What is timeless?

<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>

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.

Abstract art is the ultimate in its independence from "topicality."

I have never seen an abstract image described as "timeless."

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

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"?

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?

One man's timeless art is another man's meaningless daub.

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.

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.

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" :-)

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.

"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. :)

"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.

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!

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.

"All they do is show that the idea of timelessness extends far beyond the world of art."

 

You're confusing "timeless" with historical record.

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.

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.

Ben

 

The sound of a well played violin is timeless. Are violins important to you? :)

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.

<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>

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.

<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.

What is timeless?

 

interesting to you.

 

or, what you are told is timeless.

 

take your choice.

"You're confusing "timeless" with historical record."

 

You're suggesting that a historical record can't be timeless?