An interesting report by ABC

[beau 1664876222]

In addition, Thomas, even articulate artists can have trouble verbalizing the complexity of their motivations, indeed, can have trouble even recognizing it. Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one. I suppose you think this kind of thing exposes Melville and Dylan as frauds?

[beeman458]

"Thomas, it's ridiculous to say that someone's art is only as good as their verbal characterizations of it."

 

I'm not making that characterization.

 

"Why should someone who has chosen a certain means of expression, photos, sculpture, whatever, have to do double-duty as a writer or orator?"

 

When you have others prognosticating on someone's art, yes, the artist does have a responsibility of clarification.

 

"I've known a lot of brilliant musicians who are practically retarded when it comes to talking about their playing, probably because they've spent a lifetime learning to speak through their instrument."

 

I won't even go there.

 

"Same goes for artists -- if you want to understand their message, look at their art. Chances are, their talk is going to be more deceptive than helpful."

 

Then maybe they understand less about their own personal art then they're willing to acknowledge or their art is more shallow then they want to let on about. It really isn't hard to articulate a message, if indeed there's a message there to be conveyed. If there's not a message there, then it will be really, really hard to articulate a non-message and make it sound profound.

[beeman458]

"Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one. I suppose you think this kind of thing exposes Melville and Dylan as frauds?"

 

You make my point. I doubt there was any "symbolism" in "Moby Dick" and it was nothing more then a good adventure tale. But others wanted to make it in to something it wasn't, against what Herman had to say.

 

In the case of Dylan, I believe him. No fraud, just some guy writing lyrics that needs a rhyming word and others wanted meaning and there was none. This comments is similar to the one made by Serrano as to the gensis of "Piss Crist."

 

A lot of what is made up about people's artistic efforts is more about the creator of the myth, then it is about the artistic effort.

 

Didn't Freud say: "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar." Everybody want's to find a hidden door to a hidden garden that will take them away from reality. There are no hidden doors, gardens or magic and there never will be.

 

The Mama's and Papa's said it well with "Do You Believe in Magic" as the magic is in you and the magic is in me and when you realize this, you'll realize that you've been in the garden all along and that you never left:)

[Spearhead]

<i>The Mama's and Papa's said it well with "Do You Believe in Magic" </i><p>

 

It was The Lovin Spoonful. So much for accuracy.

[emre]

Thomas, just because an artist says there is no symbolism it does not mean (s)he is telling the truth! Artists absolutely love to be ambiguous.

[beeman458]

"It was The Lovin Spoonful. So much for accuracy."

 

D'oh! My apologies for the error.

 

Damn, I knew the hair was up on the back of my neck for a reason:)

 

Either which way, we've never left the garden, which is the accurate point:)

[beeman458]

"Thomas, just because an artist says there is no symbolism it does not mean (s)he is telling the truth! Artists absolutely love to be ambiguous."

 

Are we in the subjective realm again?

 

You can show that either the comment that Beau alluded to by Melville or Dylan was not the truth in their comments?

 

"Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one."

 

You can show the comment I linked to of Serrano's was not an honest comment?

 

When everybody else knows more about the purpose/meaning of an artistic effort then the artist themselves, that point alone should cause one pause as to the validity of the interpretations. If an artist says that they were just looking for a complimentary color, note, or word, who better to believe, the psychiatrists or the artist.

 

Serrano really did do an excellent job of summing it up when he stated;

 

"People want more of a story and I try to give them a story, but sometimes I have to say: look, you're reading too much into this."

[beau 1664876222]

Thomas, I think you are defining too narrowly what the creative process is all about. Often an artist uses his or her medium to express things that they are unable or unwilling to grapple with consciously.

 

Just an anecdote from my own experience writing songs: people used to write me letters containing interpretations of my lyrics. Frequently the meanings they found were far from what I was thinking at the time I wrote the words, but sometimes I would realize these people were nevertheless correct. They perceived something in my work that I had failed to perceive myself. I don't mean to say that they "mythologized" my songs in the manner you describe above; in some cases they identified meanings that were more homely and modest than the grandiose intentions I thought I had -- it can go both ways.

[beeman458]

"They perceived something in my work that I had failed to perceive myself."

 

Not trying to be negative or offensive in my below.

 

Or maybe they implanted an idea that you liked better then your original idea and you ran with the ball. A sort of psychosomatic thinking where you absorb their thinking and subplant your thoughts with their's as their interpretation sounds better then your's.

