What and How Have You Learned to See?

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Barthes isn't a scientist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why should he ? Einstein didn't consider himself one either, at least calling to <em>imagination</em> - the root of all science - more than to knowledge, which is always only an answer.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Anders, </strong>I think we're on the same page re: Jakob.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John , I advice not to start that discussion. Roland Barthes was researchers through a quarter of century in the French National Centre of Scientific Research, CNRS (Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique) first as a internship and than as a "attaché", as responsible for research and than Director of research and you want to tell him now that what he did was not scientific? Come on! this is just the old, out dated story that social sciences and humanities are not real science. That debate would not help us on in this thread anyway, would it John?</p>

[jtk]

<p>I happen to have years of study in social science (research psychology). "Humanities" are not "science" and a onetime membership in a partially scientific organization does not make one a scientist. <br />Link to "scientific research" done by Barthes.<br>

<em>"...one "word" on <strong>John</strong>'s categorical dismissal of treating words as symbols. When someone here on PN write the word "never" or a word associated with that meaning, never take it for granted." -- Anders</em><br>

Note Anders reliance on "never."</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, concerning your "years of studies" - again let's not start that one either, or I will mention my PhD! <br>

The story about "never" is a joke (read it again and you might even laugh) but obviously you do not have humor. Relax John. Life is beautiful.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, Barthes need not be a "scientist." What's wrong with "theoretician?" </p>

<p>It's amusing that you mention Einstein in this context.</p>

<p>We all value non-scientifc thought, like much of Einsteins and the Barthes that gets mentioned here (if I'm missing Barthes' scientific work..link to it).</p>

<p>Einstein is fun to quote. His most famous work was theoretic, most of that was testable by definition and has actually been tested extensively: no matter what he label we apply, he was more scientific than his religious quips would suggest. When he ran out of testable theories he postulated deity, ie abandoned science.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Luis's metaphoric reference to "messenger RNA" </strong>seems more cogent, more perceptive, than blather about symbols...metaphors are often the best way to express edgy, perhaps edgeless ideas.</p>

<p><em>"No matter how skilled and great you fancy yourself to be, knowledgeable, etc., the act of photographing boils down to breathing life into the image (What FG once called "spark"). This is pure magic. Irrational, unjustifiable, unexplainable, unprogrammable stuff. When achieved, said image in turn breathes life into viewers, to each in his own way, like a psychic generator and/or a conceptual kind of messenger RNA." -- Luis G</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I didn't want that brilliance to pass by unnoticed.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, Barthes need not be a "scientist." What's wrong with "theoretician?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say that anything was wrong or less with being a "theoretician", I thought you did. <br /> But maybe you can make a list of words that we can't use here ( beginning with "<em>a</em>rt" ). Posters can then substitute them for *<em>beep</em>* everytime they want to use these meaningless words. <em>Beep</em>, the ultimate symbol of a word, that we can fill in with with whatever meaning we want it to, such as *<em>beep</em>* and *<em>beep</em>*.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, I don't tell people what words to use, hope I "never" have.</p>

<p>Part of writing is craft: when an otherwise intelligent-seeming person misuses words I wonder if there's an agenda. For example, some photographers prefer to be thought of as "artists." I wonder why they find that preferable.</p>

<p>What's your problem with questions? Is it religious, political, or just regional?</p>

<p>"Art," which now refers mostly to decoration, once referred to something more vital (still does for some : see the powerful <strong>Luis G quotation</strong> I cited above).</p>

<p>What does "art" mean to you?</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, I don't tell people what words to use...I hope I never have.</p>

<p>Part of writing is craft: when an otherwise intelligent-seeming person misuses words I wonder about their agenda. For example, some photographers prefer to be thought of as "artists." I wonder why they find that preferable.</p>

<p>What's your problem with questions? Is it religious, political, or just regional?</p>

<p>"Art," which now refers mostly to decoration, once referred to something more vital (still does for some : see the powerful <strong>Luis G quotation</strong> I cited above).</p>

