“…. Taste is the enemy of creativeness.” ?

[inoneeye]

<p>?<br>

I am an artist. It has meaning to me. So what now? Do you/we ignore the spirit of this post and begin the inevitable debate? Do we begin to pull out our scales and gauges ..... I don't really care to play.</p>

<p>OMG, lol. Picasso is not significant here. I used words that were attributed to him, my mistake.... </p>

<p>My initial reference to Leni Riefenstahl was very personal. I had a visceral response to her work. Of course i could not appreciate her work on the level of someone as informed as yourself. <br>

<br /><br>

Bound by knowledge.... my words. Can our knowledge become an obstacle to learning and creativity? John, my high school education is obviously no match for your encyclopedic academic knowledge. I wonder if all that knowledge can ever be set aside to allow you to truly create. To allow you to really understand what you have said,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As to our "little voices" (not just yours), they do come from somewhere within us, and perhaps the source knows us better than we imagine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and what it means to transcend taste and art from your own experiences.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>John, I see that we have derailed this post, so have your last word and put it to rest.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Josh, I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "truly create." </p>

<p>Just before your papal decree, you seemed to advocate "setting aside" "knowledge" and expressed anxiety about education.</p>

<p>Admittedly I got a BA in 1965, and spent two years in graduate school, but what you call my "encyclopediac academic knowledge" is typical of many in my generation, whether GED or PhD... little refers back more than twenty years because I was mostly a business/technical hippie before then.</p>

<p>How does your Joe The Plumber frame of reference explain Picasso, who was a formally highly educated artist?</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>"and what it means to transcend taste and art from your own experiences." -Josh</p>

<p>To my way of thinking, developed almost entirely from self-education (I admit two two-week courses in 1968), neither "taste" nor "art" can signify nearly as much the message in a message photograph or the emotional impact of a photograph made with that expectation. My "taste" is secondary, always has been. But I do value differing evocative merits of photographs, and I apply common photographic standards to them...those are, I think, relatively easily appreciated without inventing and attributing "true creativity" etc.</p>

<p>An Edward Weston pepper is somehow beautiful (whatever that means) for tonal and shape reasons (eros), and that the prints themselves are technical pinnacles (within standard photographic frame of reference). Does it add something to say "Weston was a truly creative artist?"</p>

<p>Note that I'm talking photography here, not purely verbal constructions.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Josh,<br>

I believe that taste is not a clear either/or demarcation. It's an ongoing sorting, choosing, evaluating on every level. From the smallest weighing of a line to the largest meaning of a picture or subject matter. We (or at least I) am continuously out ahead of my taste -- that's the nature of how I filter the world. The making of art, of creativity, is always outside of or <em>before</em> taste. It <em>becomes</em> my "taste" after I have done the sorting, the choosing.</p>

<p>In other words, for me at least, taste is subsequent to creativity, so it can't be "the enemy of creativeness."</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Julie, I'm nuts about your "equilateral series." ...the birds, too. </p>

<p>I think being "out ahead of your taste" suggests you, as a photographer, are not burdened by preconceptions so much as leveraging off them. I don't think the resulting images reflect your "taste" so much as your freedom and goals. </p>

 

[Julie H]

<p>Thanks John.</p>

<p>You (John) say, "I think being "out ahead of your taste" suggests you, as a photographer, are not burdened by preconceptions so much as leveraging off them."</p>

<p>No. That's not true. I have as many preconceptions (many of them cherished) as anybody. What I'm saying is that I never get pure perfection -- in anything. That I'm always having to settle, to choose, to decide if this is good <em>enough</em>, close <em>enough</em> to what I'm after. I am always limited to what I see through my camera, to what my camera and my mind are able to find, and so forth. It's always a mix of things I like (that are to my taste) and things that are not. It's a gradation and I have to choose from a multitude of attributes -- whether they add up to something that I then believe is to my taste.</p>

<p>I believe that in the Riefenstahl images, Josh must have first noticed something that was possibly going to be to his taste or he would not have circled back for a second look. I think we have to have taken something up, noticed, wanted to look, taken that look -- before we sort it into what we think of as to our taste. Because it's never pure.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Julie :) you are a breath of fresh air. I think you are giving a practical personal example to the point that Fred brought up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What if creativity were not the enemy of taste, but the driver of taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It also is how i process. It works well for me. It is the lesson I spoke of nurturing in myself. To not let it become an obstacle to creativity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think we have to have taken something up, noticed, wanted to look, taken that look -- before we sort it into what we think of as to our taste. Because it's never pure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I admire this thought. It makes me think and it makes me question. Just how much flexibility is required to notice. To reach far outside our personal comfort zone and open to a truly new experience. Perhaps rigidity is also a potential obstacle to creativity. I certainly am not trying to write these one liners in stone. <br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>We (or at least I) am continuously out ahead of my taste -- that's the nature of how I filter the world. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>as do I. But i have found that at times when i am most congested creatively, if i step back i may find that it is my preferences that have shackled me - at least in part. It is at those moments that i find it most beneficial to make an extra effort to explore unknown territory. To go back to those little voices and expand my preferences.<br>

