New Objectivism, Anyone?

[Damon DAmato]

<p><strong>First a few words fFrom the Wikipedia Page for New Objectivity<br /> </strong><br>

<strong>Definition</strong><br>

Critic <a title="Franz Roh" href="../wiki/Franz_Roh" title="Franz Roh">Franz Roh</a> (1925) listed the differences between<br>

expressionism and the New Objectivity, which he called post-expressionism:</p>

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<th>Expressionism</th> <th>Post-Expressionism</th>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>ecstatic objects</td>

<td>plain objects</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>many religious themes</td>

<td>few religious themes</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>the stifled object</td>

<td>the explanatory object</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>rhythmic</td>

<td>representative</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>arousing</td>

<td>engrossing</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>dynamic</td>

<td>static</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>loud</td>

<td>quiet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>summary</td>

<td>sustained</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>obvious</td>

<td>obvious and enigmatic...</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>monumental</td>

<td>miniature</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>warm</td>

<td>cool to cold</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>thick coloration</td>

<td>thin layer of color</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>roughened</td>

<td>smooth, dislodged</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>like uncut stone</td>

<td>like polished metal</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>work process preserved</td>

<td>work process effaced</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>leaving traces</td>

<td>pure objectification</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>expressive deformation of objects</td>

<td>harmonic cleansing of objects</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>rich in diagonals</td>

<td>rectangular in frame</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>often acute-angled</td>

<td>parallel</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>working against the edges of image</td>

<td>fixed within edges of image</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>primitive</td>

<td>civilized</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p><br /> <br /> Okay, I'm trusting the wiki page. Here goes. <br /> <br /> <a title="20090730-DSC_9277 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href=" title="20090730-DSC_9277 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3773905158_da33821c8b_o.jpg" alt="20090730-DSC_9277" width="700" height="447" /> </a></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here goes...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>another take...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>one more</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>dangerous</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>n.o. cinco</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>n/o six</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>n/o 7</p><div></div>

[spanky]

<p>I dunno; I'm getting a brain strain just thinking about it.</p><div></div>

[rj_putter]

<p><img src="http://putter.smugmug.com/photos/607641690_qDNcu-O.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="474" /></p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>O is for Objectivism</p><div></div>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Finger stuttered on "probably". Apopologies - F. R.</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>Maybe</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>>>></p><div></div>

[sd_woods]

<p>I'm afraid it's not doing anything for me. I think it was surrealism I liked.. Agh it's all just photography to me.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>words to big for me to understand....</p><div></div>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Well, it was worth a shot. Everybody, please go back to what you were doing before art school spoiled the fun!</p>

[david_l3]

<p>I'd like to add one. </p><div></div>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>And I'd like to take mine back</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p> In the end, all "isms" are bs. All genres too. " Street Photography ", what is that ? Making random snapshots of strangers walking down a street ? This is at the other side of a thin thin line that many don't know how not to cross. Atget would have known.</p>

[vktr]

<p>The first picture is very cool.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Thanks, Victor.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>August Sander, Renger-Patsch, Blossfeldt. this thread should be an absolute soda for you guys......</p><div></div>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>another one.....</p><div></div>

[john_wolf2]

<p>I actually like these kinds of lists, although the spirit of them always seems more valuable than the letter.</p>

<div></div>