The limitations of "feeling" in viewing photographs

cyanatic · September 1, 2014

“Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts.” - Walker Evans

</blockquote>

Recently, I've been reading and viewing a book on Walker Evans put out as a catalogue in 2000 by New York's MOMA in conjunction with a showing of Evans' work.

The text of the book is broken up into different sections, by different critics, each one talking about a particular phase of Evans' work. Unfortunately, I cannot find the specific section that inspired me to write this post. Essentially, it dealt with a particular photograph by Evans and discussed, in detail, the specific elements of the image that caused the writer to praise it so highly. I studied the photograph, and although I could see what the writer was talking about, I failed to find many of the elements on my own, and even upon finding them questioned the validity of them.

Very often – too often, I fear – I look at another photographer's work and allow the feeling it gives me to guide me in my appreciation of it. I am capable of discerning certain basic technical elements (composition, color, tonality, etc.) but I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.

For me, this applies especially to some contemporary work, and to many abstract works from the past. (A few brief examples and not limited to these – Minor White, Man Ray, or some of the selections made for the annual photography show in Paris.)

My impression of much of certain contemporary work which seems highly regarded is that it seems to be possessed of either an extreme post-postmodern ironic banality, or it is a highly produced, fantastical neo-pictorialist construct. I am not railing, as some are fond of, against the so-called “Art World”. I am seeking greater understanding.

Another example (and here I can present an actual link) might be the work of Tina Barnes (I came across an article about her in a recent issue of Vogue). Her 1982 photograph, “Sunday New York Times” hangs in the Museum of Modern Art in New York. When I showed it to a friend (one who is far from being an aesthetic neanderthal lacking in sensitivity to significant/artistic photography) to ask her opinion, she dubbed it “awful”. Perhaps the director who selected the photo moves in the same wealthy, East Coast WASP world as Barnes and it struck a chord that only those from that world might understand. I don't know, but here is a link for those who might be interested:

http://mobiletest.moma.org/collection_images/resized/019/w1024h1024/CRI_117019.jpg?moma_url_type=img&moma_title=Sunday%20New%20York%20Times

Regardless of the work of Barnes, or Minor White, or some contemporary wunderkind currently making the rounds of the “Art World”, I still feel that whatever critical faculties I possess need to go beyond mere “feeling”, or a simplistic technical understanding. I have no problem relying more heavily on feeling in regard to creating my own photographs, but I think I need to temper my review of the work of others with something more. If that makes sense...

I often feel that many of you who post regularly on the POP discussion board are more experienced and well-read in certain areas than I am. So, to Arthur, or Julie, or Anders, or Fred, or the many other posters here – What do you see when you view a photographic work? What do you draw upon in viewing? Is there a prevailing (or more than one) aesthetic outlook that is currently in vogue in the Art World?

I realize I have left this very broad and open-ended, but I'm very much interested in what anyone has to say on whatever aspect of this post strikes them.

didereaux · September 1, 2014

Steve Gubin wrote, "

Very often – too often, I fear – I look at another photographer's work and allow the feeling it gives me to guide me in my appreciation of it. I am capable of discerning certain basic technical elements (composition, color, tonality, etc.) but I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.

For me, this applies especially to some contemporary work, and to many abstract works from the past. (A few brief examples and not limited to these – Minor White, Man Ray, or some of the selections made for the annual photography show in Paris.)

My impression of much of certain contemporary work which seems highly regarded is that it seems to be possessed of either an extreme post-postmodern ironic banality, or it is a highly produced, fantastical neo-pictorialist construct. I am not railing, as some are fond of, against the so-called “Art World”. I am seeking greater understanding."

Your view is entirely valid. What is said in reviews and professional critiques is heavily biased by the fact that almost all of the contributors have a vested interest. Their livelihood depends upon their acceptance within a very closed group (both numerically, and psychological). They must adopt the current jargon, and respond in the current fashion when considering 'Art' in any form. this in turn is aped by the ignorant, and smelly masses.

At the more mundane level of say Wedding photography we are being inundated by over-exposures. While other photography is being viewed as good only if over processed to the point of being fit for only fantasy comic books. Any critic who points out that such things are not artistic will be shunned and have no say, or place (paying) in which to say it. Ten years from now those so-called techniques will be as pooh-poohed as pink glossy lipstick and plastic hair of the 60's.

