Aesthetics of the subject or the photograph?

[mike dixon]

<i>Everybody's work is viewed as equally valid and deserving of equal respect.</i><P>

Cool! Does that mean I can get a show at MOMA?<P>

Artists who actually work toward getting shown at established galleries, art centers, and museums might have a different perspective on that than you do. Gallery owners/directors I've talked to in Nashville are happy to check out just about anyone's work, but they have trouble finding enough GOOD work to display. Sure, there are the occasional open shows sponsored by artists groups, but it's not generally true that "Everybody's work is viewed as equally valid and deserving of equal respect." The "art establishment" not sharing your tastes is not at all the same thing as them having no standards.<P>

<i>I don't see anything wrong with encouraging people to exceed themselves rather than allowing them to settle for the easy out.</i><P>

I don't either. I do see something wrong with labelling everyone who doesn't share your view of what art should be as a "brainless twit" with no standards. On the one hand you say people should strive to do more than just make pretty pictures--they should try to expand how people see the world, but on the other hand, you seem intent on requiring them to do it in a way that you approve of. Galling as it may be, I doubt that any artist who's worth a damn cares one bit about satisfying <b>you</b> (or me, for that matter).

[marbing]

Mike asked :"Does that mean I can get a show at MOMA?" I suppose you can. How about working on a series of black and white shots of the insides of public garbage cans in Jonesboro? Just wait until the garbage pickup each day and stick the camera inside the can. That should get the attention of the cognocenti but it MUST be B&W or it isn't 'art'.

 

That idea isn't anymore 'creative' than the chewing gum guy and HE got a major showing...and it WAS in B&W!

 

It is not that gallery owners have no standards at all...it is just that they standards they do have have little to do with art and a lot to do with whether they can make a sale. In that sense, it is obvious that there are artists who DO care what people (even you and I) think about their work.

 

Even here on Photo.net we have people who post their work and expect (even BEG) that they receive a critique. They must care about what people think!

 

And yet, everybody, even the beginner with their first point and shoot feels competant to comment and their view is taken as equally valid as the professional with 30 years of experience behind the camera. This site was setup with the idea of that level of equality and I doubt that anyone would want to change that policy. In any case, there are many more beginners than 30 year veterans.

 

But, if there are no objective standards then what are people basing their comments on? If it is "I like/don't like it!" then we are back to nothing more than one opinion is as good as any other. A artistic election campaign...a popularity contest...this must be 'good' because it got the most votes.

 

I should correct one point that you assert. I have argued that there are artistic principles that have been discovered over the centuries and that they apply to photographic compositions as well as the other visial arts. But there isn't any proscription on my part. I can't force people to do things in any particular way. They can take a picture with a busy, distracting background if they like but it won't 'work' as well as a simpler shot. That isn't me saying that..it is just the way it is! If people have the time to experiment and personally go down every dead end that artists have already mapped out over the past several hundred years then they are free to do it.

[mike dixon]

<i>That should get the attention of the cognocenti but it MUST be B&W or it isn't 'art'.</i><P>

 

Do you have any evidence to back that up other than one exhibit you don't like being in b&w?<p>

 

<i>It is not that gallery owners have no standards at all...it is just that they standards they do have have little to do with art and a lot to do with whether they can make a sale.</i><P>

 

What about the non-profit galleries? Or the museums (like the Met) and art centers that exhibit work that isn't for sale?<P>

 

<i>They can take a picture with a busy, distracting background if they like but it won't 'work' as well as a simpler shot. That isn't me saying that..it is just the way it is!</i><P>

 

So <a href="http://mikedixonphotography.com/korvendor02.jpg">this photo</a> would work a lot better if it had a plain background or shallow DOF to throw the background out of focus? Ooops, silly of me to ask since it's not for you to say--it's just the way it is!

[marbing]

Well, I'm not sure where you are going with this Mike but, that makes two of us.

 

It is hard to compare a single photo with...nothing. Do you have the same scene with a simpler background so we would have something to judge. I can say that there is a lot going on in the shot...I expect that your subject isn't just the woman selling from her stall but you wanted to show the context in which she works...a busy and hectic street.

 

It is certainly more interesting than a discarded wad of gum!

 

Now, what do you have to say about the original question that Michael asked?

[mike dixon]

Where we are going is around in circles. Every time I ask questions for which you don't have a pat response, you shift the subject. You have no problem making proclamations that aren't directly to the original topic, but when challenged on them, getting back on topic suddenly takes on a renewed importance.

 

As to the original question: I think photographers deserve a lot of credit for their subject choice. They also deserve a lot of credit for portraying the subject in an effective manner. To me, this sort of question is similar to asking, "Which is more important for determing the area of a rectangle, the height or width?" The original post does at least indicate a recognition of the fundamental nature of the interactions and interdependencies between subject, environment, photographer, and viewer, but it then tries to cut up those parts in a way that doesn't make much sense.

 

As for the secondary question ["for people who shoot people with the intent on giving them the pictures afterwards, do you worry about there ability to judge the aesthetics of the photo relative to the aesthetics of them (or how they look in the picture without regard to the overall final print)?"], it depends on the purpose of the photo. People who want a nice family portrait have very different expectations than a model who's working with you to explore a concept.

[marbing]

Do you get the feeling that it is only you and me left in this thread and that everybody else has wandered off? I don't blame them. I respond to your questions but you don't like the answer so you take us off on another tangential issue.

 

Going in circles? I agree, but I find your hand on the wheel pulling it off track.

 

This is supposed to be the 'Philosophy' of Photography forum. It should be a place where ideas should be discussed but it all falls to pieces when people start nit-picking and harping on the unimportant. It becomes some kind of childish attempt to collect points in an imaginary game.

 

If you have some need to get in the last word, then I give you that privilege but I doubt that anybody will notice since they must have long-since given up hope that any progress on real issues can be made in the current situation.

[andrew_somerset1]

Well, Meryl, I gave up after you decided to ignore my question re how pictures of gum violate the objective standards you've spoken of. Looks to me like a case of what Mike refers to: changing the subject.

 

I also like it when people complain that this is supposed to be a philosophy forum. Philosophy is *about* argument. Rational argument, that is.

[ray robertson]

Okay! I think I'll return to the deep end. I enjoy technical discussions as well as 'esthetic' and 'artistic' discussions.

 

Meryl's arguments are very persuasive. The 'rule of thirds', the positioning of a moving object within the frame and all the stuff one might learn about composition and the 'tricks of the trade' if one attended art school. Surely all this 'resonates' with something deep within the subconscious. I'd like to think so and I guess any student would like to think so. It lends a certain 'rock solid' validity to the learning and motivation.

 

Call me a pessimist if you like, but I just can't see it. We're all deeply and fundamentally shaped by cultural influences. We're a product of conditioning, of one sort or another, and having been conditioned it's extraordinarily difficult to see outside the constraints of that conditioning. It's not impossible (I guess) but certainly difficult. I see abstract art in general as a flawed attempt to escape that conditioning. So I'm tolerant of it, even though, to put it bluntly, I think it's a load of crap. (But even crap can be meaningful to some. Believe it or not, there are serious crapologists who analyse fossilised crap). But I digress.

 

The crucial question, is there an objective criterion for assessing works of art, has not been answered and maybe cannot ever be answered, in a philosophical sense. To answer such a question would involve becoming 'non human'. Perhaps only a higher consciousness than man (eg. God) could answer that. I don't know.

 

For the record, I'm an atheist, or at best an agnostic.