Thanks for stopping by, Julie.<br>

<br /></p>

[inoneeye]

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >John, Ok. I’ll bite. I’ll come down from my high horse.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Just before your papal decree, you seemed to advocate "setting aside" "knowledge" and expressed anxiety about education.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I disagree. I am not recommending that anyone subscribe to my notions. Anxiety is not an issue it is a projection. And papal decree, really John tit for tat.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >How does your Joe The Plumber frame of reference explain Picasso, who was a formally highly educated artist?</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I don’t believe that I stated that formal education is a deterrent to being an artist. ? I did suggest that in your case perhaps that knowledge may be an obstacle. That was done in the same spirit as your observation was presented;</p>

<blockquote>

<p >I wonder if you appreciate that work as fully as possible, as you reduce it to your own "taste" in an "art" frame of reference</p>

</blockquote>

<p >And Joe the plumber frame of reference …?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I did ask, and in the face of all the highly educated artist living and dead would still ask.<br /> Can our knowledge become an obstacle to learning and creativity?<br /> I believe it might be an obstacle for some just as I believe that ‘taste’ “as in personal preference may be an obstacle for some. It is a question I would like to pose to Picasso. I am sure his answer would be entertaining at least.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >We all know what "taste" means: bourgeois acceptability</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Among other things. As I said in my opening. I find that taste and creativity are often at odds even by definition.. as in personal preference vs originality.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >It was me that first mentioned the Nuba. I wonder if you appreciate that work as fully as possible, as you reduce it to your own "taste" in an "art" frame of reference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Yes you brought up the Nuba work. Gold star John. Oooops. In your opinion I am degrading her work. ? That’s a shame that it reads that way. I intended to pay homage to it and her other superb work. In fact it was your reference to it that inspired this post. And it was also a reaction I had to your projection of your preference for her Nuba images</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Riefenstahl's brilliant work with Nuba (African) wrestlers seems (to me) substantially about masculinity.. it's more powerful than her Nazi work (IMO) </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Taste? As in personal preferences. You then go on to say something that baffles me in the face of much of what you are saying here</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Anybody who appreciates photography and cares about the specific case knows Leni Reifenstahl's work with the Nuba is better than her work with Hitler et al</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Papal decree indeed.</p>

<p >What are common photographic standards? And yes it does have meaning for me to say that Edward Weston was a truly creative artist. I say that about few.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >Note that I'm talking photography here, not purely verbal constructions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I would truly enjoy getting over these verbal obstacles and talk photography, I would welcome your ideas if we could do that. </p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie--</p>

<p>Great thoughts. I like that Josh added the word "process."</p>

<p>Maybe the perfection is not in the product (photograph or painting) but in the process. And maybe part of the perfection of the process is that feeling of close <em>enough</em>, of settling and of choosing. Those belong to the process. The process is the drive (Eros) that is instilled by that longing to get it right. Perhaps each photo, or painting, whatever the medium of the artist, represents that Desire . . . Desire that will always reflect something missing.</p>

<p>What binds creativity to Eros and Desire is passion.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Beautifully put, Fred. And very true, for me.</p>

<p>One sort of mundane detail that I want to add is that, in the long term, I may discard one preference or taste because I find another that does the same thing better. I don't think I jump from one to something totally unrelated. In other words, I'm upgrading, not switching direction. I'm honing in. The root target remains the same.</p>

<p>Josh, your response to my post is very interesting. One part, "Perhaps rigidity is also a potential obstacle to creativity," I've been considering.</p>

<p>I think that a case could be made in favor of ridigity in an artist -- that a very sharp, excessively, abnormally sharp, narrow, precise, <em>rigid</em> taste is needed in order to make art. That is precisely the origin of your talent or your artistic strength: the ability to know decisively and concretely, <em>this</em> is what does what I am after.</p>

<p>It is natural for an artist (any good artist will do) to wish for his <em>audience</em> to have broad taste -- in hopes that they will be open to his narrowly focused taste which <em>because</em> of its narrow intensity has resulted in beautifully rendered art.</p>

<p>Maybe?</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Julie. may be. I think so, once you have found your original voice, through exploration, or accident. You have made a good case for not putting too much store in one liners. And for original thinking.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Balance, would seem to be the key. Rigidity, i recognize myself in the word. In my creative process i often am rigid and decisive. With my taste as a viewer i most often reject rigidity. The distinction of creator or audience, does add clarity.</p>

[inoneeye]

<blockquote>

<p>I set aside my taste and began to develop a respect for her ability to master her medium and convey her intent with rigid control. Such power.</p>

</blockquote>

[j_sevigny]

<p>If while you are working, you are thinking of "taste," be it your own or someone else's, you are restricting your creativity. That can be a good or a bad thing. Boundaries can lead to more focused work. But artificial boundaries built along the lines of what people consider tasteful (and are you going to poll everyone?) or what the market demands will only stifle you. As for Picasso, like many cutting edge artists, he made a living as a painter, but also, at being a "rebel."</p>