Norma Desmond · September 1, 2014

Steve,

It may be as much a how and a why as a what. For a minute, let's not think about elements or qualities or feelings or even messages or ideas (which can be important). I'm not dismissing these things. I'm just suspending them for a moment.

Take any work you're not getting that seems to be getting attention. First choice is, you don't have to like or appreciate it yourself. There's plenty of trash out there. But let's say you want to give it a fair shake but start off not liking it, not getting it. What to do?

Empathy is where I start. What in the world might the photographer (or artist) have had in mind? If I see the Barnes photo as awful and want to give it more of a chance, I think to myself "What are the most awful things about it and why?" I may pretend for a minute that someone I know, love, and respect created it and really search for clues as to what someone I have the utmost respect for might have been trying to show or say or express. I look especially for traditions or rules or comfort zones or expectations that it might completely flout. I try hard to see if it's reaching beyond something likable, something already relatable into some new territory. Is there something significant here that may be so personal that I have to work to get it? Is there something off-putting that I have to push through in order to empathize? In failing to rise to certain pre-existing standards is it saying something that sounds like a foreign language but might really just be stated with such a strong accent that I have to simply slow it down to understand it? Can I tap into my dislike? Can I explore my sense that it's merely banal and pretend for the moment that I'm the stupid one and it's more significant than my ability to recognize. Can I humble myself?

Sometimes this works and sometimes this doesn't. Sometimes my first impression is right and sometimes it's not. It's OK for me to think something's awful and it's OK for me to admit not getting something or to even think there's nothing there to get. It's OK to change my mind.

Back to the what question . . . in addition to feelings, some stuff that might be present are ideas, references to other photos and art of both contemporary and historical periods, internal coherence, subtlety of look, beauty in everything from a superficial to a deeper "Greek" sense, symbolism, meaning, politics, social comment, and sometimes most importantly, commitment.

It's rare that I would toss away a photo of someone who gets others' respect without looking at a portion of their body of work to see if the one photo seems part of a greater vision. Even if I still don't get it, that it may fit into something bigger than itself might be reason enough to keep coming back to it.

Norma Desmond · September 1, 2014

And the Sunday New York Times photo . . . reads a little like a patchwork quilt . . . which is sometimes how the Times reads . . . and families.

dan_south · September 1, 2014

I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.

</blockquote>

I wonder whether some critics attempt to influence trends. If they support a trend and the trend becomes popular, they can claim to be the one who discovered that particular artist or approach.

The product of the critic, i.e. what puts bread on their table, is commentary on something. If they can offer commentary that creates a popular buzz, they put more bread on the table. Or they get to keep trading comments for money. Little of this has anything to do with the attributes, real or imagined, of the image or artwork.

AlanKlein · September 1, 2014

Very often – too often, I fear – I look at another photographer's work and allow the feeling it gives me to guide me in my appreciation of it. I am capable of discerning certain basic technical elements (composition, color, tonality, etc.) but I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.

</blockquote>

As others have said above and I've said in other threads, these things exist only in the minds and pocketbooks of the reviewers and critics. You see this in all the arts. Most of it is presumptuous, self-serving, and ego driven by people with a highly inflated sense of importance. BS if you will. The un-washed public has more common sense and feelings for aesthetic value.

lex_jenkins · September 1, 2014

"I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images."

</blockquote>

We've probably all shared that experience at some time. I usually accept it as a challenge to try to see what the critic saw. Often that involves studying their other critiques, reading their references - expressed or implied - and making an effort to learn the same language.

For example, learning to appreciate poetry in general and haiku specifically required not merely reading but hearing, if only the internal voice, the rhythms, intonations, stresses and everything that goes into a language. Grasping the concepts of on and mora finally helped make sense of the English language departures from the 5/7/5 syllable constraints imposed by misinterpretations of the "rules" about haiku, the slavish adherence to which often resulted in damned silly sounding stuff. I wrote the world's worst haiku to remind myself of that lesson:

"scented moonlight full of cherry blossoms in my girlfriend's kimono"

</blockquote>

Also, John Cage's 4'33" finally made sense when I heard it on shortwave radio. Actually, I heard four minutes and 33 seconds of atmospheric static, rising and fading with propagation, along with intermittent local radio frequency interference. It wasn't the silence, the absence of "music" or the radio noise, but the act of listening, of finally hearing the composer's intent, that made sense of it.

Through learning to hear, I was finally able to see what others saw in imagery.

