eugene_scherba Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 <p>I have always been suspicious of vague value categories some people place certain objects into (including certain photographs).</p> <p>Very often their use is accompanied with a contemptuous attitude towards any attempt to analyze what really these value categories represent, with the analytical mode of discourse often being rejected as being a "passing" or "academic" fad, i.e. something inherently opposite to the supposedly persisting and universal character of the aforementioned categories.</p> <p>I am talking about terms like "glow" (used to characterize lenses), "soul" (used to differentiate film images from digital), "timelessness" (used to differentiate certain photographic styles from others).</p> <p>Here I would like to talk about "timelessness." What is it? Is it a conspiracy by an established circle to prevent the monetary value of their past work from diminishing? Or is it just a misconception of historical and cultural processes? I do not think that <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006ooU">the previous thread</a> on this topic from two years ago had fully answered these questions.</p> <p>What are these "timeless" images? Are they the same as "great" images (meaning ones that show great skill or talent of the artist)? No, it is now always so. I consistently see certain images classified as "great," other as "timeless"; the categories often overlap, but they don't seem to refer to the same formulaic construction. Do "timeless" images work by evoking nostalgia? Well, one could say so, but then I see an American referring to a picture shot in Paris in 1950's as timeless, even though that American had never been to Paris in the fifties, so I can't assume that nostalgia is what's at work here.</p> <p>Roland Barthes in his work <i>Camera Lucida</i> talks of "studium" and "punctum," with studium being what initially attracts a person to a photograph, and punctum being what strikes him or her emotionally. Is "timelessness" studium or punctum? If it's the former, then how could it even be considered "timeless" when it is going to vary depending on the person's cultural or historic background. If it is the latter, then how does it work? Why the emotional reaction? I have seen images with very little to no drama being described as timeless, with no specific emotions mentioned other than "this looks timeless."</p> <p>What is timeless?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_richardson Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I always thought of timeless as being exactly as described. They are subjects or styles that do not depend on topicality to appeal or to be relevant. In general it seems to be used to describe those famous images that are continually accepted by each succeeding generation. An example would be Lange's migrant mother and children. Although it was used for a specific problem at a definite point in time, the impact is still the same regardless if the problem or idea still exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 Abstract art is the ultimate in its independence from "topicality." I have never seen an abstract image described as "timeless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip_converse Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'd have to agree with the previous reply. I've always thought that something timeless was/is equated with classic; that is, something that has withstood the test of time. Glen Converse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 Picasso had withstood the test of time, and so had Man Ray and Hans Bellmer. Do you often see works similar to Man Ray's or Hans Bellmer's classified as "timeless"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 So here I make a statement: When people say "this is timeless," they mean a <i>specific</i> style in mind. Anybody care to disprove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 One man's timeless art is another man's meaningless daub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 If you're looking for a rational, mathematical definition of "timelessness"......fugeddaboudit. There is no such animal. There are, however, works of art that have a strong emotional impact on large numbers of people for great lengths of time: A Brahms symphony, a Da Vinci or Rembrandt portrait, the photography of Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams.....the examples are endless. One stunning example is Steve McCurry's shot of the Afghan girl for National Geographic. The very fact that each one of you now has that image in his or her mind, defines its timelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 The trouble with "timelessness" is that it is usually ascribed to classicist works. A specific style. Most of the examples mentioned above are like that. I would like to hear more examples, to see whether I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Three of my examples, Lange, Adams, and McCurry, are or were 20th century photographers. I'm sure they'd be pleased to be described as "classicist" :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Timeless? That's just something which transends period or era and is something that would have been enjoyed a thousand years ago or a thousand years hence. Example, the soulfully uplifting nature of a beautiful event; flowers, sunrise, sunset, silouetted tree in the forest, waves on the ocean, young children at play, old folks in conversation, a visually delightful young couple in a loving or provocative embrace. You know, things that were valid back in the past and will hold equal significance in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 "Picasso had withstood the test of time, and so had Man Ray and Hans Bellmer. Do you often see works similar to Man Ray's or Hans Bellmer's classified as "timeless"?" I'm sorry, that made me laugh. Why? Picasso and Man Ray, are but blips on the artistic radar at this time and point. Come back in thirty-five hundred years like the Great Pyrimids or Homer's Illiad or the collective works of Wm Shakespeare and then they'll have withstood the "test of time." Right now, they only qualify, at best, as contemporary. