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

[ben conover]

Hi,

 

Do you think that people have changed much over the last few thousand years? do you think lipstick, liposuction, high heels and implants will make people pretty? So what makes a Pretty photo?

 

The answer is simple my friend, the answer is blowing in the wind...

People have for ever been investing time and money into being pretty and making pretty things because that is what sells to consumers.

Consume enough of that crap and you end up thinking there's oil in Israel, because you've run out of gas....Pretty?

 

Look instead to real beauty, and pretty images will disintegrate.

Look at the real people of the world not at the lip stick icons of an unsustainable democracy, use film till it dies it's long death.

 

'Pretty' is an averaging term, the apparent value of K, a bit better than mediorcre, and less than beautiful. It is nonetheless a simple term. I think the intial question is dull, belongs on a dentists wall.....

 

Cheers

[michael_chmilar]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>Basically, if you look at non-photographic visual modern (and post-modern) art, very little of it can be described as "pretty". In fact, if you show a classic beautiful landscape photograph -- even a 24x30 well-done print :-) -- to some modern art critics, it would be met with yawns at best and laughter at worst.</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<P>

The postmodern art world is primarily interested in being clever and ironic. It is difficult to be ironic with a single "straight" or "classical" landscape photograph. You can introduce irony by:

 

<UL>

<LI>Showing human intervention in the environment.

<LI>Showing "ugly" landscape (ie. deliberately avoiding beauty).

<LI>Putting "beautiful" images in a context. (See <A HREF= "http://www.grandcentralartcenter.com/gcacPages/Artists/Kinkade/Kinkade.html"> See Cal State Fullerton exhibition of Kinkade</A> curated by UCLA art prof Jeffrey Vallance which achieves postmodernism by (ironically) displaying Kinkade's kitsch in a curated museum exhibit.)

</UL>

 

<P>

If you want to play in the field of postmodernism and "high" art, that is fine. However, it is not the only field around. In fact, it is a very insular, navel-gazing, and academic field. Ironically, postmodernism is largely irrelevant, outside of academia, as described in this <A HREF="http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html">essay</A>.

 

<P>

Fear of making a "pretty" and unironic image is only important if you are firmly entrenched in postmodernism.

[ken_hughes4]

why lump landscape in with all "pretty" pictures (a term usually meant as negative), your own biases are shooting too loud. Perhaps it would be better to talk about pictures with no meaning or that are just "surfacy" with no deeper meaning...all types of subject matter and photography styles has been abused in this way.

 

who cares what the critics think, they will change their minds and herald a new "champion" soon enough, talk about boring.

[d_poinsett]

Postmodern irony will eventually fold far enough back on itself until formal western cultural notions of classic beauty re-emerge. Beyond kitsch and mere pretty. Sublime postmodern neo-classicism. The movement will then collapse again under the undemocratizing weight of requiring a skill set that few possess. Pictorialists, start your engines.

[beeman458]

"Pictorialists, start your engines."

 

I was with you up to your last as "Pictorialism" is a bit too immature (processes mature forward, not backwards) for the next step and I see a blending of what was learned through Postmodern photography and "Pictorialism."

[d_poinsett]

Right you are Mr. G.

 

Old pictorialists, start your engines.

[h._p.]

There's nothing wrong with pretty pictures so far as I can see. Certainly I like them and so do most people I know.

 

The thing is that youngsters always feel the need to rebel. Maybe in twenty years time there'll be a 'New Prettiness' movement of wild young artists rebelling against all that boring old ironic and 'interesting' stuff that the galleries are full of.....

[william_todd_faulk]

Interestingly, I feel as if Harvey makes a moderately convincing point. In all actuality there is undoubtedly nothing faulty with 'pretty' pictures. 'Pretty' pictures are understood without effort and it is without effort or a flaccid condition that most minds are at ease with.

[andrew_sowerby]

Michael Chmilar , mar 31, 2005; 02:00 p.m.

 

The postmodern art world is primarily interested in being clever and ironic. It is difficult to be ironic with a single "straight" or "classical" landscape photograph. You can introduce irony by:

If you want to play in the field of postmodernism and "high" art, that is fine. However, it is not the only field around. In fact, it is a very insular, navel-gazing, and academic field. Ironically, postmodernism is largely irrelevant, outside of academia, as described in this essay.

 

Fear of making a "pretty" and unironic image is only important if you are firmly entrenched in postmodernism.

 

--------------------------

 

Re: The essay by Chip Morningstar.

 

"This is the story of one computer professional's explorations in the world of postmodern literary criticism."

 

After reading the first line of the essay I decided to read no further. I don't have any interest in what a student or prof of the humanities would have to say about computer programming, so why should I care what a computer professional (whatever that is) has to say about postmodern literary criticism?

 

Also:

 

In my limited interaction with the art world, I would say that your statements concerning irony and the fear of being genuine may have been the case ten years ago (if ever), but I don't believe that it is the case today. Go to a gallery that features the work of up-and-coming artists in any field. I think that you'll be surprised by the lack of ironic detachment (unless of course you're determined to find it).

[michael_chmilar]

<I>After reading the first line of the essay I decided to read no further.</I>

 

<P>

Then you missed an interesting essay.

 

<P>

<I>I don't have any interest in what a student or prof of the humanities would have to say about computer programming, [...]</I>

 

<P>

Irrelevant.

 

<P>

Morningstar's essay is useful because he is an outsider with no entrenched interest (ie. professors need to publish, students want good grades) in maintaining an academic status quo which has suffered "isolation and genetic drift". He spent a good deal of time and effort in learning and understanding deconstruction, and he is not approaching it from an ignorant stance.

[andrew_sowerby]

I'm quite willing to admit when I'm wrong and I will admit to being flippant and dismissive regarding Chip Morningstar's essay. So I read it.

 

In his own flippant and dismissive manner, Morningstar does make a good point about the jargon-heavy nature of humanities academia (a result of "isolation and genetic drift"). This point is nothing earth-shattering, but precious little is, I suppose. There are many who believe that the jargon is occasionally (or usually or always) a means of dressing up a weak idea or even a means of covering up the lack of an idea. At least Morningstar made an attempt to look beyond the jargon to see if there was any substance. His conclusion: not much.

 

Anyway, I feel that the second part of my above post -- the bit that you didn't respond to -- is valid. Go out and look at contemporary work that?s getting attention in the art world. I think that you'll be surprised by the lack of irony.

[c4-contemporary-art]

Wow - this thread just disintegrates from the get-go, doesn't it???

[enigmaphotography]

Errr, it really did. But it was destined to. First you have to define an abstract beauty as the standard, which you can't do. And I mean *really* define it, not simply state another synonym for the word.