Wouter Willemse · September 2, 2014

For me, it's much what Lex wrote - I take it as a challenge, sometimes a guide (if described better). Sometimes I come out liking it, sometimes not, but the attempt always leaves me understanding more (and I think understanding and the empathy Fred described are either the same thing, or very close neighbours). It's easy to bash something because I don't like it, or put down a whole "movement" or era as empty, banal, inferior, not worthwhile or similar, but in doing that, I don't get any wiser. There is plenty I don't like, and I can live with that. There is plenty that I do not understand, and that itches.

Sometimes, though, I also cannot loose the somewhat more cynical idea that Dan expressed - to which extend are critics generating their own waves? It's often the language they use - write reasoned, structured and I'm hooked. Write flowery, estaltic and with a lot of big words, and I'll get cyncical. And writing skills are unfortunately more rare than is good for us.

Another thing that comes to mind, though, is also the aspect of timing. The impact of a work when it was released, when you see (or hear) it for the first time is different from consequent visits. Some stuff hits you like a hammer in the face, some grow on you, some have this sudden revelation despite already knowing it (being in the right mood, more perceptive?). It affects the level of adoration, a certain level of forgiveness on the flaws of a piece. And assuming that critics are educated well on the subject and literally critical, I cannot escape the notion that also their opinion starts as it does for all of us: plain awe, or step-by-step discovery, a blind love or a more reasoned adoration.

charleswood · September 2, 2014

There's a lot to be said for guided self-study courses and extension classes in all of the humanities. The frame of reference for art necessarily includes everything, the more extensive and detailed the knowledge the better. <a href="http://shc.stanford.edu/what-are-the-humanities">http://shc.stanford.edu/what-are-the-humanities</a> . There's really no other way and all we can realistically do is dabble in it a little.

lex_jenkins · September 2, 2014

In addition to a common language and frame of reference, there's also the zeitgeist - the historical and place reference, or site-geist. Some art is timeless. Others don't translate well outside of their contemporaneous era and culture.

Tina Barney's "Sunday, New York Times" photo may be one such work that depends heavily on the zeitgeist and lacks the timelessness that would translate to another era and culture. A quote from this study:

"For example, in 'Sunday New York Times' (1982), Barney captures the family ritual of reading the Sunday newspaper together. The camera catches the man’s hollow expression at the head of the table, the frustrated face of the mother holding her child, and the alienated comportment of each member engrossed in their own world. When critics commented on the coldness inherent in her family images, Barney replied, “I’ve tried not to show negativity or criticism…people think my photographs are lonely or tense. I don’t want them to be but I guess that’s there.” Although the families are aware that Barney’s camera is present, it still picks up the accidental in her work. This type of situation reveals the failure of the ideal family life, even for those who seemed to have perfect lives and also reflects Barney’s own reality growing up. While reflecting on capturing people during family gatherings, Barney explains, “the kind of family scene that is in this photograph, I don’t think happened that often in my family. Or if it did, it was forced. The people did not connect that well …. basically, no one really knew each other very well …I don’t even know if they cared about each other. They knew they were supposed to, but I don’t even know if they actually felt.”"

</blockquote>

From that perspective Barney's photo may perfectly convey what she felt. But does it translate outside of a limited context? Probably not.

That's why criticism is not merely "presumptuous, self-serving, and ego driven by people with a highly inflated sense of importance." In the best circumstances criticism provides a common language and frame of reference which may help enable us to see what the artist saw... even if it's not necessarily what the artist intended for us to see. It is no more highfalutin than it would be for a traveler to tote a translation guide and a brief historical/cultural guide in order to better communicate with people wherever he or she travels, and to better enjoy the journey.

lex_jenkins · September 2, 2014

BTW, Barney's photo doesn't particularly speak to me. Yes, I've known families like that, not only in New York but everywhere. Alienation, isolation within a family, detachment, aloofness... those feelings are no respecter of persons, places, times or cultures.

But they're nothing like my extended family. My own version of that photo would show a messy house and a mixture of seeming chaos from kids running wild while most of the adults placidly ignore the hubbub and carry on their conversations about church, or what they saw at Walmart the other day, or the neighbor they need to feed later because his goodfernuthin kids won't look after him, and by the way how 'bout them Cowboys. These are my people and that sort of photo might make sense to visitors at the Amon Carter Museum's photo collection.