 

Influence of thinking, in this case is easily within the realm of possible.

 

I have trouble believing that outsiders understand another's art, more then the creator of the art, having never met and had indepth intimate conversations with them of a prolonged period. Are artists really this shallow in their understanding of their efforts? I have trouble accepting that these supposed great minds, don't even understand their own efforts. It seems a huge, over-arching stretch of the imagination for one to believe this.

 

I think these folks know a whole lot more about their art then they want to let on about and I'm willing to bet that the truth is going to be very shallow indeed.

[beeman458]

"Just an anecdote from my own experience writing songs: people used to write me letters containing interpretations of my lyrics."

 

Just an aside, I won't write poetry/lyrics as I find doing so too revealing:) So I'll stick with photography:)

[nesrani]

"...psychosomatic thinking..."

 

What???!!! Do you know what either of those words mean?

 

From my own experience writing, often a story develops quite far before you become aware of the way it builds on traumas in your own life - and no doubt there are themes in anyone's writing whose significance, even for themselves, they remain unaware of.

 

However, to address, your point above, Thomas, culture is a collaborative construct, a sort of ongoing conversation with the past and the present. The artist puts something in, and what happens to it then is most likely beyond his control. However, his contribution must be resonant and timely if it is generate the conversation in the first place.

 

As to why a photographer should say: I just take pictures, I imagine that this is often because he has no urge to hang his dirty laundry out for everyone to look at. His product is his body of work, not a mass of words about it. The process is not important (although certainly interesting), and indeed disclosure might well direct the "conversation" in ways that are not valuable to the work itself. Tp put it in terms of resonance, it might well limit the number of harmonics at which his work resonates, whereas it should be able to vibrate freely without constraint.

[nesrani]

"I'm willing to bet that the truth is going to be very shallow indeed."

 

I think this is what the old psychoanalysts called "projection".

[pics]

If a buisness executive were to fill out a report in crayon or act out in some childish unprofessional way, he would be fired on the spot. But when a photographer like Friedlander produces imagery equivalent to a child's, he is praised for "being able to capture this feeling." This just proves how obsessed people are with adults who make a living doing what 8 year olds can do. How else do you explain Friedlanders status or the fact that professional athletes make millions playing a kids game. People love to live in a fantasy world and there are no shortage of "professionals" willing to cash in on this fact.

[beeman458]

"What???!!! Do you know what either of those words mean?"

 

But of course. And I even took the time to try to explain my intentionally incorrect usage of the word.

 

"A sort of psychosomatic thinking where you absorb their thinking and subplant your thoughts with their's as their interpretation sounds better then your's."

 

Sorry if I didn't have a better word of choice at the ready.

[beeman458]

"I think this is what the old psychoanalysts called "projection"."

 

I base the comment on that what I've read and posted links to; comments made by notables. So there's less projection and more fact but yes, the over-arching comment is subjective in nature, as I haven't done research on all photographic artists; just a few in which to base my comment on.

 

A key factor here is avoidancy behavior patterns. If someone doesn't want to address an issue in a straight forward manner, then reasonably, the motive for this behavior should be called into question. Why? And if you have a group (birds of a feather) exhibiting this behavior then the fact that there's a collective avoidancy belies ulterior motives.

 

The Mob. Politicians. Unions. Secretive groups of any genre. Religious groups. And yes, many artists seem to demand that they be part of this secretive behavior as to their artistic motives; Eggleston is a prime example.

 

It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it should be such a surprise that others see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't.

 

Straight answers to straight questions. Not to much to ask.

[beeman458]

"It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it should be such a surprise that others see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't."

 

Oops! Mistyped a word. Should read:

 

It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it shouldn't be such a surprise that other's see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't.

[._._z]

"Other's" ?

[marcofrancardi]

Great food for thoughts... but I'm willing, and mostly do, to think as a child and looking positively at artistic works and enjoy paintings, photographs, music.. whatever Art it is as long as money don't come in. that's when I get suspicious.

That's why I love the Net and this wes site!

I learnt that, often, not always, artistic career is a matter of liasons and public relations and... well, you know what I mean.

that does not mean that "Arts" are not worth the effort and the "Effort" is not worth the art.