[jtk]

<p>"I would truly enjoy getting over these verbal obstacles and talk photography, I would welcome your ideas if we could do that."</p>

<p>Yes! Stepping up a level to talk about photography might reduce sqabbling of quirky definitions of words.</p>

<p>IMO J Sevigny used "taste" in its standard, non-quirky sense...personally, I prefer that approach.</p>

<p>Nobody is in a position here to "welcome" anybody else's ideas: Forums are open.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>J</p>

<p>It seems very true that, when working, taste could be more of an obstacle than at other times. </p>

<p>It occurs to me that often in these forums we don't distinguish carefully to separate out <em>when</em> we do things or to make clear that we're not doing one thing <em>instead</em> of another but alongside another.</p>

<p>How often have I heard, "go out and take photographs instead of talking about them" as if doing one meant you couldn't do the other?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Josh would enjoy this discussion in photographic terms. I'll give it a shot:</p>

<p>Emulation of "masters" ...trying to echo the work of Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson, for example...can serve education and personal advancement or can constipate. Armies of us photograph Half Dome with field cameras or secretly stalk our fellows on the street. Fewer may develop approaches that are substantially their own (like Julie Heyward's or Josh DW's).</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>..or like Fred Goldberg's or J Sevigny's....</p>

[jtk]

<p>..or like Fred Goldsmith's or J Sevigny's....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Fewer may develop approaches that are substantially their own"</p>

<p>This seems to hit on how I use "creativity." </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>John. As obvious as it is I honestly had not thought in terms of emulation of others work. For this post. I agree that it can be a great teaching tool and potentially restrictive. But like other preferences we may have enough control to regulate the influence to some degree on our own work. <br>

I not we - as i do not speak for the forum. welcome your comments.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This seems to hit on how I use "creativity."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, as do i ... sometimes with the benefit of vision.</p>

<p>J Sevigny, Hi. I like the introduction of the word and implication of Boundaries.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I apologize for botching your name yet again. Two of my best old time photo friends were Goldbergs (both published photo books), but I've known you online long enough that I should have learned.</p>

<p>"benefit of vision"...Josh, not sure what you mean by "vision." Among possibilities you might mean 20:20 or perhaps something about deciding and acting forward, into the future....for example.</p>

<p>Some of us struggle to learn and at opportune times consciously make forward decisions about our directions, goals, images. That's my take on "vision."</p>

<p>My decision formed over 2-3 years while I also tried some other directions: it has to do with facing people openly, despite my awkwardness, and photographing them. Simple portraiture. This doesn't feel "creative" to me, but hopefully I'm depicting something insightful, in some way about the subject. Difficult emotionally and technically, frustrating, rewarding. Fred Goldsmith is solidly in a "vision" space something like that, as we see in his work. Decision, almost religious, is also evident in J Sevigny's work: it rises far above "street photography" because of his compassion for his subjects...they are not just anonymous photo phenomena.</p>

<p>From one perspective, Leni Riefenstahl's "Nuba" are mere anthropological beauties...it'd be interesting to see how she photographs new American casual acquaintances. She reminds me of Annie Leibowitz.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The example of Adams works here.</p>

<p>I like Half Dome more than I like pictures of it. So I don't follow Adams up the mountain but <em>Yosemite and the Range of Light</em> (and prints in museums and galleries when I can access them) is usually somewhere near my computer.</p>

<p>His devotion is inspiring and seems to translate visually and I often look at his stuff to help fine tune my own post processing work. I've been around darkrooms but never got to work in one on my own photographs. I'm a digital baby. And I don't need to be photographing hill and dale to get something out of the way he used tonality, achieved depth, brought out detail, and nuanced light and shadow.</p>

<p>I looked up "emulation" and the online dictionary emphasizes a desire to equal or surpass another, a sense of "ambition" I never gave to the word's more traditional meaning of "echoing." For sure, many seek to emulate the masters to their own detriment.</p>

<p>I don't let my relative disinterest in landscape photography and a coldness or distance I sense on the part of Adams become an obstacle to my appreciation of his photographs. I can appreciate what I do not like, I guess.</p>

<p>I wonder if those photographing Half Dome are thinking literally, emulating rather than learning, attending exclusively to tried and true subject matter instead of to the manner in which using tools can affect any subject, especially one that might be unique or individuating.</p>

[inoneeye]

<blockquote>

<p>My decision formed over 2-3 years while I also tried some other directions: it has to do with facing people openly, despite my awkwardness, and photographing them. Simple portraiture. This doesn't feel "creative" to me,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sounds like you are being creative to me, for one reason it is outside your comfort zone. It's a personal stretch so in context of JK is sounds like you are challenging yourself. That's creative as much as challenging or offering to expand the vocabulary of your other audience.<br>

Yes, your take on the word vision was my intent.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>equal or surpass</p>

</blockquote>

<p>practical clarity. When i emulate it is often with the motivation to take further.</p>