But in NYC? Probably not. Unless the visitors were like my Jewish/Italian/Irish neighborhood just outside NYC in the 1960s, where the families and kids were pretty much the same, separated only by different heritages of culture, language and religion, but in actual practice almost identical to one another in family dynamics - messy, loud, and loyal if not always loving.

<hr /><center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17843674-md.jpg" alt="Nickster" width="680" height="453" border="0" /> <a href="/photo/17843674&size=lg">Sunday, Texas, not the New York Times</a>.</center>

charleswood · September 2, 2014

Lex, interesting on Barney's photo and going by my feeling, the review you quoted was the gist I got out of viewing it. But I couldn't have gotten there too without my niece having pointed out to me at LACMA a similar essence in what I believe was a Georgian era painting of 'disconnected' people in a sitting room. In the painting that atmosphere was conveyed by poses where none of the people made eye contact with each other, by posture, and by frowns. With today's props, the painting, the photo could be redone with all being around the kitchen table engaged with their data phones instead of with a newspaper. So there may be something in Barney's that translates across time.

Norma Desmond · September 2, 2014

I'd say "disconnected connected" people. This is based both on what I see and what I experienced as a kid growing up having spent many a Sunday around a NY Times with family, extended family, and friends. A single paper is strewn around a single family table. All eyes and minds reading from the same paper, discussions later ensuing about the same articles and reviews, even some harmless fights breaking out about those movie, theater, and book reviews. Some benign political disagreements spawned by all the news that was fit to print that day. Sign of connectedness and even intimacy in the photo . . . the bare feet. Touching, familiar.

For me, different from what cell phones bring to the family table.

That foreground baby bottle with its yellow nipple. The intro.

lex_jenkins · September 2, 2014

I was curious enough about Barney's work to read other reviews dating back to the 1980s-'90s. While the particular photo Steve linked to apparently was a candid, many of Barney's family photos were staged or semi-staged. That does seem to confirm Steve's impression - which I share to some extent - regarding "post-postmodern ironic banality".

I'm not sure that Barney's more deliberately constructed photos have quite reached the level of ironic banality - that might better describe some of Cindy Sherman's constructs. But the family-photo-as-art concept does seem to have evolved/devolved to something approaching facile snark over the past decade. I don't want to name names because I actually enjoy some of them. But there isn't much there there, at least not as much as the photographers and critics seem to believe.

This Salon article suggested, "<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/">David Foster Wallace was right: Irony is ruining our culture</a>." Too often obvious but shallow cleverness is substituted for humor with depth and layers that demand the viewer dig and explore a bit.

charleswood · September 2, 2014

Interesting article <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/">http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/</a> from Lex above.

I don't know what a hipster is though.

Maybe there is answer to that article in the idea of embracing our legitimate suffering. E.G. young fellow I know doesn't want to, in one particular anyway, embrace his suffering, but he suffers anyway. He wants a Her as a finance, but she drinks, will live the elements of a syndrome (or may not) and drag him into it. She was at home drunk and angry, he was at the dog park walking her dog and agonizing about it (enabling). He was from India and I asked him if he were his own father, would he arrange as a father to himself, such a marriage for he the son. He said "No." I said "Then you know."

Does great art come from living by what we know? I posit that the young man knows that his legitimate path, must be what jihad really is, is to walk away, because he knows it's so. Yet the young man wants her so much he can't yet walk away. After a point, his suffering from staying isn't legitimate. There's no irony worth uttering really. All I really know is that she just can't drink, can't ever drink.

cyanatic · September 2, 2014

Great article from Salon, Lex, thanks.

Had an interesting discussion with the friend who initially dubbed Barnes photo as "awful". I said, "While I don't think I would choose this to hang in MOMA, I don't find it awful. I just don't find enough going on there to think all that much of it." To which my friend explained that it wasn't so much the photo that was awful, but more the critical acclaim it was accorded by the very act of hanging it in a gallery at MOMA. Fred points out some interesting details that do help lay down some disconnected connectedness. And I do know the feeling of sitting around with family, or extended family, on a lazy Sunday and reading the paper. It reminds me of a scene from Woody Allen's movie "Stardust Memories". Allen's character reminisces about just such a Sunday with a former lover played by Charlotte Rampling. The simple, bittersweet memory of having spent that moment with someone you cared about. But I think Barney's photograph relies on more than just that. The Vogue article expresses it nicely, but I can't seem to pull up the article on Vogue's website (an aside -- why in the hell did Vogue decide to send me a free subscription? It started arriving, addressed to me, about 6 months ago.) In a nutshell, there is a quiet, unspoken code of behavior among the moneyed class of this region. The photo supposedly captures it in this moment somehow. Okay. I won't disparage it, but not being of that class (I come closer to that messy, loud, loyal "Jewish/Italian/Irish" background to which Lex referred) I can only really see the subtleties to which Fred referred.

