A "pretty" photograph -- is that a flaw?

[Spearhead]

In addition to knowing nothing about Picasso, Bill Proud has an obvious lack of historical knowledge. I'd suggest moving on from his Picasso comment...

[mike dixon]

<i>Up to the middle of the 19th century most of the then known civilized world believed in one God and in most respects, believed in the similar things that God had given us in the Bible. Kind of like having one mind amongst all of us.</i><P>

This conveniently ignores virtually every major ancient civilization and many "middle age" civilizations: Babylonian, Egyptian, Aztec, Inca, (South Asian) Indian, Chinese (to name a few). And to add to Jeff's point above, much Aztec art was horrific or "psychadelic." Grotesque imagery is also common among Asian religious art.

[mike dixon]

On the issue of prettiness being the antonym of interesting: I don't think that's neccesarily the case; however, if something is pretty, people will often appreciate only its superficial qualities without bothering to take a deeper look.

 

I think part of the definition of pretty indicates the problem: "Ostensibly or superficially attractive but lacking substance or conviction." Sort of tied in with the concept of "pretty" is that something doesn't possess more profound value.

[fjords]

Goya meets the pancake bunny for breakfast at the boke cafe. A dialectic discussion of

semantic trivia ensues, then the waiter wants a tip of "profound value"?

[james_oneill]

Thanks to the media we have today - including the internet - we see many more created pictures than people 100 or 200 years ago. So the merely pretty becomes commonplace and we need something more to hold our interest.

 

The original post mentioned "soft porn": porn is stuff which puts its erotic aspect ahead of all others, which is why after a while it gets boring to look at. I guess you can say the same for "Pretty", which puts the "visually nice" aspect ahead of all others - and, also gets boring after a while. You need more to be interested.

[mark_richards]

I am indifferent to most of the images in the top-rated gallery, but I think it has more to with my dislike of contrived/selective compositions (e.g. tree in the middle of a landscape photo, and everything else converging on the tree) and crazy colours instead of a dislike of aesthetics.<p>

Boredom has something to do with it (seen it all before etc.), but I think it has more to with the lack of information and/or ambiguity in such photographs than anything else. I value information above all else, which is why I like wildlife photographs so much (even the ones with naff compositions and/or anthropomorphic elements); if you want to learn about/draw/model/etc. eagles, then Miguel Lasa's photos are a fantastic reference.<p>

The narrow aesthetic preferences of most artistic photographers can be very annoying for people whose main use of photographs is reference etc.; I watched a TV programme that featured the Taj Mahal last week, but it took me ages to find a photo of the thing that wasn't taken from the normal viewpoint. I wish there was more documentary work in the top-rated gallery, but I'm obviously in the minority.<p>

To close, here is a photograph which I think is pretty and interesting ; others may think it is boring (as I find their preferences boring), but I think it is an honest/unpretentious and nicely ambiguous/mysterious <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3234449">potrait</a> (I'm not keen on the rest of the images in the folder though)

[beauh44]

Huh? <a href="http://www.nga.gov/images/noncol/fisherfs.htm">Picasso couldn't draw?</a> I wish I "couldn't draw" that well.<P>

 

I tend to draw a lot of parallels with photography and music. I listen to a lot of music that is sometimes characterized as "musician's music" because it's sometimes very complex and dissonant. However, I realize that most people don't like it for that same reason so I usually just play it for myself and when I have company, I'll put on something that's a little easier to "chew".<P>

 

I find photography can be similar. Photographs that do well in terms of public consumption probably won't ring my bell too much but it has its place. Most people who like to read don't want to wade through Shakespeare - they'd rather curl up with a Stephen King novel.<P>

 

So, while many of the photographs on Photonet may make you yawn those same images just might bring a smile to someone else's face and again, that's OK. By your criteria it sounds like even Ansel would put you to sleep. I'd be interested in seeing a photo that you feel stands out from the others. Best wishes . . .

[william_todd_faulk]

Beau,

 

Quite an engaging analogy. Personally I luxuriate in listening to reggae, a rather elementary and primitive beat that comes from the heart and soul and as you say is easy to "chew". Parallels can also be observed in the influence that primitive or non-complex African Art may have had on Picasso.

