Jump to content

"Dominant aesthetic responses of our time"


Recommended Posts

Ok.. One more time...let's go back a few posts and get this

discussion going again since it sort of flopped the first time.

What are the dominant aesthetic responses of our time?

 

Here are mine: I think *sensationalism* might be one. What we

might call *negativism* might be another. (I favor both of these by

the way--though I don't claim a tendency towards either)

 

I'm restarting this post because the last one got buried in

discussion about photographic criticism or something rather.

 

I'd love to hear others' ideas on this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be surprised when this thread gets deleted. If you want to direct the discussion on the topic, you can do it in the original thread just as easily as you can here. Reposting it just tells those who did participate in the last thread that you think their contributions were worthless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again, I supposse that there really are millions of photographers who could respond to the question you ask, so I guess that a statistical analysis would provide you with an accurate idea to your question concernign what may have been a dominant aesthetic

and the resulting responses, of our time. Why not write a paper on the subject. I agree with Mike Dixon that reposting is a little odd since many people did respond to your original thread.

 

Nice to know your 'favoured' dominant aethetic responses.

Here are my responses to your question, again.

 

 

Hi arkady n.

These are my beginners thoughts on the subject of 'Aesthetic responses'.

 

Photography is not always an aesthetic response, and it is not always art.

 

A response usually follows a lead, as this response follows your lead question. So to ask what the dominant responses of our time are, one can first ask what the dominant lead has been in our time.

 

The Dominant aesthetic response to Capitalism is Consumerism. Sell 50,000,000 cameras to people and you will have many more consumers.

 

Is that art?

 

Personally I find my own responses to this day and age to be changing and that is fine by me. To be stuck with one fixed lens and angle of view on life would to say the least, be very worrying. Sometimes a step backwards towards medium format film can enable high quality results, avoiding capitalistic issues and also providing the chance to make something worthy of the title art.

 

Since people are quoted as 'dealing in irony and detachment, still the dominant aesthetic responses of our time', I found it amusing that the responses to your question were perhaps also ironic and detached!

 

Cheers and all the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I read that you are a trained painter. I think that photography

can be a direct aesthetic response to painting, or perhaps visa versa. Using photos for reference is interesting and having a visual history of art in your minds eye before shooting may also be interesting. I suppose that people are grappling with new forms of technology which may expand their awareness of aesthetic values, and

also may not.

 

So all that said I suppose that photography could even be one of the leading dominant aesthetic responses of our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, do you have a paper to write? Get over it, man! ;-)

 

OK, I'll take my crack at it....

 

I think much of my photography is a response to a feeling of disconnectedness. To the lack of a connection with nature in my daily life. To the lack of a connection with my community. The people I live amongst. Is any of that an "aesthetic response"?

 

I really can't speak to "art" in general, as I have almost no education in art and wouldn't know an aesthetic response if it dribbled down my leg. Besides, I think the responses you got last time were pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sidenote: The original post WAS NOT mine. I thought that the ORIGINAL POSTER had a very interesting and thoughtful question which was sort of sidelined.)

 

I wonder if *tragedy as beauty* is an common aesthetic response in modern times. Do we portray tragedy as beauty because 1) we can not feel the real tragedy, therefore do not relate to it and so we can not convey it through our work? OR 2) Do many photographers naturally lean towards beauty (composition, rhythem, color, etc) and so that's the result even when they see something tragic. Or is there 3) some other reason for this phenomenon that I see quite often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dominant aesthetic responses of our time".

 

Where? In New York? London? Lagos? Ulan Bator? There can be no single dominant "aesthetic response" (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) of our time, because "we" are several thousand different tribes with different tastes, traditions, religions (or lack of religion), and the subject of a variety of both local and global current events that influence our lives in totally different ways. The phrase is really just a load of hot air, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...