<p>What does "art" mean to you?</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't tell people what words to use...I hope I never have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> It's more about telling people what words <em>not</em> to use, what I was thinking about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>some photographers prefer to be thought of as "artists." I wonder why they find that preferable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not me, but maybe some find it preferable to <em>say</em> that they are "artists" simply because it communicates something else than the word "photographer" does or can. Anybody else of course is entirely free to think of them as artists <em>or not</em>, regardless of how they wish to be thought of. Do you consider Bernd and Hilla Becher to be artists or photographers ? Does it matter of what you think them to be regardless of how they prefer to be thought of ?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What's your problem with questions? Is it religious, political, or just regional?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't say I had any problem with questions ( quite the opposite, that's why I mentioned <em>imagination </em>), either way, what's your problem with questioning questions ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does "art" mean to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art to me means <em>Learning to See </em>under-consciously. For Jung the unconscious was nature and not art, I think that nature = art. It doesn't refer "mostly to decoration" to me, it can and might as well be, but that's not what it <em>means</em> to me. </p>

<div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>I have learned to see the mistakes that I once would have made. Unfortunately, I have not yet learned to see the errors that I am destined to commit.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

 

<p>John wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Art," which now refers mostly to decoration, once referred to something more vital</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If art mostly refers to decoration, John, it must be because we have lost our way - maybe because contemporary art has lost it's way. "Art" has in most cases become decoration or publicity events. However art do still exist. I just saw it yesterday in Louvre and the Orsay museum. This "more vital" is still with us. Hope that does not provoke an outrage or I promise to keep it a secrete. <br>

Sorry for not using Phylys's "beep".<br>

I'm missing <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF4qii8S3gw">Victor Borge and his phonetic pronunciations</a>. Listen to it (4 delirious minutes) and even John will laugh.</p>

 

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>" 'Art,' which now refers mostly to decoration, once referred to something more vital (still does for some : see the powerful Luis G quotation I cited above)."</em> <strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

<p>Words, which are not . . . er . . . symbols, do not refer to anything. People refer to things, using words. Regardless of whether words are symbols or not, their meanings are not fixed by God or anyone else. Their meanings do not come from the combination of the letters or sounds (onomatopoeia comes close but is still no cigar). Their meanings are not <em>attached</em> by virtue of the word itself. Their meanings derive from usage. Not a solo usage, which could be a misusage that most people would recognize as off, but an accepted usage by the players who are using them. The meaning does not <em>inhere</em> in the word.</p>

<p>The word "art" neither refers to what's in a museum nor to what hangs on a motel wall without understanding and acceptance by those using it in either of those ways. It is what different people in different contexts and with different sensibilities and intentions use, understand, and accept to refer to these various things.</p>

<p>To suggest that "art" refers to decoration is to imbue it with a symbolic nature.</p>

<p>I can accept both usages and immediately put each use in context. I know who I'm talking to, generally know to what they're referring, and understand words not as mere references but as being used to tell me a lot more than something so static and neutered as a "meaning." Words are alive as are those of us who use them. The word "art" does just sit around and point to something somewhere.</p>

<p>When Anders or I use "art" anyone who knows us has some idea, in the vicinity, of what we're talking about. It's just like the word "chair." When I use it in this forum, a reader could get a variety of pictures of chairs in their head, pictures which will be refined as I describe more and more about it. If used in a particular context, say I'm talking about eating at the dinner table, it would be ludicrous to picture a big, overstuffed, upholstered thing. It would be just as ludicrous for anyone to think of a motel room or decoration when Anders uses the world "art" especially within the context he usually uses it.</p>

<p>There's nothing special about the word "art." Though, I do think there is something very special about art.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>Correction.</em> The sentence should read: The word "art" does NOT just sit around and point to something somewhere.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>There's nothing special about the word "art." Though, I do think there is something very special about art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred I think we would all agree that we can call it what ever we can agree on as long as we know what we are talking about. It does not solve the question on what we are trying since very long to discuss. I feel that someone around is pronouncing the death of ART just like God was pronounced dead by others. I agree that when I refer to museums of ancient art it is a shortcut and a lot of what in French is called "fireman art" can be found in the finest museums. Go to the Orsay museum of 19th and beginning of 20 century can be admired and you will see it side by side with what the majority of us will consider the finest example of modern art. Surely we would never end a discussion on the quality of various specific paintings or sculptures and much subjectivity will be present. However, from their to declaring that the term ART can only be defined in a totally subjective way is too far to go and not very helpful for discussing together at least.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>First of all, let's at least be straight. The "someone" you're referring to is John.</p>

<p>There is nothing about "subjectivity" in my post above. I've repeated on many occasions that I don't think art is as subjective as many make it out to be and I certainly don't think word usage is. If it were, no one could ever understand each other. It is as objective* a matter as anything is, especially as I described it. A word requiring many users to use it in the same way and understand it in the same way is a very non-subjective matter. But that doesn't mean the meaning of the word has to inhere in the combination of letters themselves. I'd suggest Wittgenstein but people don't like him being brought up in these forums for reasons beyond my comprehension.</p>