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 "The very fact that each one of you now has that image in his or her mind, defines its timelessness." The fact we have the image in our mind is only a case of media exposure to the image. I suppose the fairwell salute by Nixon as he climbed aboard "Helicopter One" that fateful August day in 74 could equally be considered timeless as that's an image I'm sure we all have in our heads. Again, that's just a by product of media exposure but a thousand years from now, I doubt anybody will be emotionally impacted by the sight of that image in the same way they would be by the image you mentioned. What will "make" the image "timeless" is that it will still have the same impact on the unsuspecting, a thousand years from now in the same manner that it would have had on similar unsuspecting if shown to those of a thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 So I don't get ripped for my radar comment. "...are but blips on the artistic radar at this time and point." For clarification purposes, that should be "...are but blips on the artistic radar of time at this time and point." Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Well, of course it's media exposure. How else do you suppose the image gets out there? I'm sure there are many here who have seen the original Mona Lisa. I haven't. Nor have I seen most of Ansel Adams original prints. I was exposed to them by various media. Does that make them any less timeless? Which brings us to the Nixon image. Yes, it's timeless, too. So is the image of the space shuttle Challenger exploding, or the Zapruder film of John Kennedy's assasination. Timeless, as recorded events in the real world often are, sometimes heartbreakingly so. But those things have nothing to do with art. All they do is show that the idea of timelessness extends far beyond the world of art. And the "media", whater it may be, is what acquaints most of us with it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 "All they do is show that the idea of timelessness extends far beyond the world of art." You're confusing "timeless" with historical record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Timeless is a word, it is in the dictionary and no doubt you will get countless replies attempting to defined that. It is also what you believe it to be, in other words, it has no exact value. That's why people use tems like that, they can't be more specific and like vague words. Priceless, Mindless, Useless, etc....who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Timeless; http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=timeless 1. Independent of time; eternal. 2. Unaffected by time; ageless. When it comes to historical records, one needs the context of time but nobody needs any context; time, place or otherwise, in any language, culture or media saturation to understand a sunrise, sunset or the haunting nature of a young girls eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Ben The sound of a well played violin is timeless. Are violins important to you? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Is that a direct quote T ? The sound of a violin depends partially on the player. Old ones sound better or different because the wood has changed over 400 years or so. New violins will never sound like old ones, vice versa. Last night I heard a woman playing a Chinese instrument whose heritage stretched back to 2nd century BC, that was cool but not timeless.......She had rather good rythum actually, and the instrument was new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 <p>Very good. I need to see more examples. You need to teach me all this timeless stuff, 'cause I don't get it.</p> <p>Thomas said: <i>Example, the soulfully uplifting nature of a beautiful event; flowers, sunrise, sunset, silouetted tree in the forest, waves on the ocean, young children at play, old folks in conversation, a visually delightful young couple in a loving or provocative embrace.</i></p> <p>So only feel-good stuff is timeless? How come is that?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Eugene, go to the Leica forum for words like 'My Leica makes images which glow in a timeless manner.......'. Just made that one up, but I guess you see what I mean. I guess a timeless photo might be one which has a very long exposure. A timeless camera might be one without any light meter. Whereas a person who cannot figure out the above might be clueless... Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 <i><blockquote> Picasso had withstood the test of time, and so had Man Ray and Hans Bellmer </blockquote> </i><p> Yes, for a whole eighty years. <p> Timeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 What is timeless? interesting to you. or, what you are told is timeless. take your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 "You're confusing "timeless" with historical record." You're suggesting that a historical record can't be timeless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now