without some awareness of one's experience. It's not automatic.

 

The deepening of "meaning" is often carelessly, even intentionally prevented by life practices such as rigorous adherence to theories, religions, drugs, and political lines.

Ellis- I tend to agree the the spirit of "Meanings deepen with each breath you take, each word

you read, each thought you form." However, Daniel's writing makes me more and more

confused the more I read. Daniel- you need to slow down and pose your questions with

clarity. Asking questions is probably the best thing you can do to understand anything, but

you must think it through first. You have to present your audience with better examples and

if you are going to present samples, read up on them first.

John , true enough. Meanings deepen only as perception and understanding (subjective response) do.

John and Ellis-- I so appreciate hearing "meaning" discussed this way.

 

Daniel-- The "meaning" of "pay attention" will hopefully deepen the more you do it and

the more you make photographs. It has for me. There are countless things to pay attention

to, starting with your view of the world around you. Then there is your purpose in taking a

photograph. Then there's what's at the edge of the frame that I might like to include or

eliminate.

 

The "overall ability to wow someone" is way down on my list of priorities in photography

as well as other pursuits.

 

I agree that photography as the means of presentation is important, just as is the subject

of the photograph, (just as are other factors). Could you use this recognition as a key in

your own photography? Many of my favorite portfolios on PNET are those which seem to

show an ability to utilize the medium harmoniously with the subject.

Richard Avedon talks about paying attention

at the beginning of this interview with Charlie Rose

http://www.charlierose.com/home

 

Very perceptive:

Its in the Explore Video Archive

In Memoriam

Richard Avedon

11/26/99

 

g

Here is a great book that speaks also about aesthetics in art of Escher and in Bach's music. It is "Goedel, Escher, Bach: Eternal Golden Braid"

 

About Durer: "Aesthetic Excursus".

 

From photographers, I like books about Henry Cartier-Bresson.