But enough of Barney. Where is Anders? I know that he has sometimes attended the Paris photography show. The 2013 offerings are at: <a href="https://www.lensculture.com/articles/paris-photo-paris-photo-2013-preview#slide-1">https://www.lensculture.com/articles/paris-photo-paris-photo-2013-preview#slide-1</a> Going through them, some I like, some mystify in a good way, and some leave me scratching my head.

Highly produced constructs -- An interesting sub-genre of these types of photographs is the scantily clad female self-portraitist. There are a number of them (many grew out of flickr), but a good representative of the type is Natalie Dybisz. Again, not knocking her, or other women who do this, but I do wonder how many have parlayed good looks, photoshop skills, and predictable social media popularity (sex sells, claims by some practitioners of this sub-genre to actually be mocking T&A prurience notwithstanding) into a photographic career. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9l2ozLSvL1qbhixe.jpg

More food for thought for anyone interested...

charleswood · September 2, 2014

As to Dybisz one sample: adolescent themes are so tiring.

cyanatic · September 2, 2014

Well, I can't argue with you there, although I see it as just being silly. "Look what I can do in photoshop!" Or maybe it's a statement on...vulnerability? The angst and ennui of being a contemporary twenty-something female in a First World country? A latter day Francesca Woodman? Who knows. Whatever you want to call her work, she has done quite well for herself. Nikon ads. American Photo magazine. Published books. Workshops. A creator of modern masterpieces. A Nikon ad tells us so...

http://a4.format-assets.com/image/private/s--l2teEzI0--/c_limit,g_center,h_900,w_65535/a_auto,fl_keep_iptc.progressive,q_95/13814-8873171-MISS_ANIELA_NIKON_D810_DEEP_SEA_DREAM.jpg

http://delsolphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AmericanPhoto_2009_Cover.jpg

From all that, to fashion photographer ("Miss Aniela" is her original flickr handle...)

"Miss Aniela has become a reference in the domain of fashion photography that flirts with fine art, creating magical glamorous spaces and suspending them in memorable images, with a dreamy aristocracy and a surrealist subtext." (Faena Sphere)

</blockquote>

*sigh* Whence photography....?

lex_jenkins · September 3, 2014

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/26/arts/review-art-tina-barney-and-scenes-of-her-life-at-the-modern.html">Here's a link to a 1990 NY Times review of Tina Barney</a>. I mention it not to emphasize Barney's work in particular, but as an example of how a well written critique can help a viewer understand a photographer's intentions, subtext or subconscious influences and motivations. This can be useful in viewing photos that seem, at first glance, merely banal, snapshots that are too personal to be of interest to outsiders, or staged photos that initially seem merely hyperrealistic recreations of mundane life.

In my own case, Steve's mention of Barney, enhanced by perusing some reviews and revisiting her photos, helped me to better appreciate what Barney is doing. I'm still not sure it would make me a fan, for what that's worth, but it did help me to see better. Perhaps that's more important than liking something that the creator knows isn't particularly likeable.

"In Ms. Barney's world, nothing, not even drinking beer or cooking steak, is straightforward or transparent. Everything is a system of reflections without beginning or end. Every single action is layered with meaning." --<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/26/arts/review-art-tina-barney-and-scenes-of-her-life-at-the-modern.html">Michael Brenson, NYT, 1/26/90</a>.

</blockquote>

cyanatic · September 3, 2014

Lex -- Had I been less lazy, I could have looked up reviews of Barney's work (or possibly any other photographer whose work I might not initially "get"). Although Barney was only an example for me, what you did by finding something which helped you to understand her work better is part of what I was trying to get at in this thread. The other thing I was hoping for was perhaps finding someone on PN whose experience of aesthetics and the "art world" might allow them to speak a bit about it. Or perhaps a current, or recent, fine arts college student who might be able to talk about what aesthetic points of view (if any) are being taught, presented, or favored (if applicable).

This is curiosity and a desire to increase knowledge and understanding, not slavishly follow or necessarily believe in any art world flim-flammery. I do not disagree with those of you who have expressed disdain and mistrust of certain types of critics and high-flown explications. But like anything else in life, I don't think it is that black and white. I believe there is wheat too among the chaff.