 

I also draw the same parallels as yourself in regards to photography though possibly perpendicular to yours.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[beauh44]

Hi William,<P>

 

<I>I luxuriate in listening to reggae, a rather elementary and primitive beat </i><P>

 

I like reggae too and had the good fortune to visit Jamaica once not too long ago and was blown away by some of the music.<P>

 

I would point out (as an old, mostly-retired drummer) that reggae can be a beast rhythmically speaking. For example, I love "Walking On The Moon" by The Police. I know - they might not have been all that "pure" as far as reggae goes, but the downbeat's on two and the upbeat's on four, which is very different from what we're used to. (Most traditional rock tunes have the downbeat on one and the upbeat on three) Stewart Copeland's drumming - at least back then - was amazing.<P>

 

I guess if I had to name an example of an "easy to chew" song I'd look no further than many of The Beatles' repetoire - "Yesterday" comes to mind. Melodically and lyrically it resolves impeccably to the western ear and they were masters at that. (Thank George Martin for the string arrangements too!)<P>

 

Lennon and McCartney (in their early years anyway) were rather formulaic in writing songs - Verse, chorus, verse, then the "middle eight" - or eight bars that were a "song within a song", chorus and end. Yet in their simplicity lay their genius.<P>

 

Many great photographs are formulaic too with the aforementioned "correct" composition, sharpness, details, early morning/evening light, etc. but I disagree that this is a "flaw" per se... If we take a landscape photograph with the opposite of those qualities - poor composition, shot in mid-day, harsh light, and a bit blurry because no tripod was used, would that make the shot(s) better? Best wishes . . .

[b_kosoff]

I think the pursuit of beauty in art is one of it's most noble goals. It's also one of the most difficult. Many attempt to make great beauty, few succeed consistently. I think the difficulty in making beauty caused others to pursue different avenues in art, ones not reliant on the ability to create beauty, at least not beauty in the traditional sense.

[Spearhead]

<i>I think the difficulty in making beauty caused others to pursue different avenues in art, ones not reliant on the ability to create beauty, at least not beauty in the traditional sense.</i><p>

 

This is presumptuous nonsense. There are many people in a variety of arts who have no interest in pursuing beauty. I can think of many photographers, painters, musicians and writers who are extremely talented and have created great works having nothing to do with beauty. This may not be what you want to do, but your insulting of people who pursue other paths is narrow-minded and arrogant.

[beeman458]

"I think the difficulty in making beauty caused others to pursue different avenues in art, ones not reliant on the ability to create beauty, at least not beauty in the traditional sense."

 

Well, there you go, five hundreds years of art history, just went out the window:) Boof! :)

[william_todd_faulk]

Beau,

<p>

Thank you for responding.

<p>

At the time of my hindmost correspondence I was actually listening to Marley's Redemption Song which prompted me to respond. Perhaps I did not express myself properly. It is my perception that in reggae, as in American blues there is room for improvisation due to the fact of the simple nature or structure of the material. It is within this improvisation or creative form of expression that I feel the art emerges.

<p>

In my personal conviction I would liken Lennon and McCartney too Adams and Weston, archetypal in character and formulaic. Certainly more than acceptable works produced by all that could hardly be construed as flawed.

<p>

A previous poster defined 'pretty', as 'pleasing', the definition appears to be accurate by all accounts in my own thinking. I embrace a rather significant amount more pleasure in viewing works by Daido or Klein who practiced a far more simplistic or elementary approach.

<p>

Additionally I do not think that landscapes have to be ideally exposed as you summarize in order to be pleasing or 'pretty' to ones mind. The 'Block Out the Sun' series by The Starns comes immediately to mind. Soft focus, no contrast, poor light yet somehow bound together by artistic and spiritual integrity, which renders an esthetical and emotional success.

<p>

<I>"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;<br>

None but ourselves can free our mind."</I>

<p>

Regards,<br>

Bill

[jimmy_o]

What the...? gettin' deep around here, where are my boots, dont want to step in anything.

[jimmy_o]

<i>I think the pursuit of beauty in art is one of it's most noble goals. It's also one of the most difficult. Many attempt to make great beauty, few succeed consistently. I think the difficulty in making beauty caused others to pursue different avenues in art, ones not reliant on the ability to create beauty, at least not beauty in the traditional sense.</i>

<p>

63 words and nothing said.

[._kaa]

<p>Jeff Spirer: <i>There are many people in a variety of arts who have no interest in pursuing beauty.</i>

 

<p>Well, perhaps I am coming closer to formulating my question :-)

 

<p>Speaking in generalities, why did contemporary art, by and large, abandon beauty as a goal, and why does contemporary photography, also by and large, still holds to it?