[beeman458]

I'm surprised that you folks let slide the importance of Minor White and Stieglitz and their willingness to discuss their early photographic efforts and the emotional impact they tried to imbue their images with.<p>

<a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122401a.htm">Minor White - Equivalents</a><p>

 

<a href="http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stieglit.htm">Alfred Stieglitz</a> worked with "Impressionism" in his earlier photographic efforts before moving on to "Realism" and discussed this point in great detail.<p>

 

The point of my above is to show that earlier notables, Minor White and Alfred Stieglitz had no problem discussing their efforts. No enigma or need for the viewing audience to "have" to figure it out; the message was on the table for all to discuss. One has no problem locating writings by Ansel Adams which he writes as to what he and his images were all about; "Ansel Adams; Letters And Images 1916-1984."<p>

 

I'd love to see some links posted as to what contemporary notables, post 1970, Postmodern photographers, have to say, directly, about their efforts, much in the same light as earlier notables such as Stieglitz, White and Adams were so willing to do.<p>

[nesrani]

Thomas, I suspect that one reason for the wordiness of White and Stieglitz is that both were the creators of movements in art, and therefore they wrote numerous manifestos. This is not the case with Friedlander, for instance, or most modern artists. Plus, I think nowadays not many people would be attracted by White's dimestore mysticism or the self-explanation of the pre-war avantguardes.

[beeman458]

"Thomas, I suspect that one reason for the wordiness of White and Stieglitz is that both were the creators of movements in art, and therefore they wrote numerous manifestos."

 

Or, there's always the possibility.... they knew what they were doing and why they were doing what they were doing and they didn't find being an enigma valid.

 

"This is not the case with Friedlander, for instance, or most modern artists."

 

And this is your subjective supposition which excuses their lack of a willingnes to comment on their effort?

 

"Plus, I think nowadays not many people would be attracted by White's dimestore mysticism or the self-explanation of the pre-war avantguardes."

 

Ahhhh. No links to support your contentions; just a denigration of Minor White. From creator of a movement to "dimestore mysticism". That was a short journey.

 

So far, unknown to you, your comments are supporting of the shallowness of contemporary artists. You lend depth to contemporary photographers by posting links to what they have to say, their personal thoughts, on their effort. Depth is not created by denegrating those from the past and excusing the lack of revelation on the part of contemporary photographic artist's efforts.

 

Siiiiigh!

[beeman458]

"...or the self-explanation of the pre-war avantguardes."<p>

 

Just an aside. Could you let me know what war you're writing of as Minor White continued to produce well after the Korean War and died shortly after the Vietnam War in 1976.<p>

 

Let's explore this "dimestore mystic," shall we:)<p>

 

Post WWII you have Minor working with Ansel Adams and students in San Francisco in <a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122401a.htm">1946</a>. What Minor had to write about, in 1963, Post WWII and Korean War, at the beginning of America's involvement in South Vietnam, on <a href="http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://elmo.academyart.edu/study/ph101/Required%2520reading/White%2520Equivalence.htm">Equivalence: The Perennial Trend</a>. Here is a bit of <a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122401d.htm">discussion</a> in regard to Minor's post Korean War photographic efforts, showing that he was a busy beaver, long after the pretense (pre WWII) of WWII came on the horizon of the European theater. And in the case of this link, one might want to pay particular attention to the final sentence in regard to <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/white/white_articles3.html">communication</a>.<p>

 

We'll let <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/white/white_articles1.html">John Szarkowski</a>, whom I'm not the greatest fan of, weigh in on Minor White, his photography, when he felt Minor White reached his creative maturity and a bit more on this mystic who held great sway over the photographic community, up to his death in 1976.<p>

 

Hope all the links work.<p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The only intersting thing about John Stossel is the size of the check he gets from ABC for

fluff pieces like this.

[nesrani]

I'm sure the links work.

 

You bear a heavy burden Thomas, your siiiiiigggggh is testimony to this.

 

Minor White took some interesting snaps. But the guru is always suspect, imo. His blather fit in perfectly with the pop Zen culture of the sixties (which threw up some interesting art - John Cage, Martha Graham in their own ways) and no doubt today's new ageness - if that isn't already passé.

 

"Subjectivity" - I'm struck by your language - notables and so on. You are evidently looking for an authoritatively sanctioned view of things. I am not, I admit it freely - I have always preferred to think for myself.

 

Good luck in your search for the ultimate link.

[nesrani]

Sorry - pre-war avant gardes - I was thinking of Dadaism, Surrealism, Futurism and so on - the products of the "front generation". In European parlance the "war" generally refers to WW2.