As for those who mention "unwashed masses" and a gullible public: If anything, I think the general public is far more likely to favor some of the oversaturated landscapes, exotic locales, and highly polished fashion shots that are popular here on PN and other sites (flickr, 500px, etc.) than they are some ironic banality or surreal faux-scratched polaroid that might be currently championed in the art world. The unwashed masses generally want the pretty and the easily accessible, not something like Gursky's 99 cent store.

[Regarding Lex's "Sunday, Texas, not New York Times" -- I think Lex presented it a bit tongue-in-cheek, as a contrast to Tina Barney's world and also as a bit of a "ha-ha". But in looking at it more closely, I promise you that I could write a laudatory critique about it, and not in a sarcastic or insincere manner either. This brings up a whole other topic -- one that has been discussed in other threads, I'm sure -- and that is "Why raise up and spotlight Barney, Gursky, Mary Ellen Mark, and Ryan McGinley, and not Jenkins, Goldsmith, Evans, and Plumpton?" Not necessarily those people specifically, of course, but the notion that once one "breaks into" that world, subsequent works are given more visibility and thought, questionable or not, while the work of equally (or more) talented photographers pass by in anonymity.]

sjmurray · September 3, 2014

The online Oxford Dictionary defines art as:

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Add to this the OP’s Walker Evans quote:

“Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts.”

So, anyone with a smartphone to a view camera can produce photographic art. I think the crux of this conversation is about: “who is your audience?” The most popular type of photographs are the most common: ocean beaches at sunrise, mountains, flowers, birds, etc. This is the large audience. Art galleries are not interested in common, clichéd work; they are looking for the original, the unique, the challenging. Different audience completely. I find myself somewhere in the middle of the road. I’ve seen quite enough sunrises on the beach, mountains, and so forth. On the other hand, I find the overly “conceptual” photography often to be uninteresting, forced, and even clichéd in its own way. I prefer my own type of spontaneously created images (of course!), and others that fall into this middle category. I try to avoid the obvious clichés, but I still want some kind of emotional connection and or visual stimulation/beauty too.

AlanKlein · September 3, 2014

If you have to read a critique to interpret what feelings you should have, then the photo fails.

cyanatic · September 3, 2014

Steve J. Murray: "“who is your audience?”

Great point, Steve. Seems obvious when you see it written out, but the distinction is easy to overlook and it's an important one to make. This is also an area where there are shades of gray. People do not necessarily fall into only one category or the other (popular or art) in terms of what they appreciate. While I may gaze appreciatively at work by Arbus, Klein, Frank...whoever, I can also look at a cute picture of a cat and go "Awwwww!".

aplumpton · September 3, 2014

Whatever importance is accorded to a work or a series of work, whether it hangs in Tate Modern, or the MOMA, or Albright-Knox, whatever is the consensus of the circle of renowned critiques, whatever intellectual and artistic criteria one can personally apply to evaluate it, the work is ultimately felt, and appreciated, or not, by the viewer. The question of "feeling" is simply a shorthand designation for a multitude of responses of the viewer which have as much to do with his or her personality, training, aesthetics, emotions, prior experience, psychology, and whatever. Ttrusting one's feeling is a first step to the appreciation of an image. It is not I think wholly satisfactory and an honest critique will then further analyse the work(s) more methodically to understand it, the artist's motives, and other possible intellectual or emotive responses to it.

Apologies to Steve and others for a very summary consideration of his important OP. I am slave to other work challenges at present, but hope to later read more thoroughly the discussion and interact to it.

Norma Desmond · September 3, 2014

For Steve Gubin . . .

“The critic will certainly be an interpreter, but he will not treat Art as a riddling Sphinx, whose shallow secret may be guessed and revealed by one whose feet are wounded and who knows not his name. Rather, he will look upon Art as a goddess whose mystery it is his province to intensify, and whose majesty his privilege to make more marvellous in the eyes of men.”

― Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist

</blockquote>

_________________________________________

I think I'd be making a mistake if I thought art criticism was about telling me what or how to feel. As responsible as the critic would be for writing such criticism so would be the viewer for reading it that way.

_________________________________________

"What's with you men? Would hair stop growing on your chest if you asked directions somewhere?"

—Erma Bombeck

Sign In

The limitations of "feeling" in viewing photographs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in