[root]

The timing of the musical reference is fitting. Tonight at our camera club, I'm presenting one of fifteen five-minute slide essays (two projectors dissolving images set to music). Most of the other presenters' musical selections will be new age stuff that frankly puts me to sleep. For the past five years of this annual event, I've used ballads by Monk, MJQ, Art Tatum, etc., to accompany my essays, but not this year. They're getting Miles Davis' live version of "All Blues", a blistering 6/8 with Tony Williams on drums. There are some retired musicians in our club who I expect will enjoy my selection, but most "like jazz, but in small doses."

 

The music fits the images in my 'OZ' folder, and there comes a time when you have to present what you like the way you like it, and if most people don't respond positively, then talk to those that do.

[Sandeha Lynch]

The majority of art over thousands of years was never called art, was never about beauty (a RRRRRomantic concept) but has been and is didactic, inspirational, propagandist and a pastime ... (did I leave anything out?) And 'pretty' is a perjorative word, like 'neat' used to be. <p>So Kaa, IMHO, the answer to your (revised) question is that a lot of thoughtful artists have recognised that the Romantic notion of beauty was an irrelevance.

[b_kosoff]

Jeff sorry that you seemed to take my comment so personally. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. What I said was in reference to people who could not create beauty in the traditional sense finding their own way to create beauty. Clearly Piccaso, Pollack etc. created works of great beauty, but not traditional forms of it.

[william_todd_faulk]

Mr. Kosoff,

 

No offense intended though your first posting I had mistakenly understood as that of a humorous nature. It is now unmistakably evident that you are in earnest and quite sincere about your thoughts.

 

I could half-heartedly understand your comment regarding Pollock for few are familiar with his work beyond the drip paintings. The claim regarding Picasso though is simply outlandish and naﶥ. The man was simply and at a minimum one of the greatest artists to grace our planet in all of time and a rather quick perusal of his sketchbooks would attest to that. From reading your post amongst the others here there seems to be issues with artists who choose to grow or create as opposed to those that replicate.

 

In all actuality there is nothing new, yet some artists find their individual journeys as that of an exploratory nature as others are content with remaining in the comforts of the known and accepted. Mind you that I see nothing wrong those that choose to remain in the womb, though I would think that the contrast between an artist and a craftsman should be acknowledged.

 

Sincerely,

Bill

[beeman458]

Speaking in generalities, why did contemporary art, by and large, abandon beauty as a goal, and why does contemporary photography, also by and large, still holds to it?"

 

It started back in the Renaissance, (Humanities/Humanism) was promoted by Delecroix, Manet and Corbet, 1825, (artistic politics) and brought to the forefront by the Dadaists (Post-Modernism).

 

Photography freed the arts up from representing the real during the 1890-1930 and allowed art to take a more intellectual path (abstraction) away from traditional thoughts of "beautiful".

 

From this point, art and photography diverged from Stieglitz's Impressionism and Romantic Realism. Art was further developed by Andre Breton who developed Surrealism which included Dali's/Picasso's efforts.

 

Painterly art went into the Surreal and Photography moved into photojournalism. Pretty pictures had been done to death and were finally crucified with a stake called "cliche" and has yet to be successfully resurrected as photography moved into it's next phase, which is now, by my countenence, dead; Post-modern photographic art.

 

Hope that was pithy enough for you:)

[william_todd_faulk]

Thomas,

 

Pithy enough? Are you truly sincere? Interestingly enough you're words resonate as such of those that a first year art history major might eagerly proclaim to mother and father upon having immediately arrived home for the holidays. In a somewhat excitedly manner and in lieu of any of your own beliefs or ideologies that you might perhaps have developed you resort to reciting your textbooks that you have somehow managed to commit to memory.

 

I find your commentary concerning the abstract expressionists intellectualizing fairly entertaining. It appears as if you perhaps may possibly have overlooked a few passages from your textbook here. Without a doubt even a first year student would recognize the fact that the abstract expressionist movement was drawing from the sub-conscious.

 

I trust the adage is along the lines of "You can fool some of the people..."

 

Regards,

Bill

[beeman458]

Maybe you'd be so kind as to take the time in which to give an insightful answer to the question.

[mike dixon]

He's already provided several thoughful and articulate responses, Thomas. Why are you implying that he has evaded the question?

[beeman458]

He's not evanding anything and I'm not implying anything but he's not answering the second question which is the question in which I replied to and I'd love to see him reply to the second question.

 

Maybe you'd like to take a shot at answering the second question; with insight. You know, like an objective answer which includes names, dates and places and not one filled with subjective information or over arching statments.