<p>Do you think the three letter "a - r - t" in the right combination actually have either a meaning or a reference in and of themselves? Just how do you think meaning comes about?</p>

<p>Among other things, the fact that John usually puts the word "art" in quotes tells me he's very concerned about the word and the way the word is used.</p>

<p>If you want to discuss with John whether or not art is dead and you find that a fruitful way to proceed, then please do so. I have approached him in a way I think is warranted. You might notice, Anders, that the discussion between John and Phylo which has gone on for some time here has very much been about words and their usage. That was what I was picking up on. You may have other fish to fry so please fry away.</p>

<p>___________________________<br /> *I'm uncomfortable with the subjective/objective dichotomy but using it is facile sometimes, especially when it's used in statements to me.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[Wow...kinda early for this, but...<strong> </strong>]</p>

<p><strong>Anders - </strong>"I feel that someone around is pronouncing the death of ART just like God was pronounced dead by others."</p>

<p><strong>Then Fred - "</strong>First of all, let's at least be straight. The "someone" you're referring to is John."</p>

<p> Maybe, but lots of people have OPD'd Art long ago, and <strong>JK </strong>wasn't one of them. IMO, and may God forgive me for even <em>appearing</em> to come to <strong>JK's</strong> defense, not that he needs it, but he pronounced it an empty ritual that has lost its meaning, which is a very different thing. Death is merciful by comparison!</p>

<p> The decorative has been with us from the beginning, and always will be. There's nothing intrinsically wrong or repulsive about it, and it obviously serves a purpose. Plus, there's many <em>kinds </em>of decorative art, and I do not mean categorization by subject. It has its own codes and serves different purposes.<em> For astute and daring artists, it can be an extremely useful -- and delightfully dangerous -- edge to play. [Eggleston and Meyerowitz are masters at this]</em></p>

<p>[ ....and it goes without saying that more decorative art is sold & bought than any other kind, just like more cheesecake is sold than portraits....etc.]</p>

<p><em><br /></em><br>

<strong>Fred stretched credulity thin and the meaning of "discussion" to the breaking point with: "</strong>You might notice, Anders, that the discussion between John and Phylo which has gone on for some time here has very much been about words and their usage."</p>

<p>Yeah, Fred..."discussion" like: <strong>(Phylo</strong>'s gracefully restrained...<strong>) "</strong>But maybe you can make a list of words that we can't use here ( beginning with "<em>a</em>rt" ). Posters can then substitute them for *<em>beep</em>* everytime they want to use these meaningless words. <em>Beep</em>, the ultimate symbol of a word, that we can fill in with with whatever meaning we want it to, such as *<em>beep</em>* and *<em>beep</em>*."</p>

<p><em> </em><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Which was followed by my Nominee for PoP Sentence of The Year: <strong>JK's </strong>"I don't tell people what words to use...I hope I never have."</p>

<p>*Beep* me (after dinner and a movie).</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred (and John, now that you mention him) my approach to discussing in forums like this one is as much as possible to address a majority of people that read and write contributions. I have no specific aim in discussing with specific individuals. i would do that by e-mails, in case, because I believe it would not be of interest to too many others. When I therefore wrote like I did, it is because I believe to have read many times a strong aversion to using the word "art" or to "art" altogether. Lengthly personalized dialogues between two or three persons in this forum cannot be optimal - although one has sometimes to respect that mode of conversation and I follow it myself in many cases as above which points directly back to you.<br>

To answer a specific question of yours, Fred, on where the meaning of "art" comes from, the simple answer is : by usage, common understanding and convention. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders: <em>"by usage, understanding and convention"</em></p>

<p>This is exactly what I had already said in the post you then commented on. Me, at 6:25 am this morning: <em>"It is what different people in different contexts and with different sensibilities and intentions use, understand, and accept to refer to these various things."</em></p>

<p>That's why I'm baffled that you went on to say, in response to me, <em>"declaring that the term ART can only be defined in a totally subjective way is too far to go and not very helpful for discussing together at least." </em>We both come to a "definition" of art and other words by the same means. My method of defining "art" and other words is no more subjective and no less helpful than yours, because our methods are the same. </p>

<p>In any case, the substance of my point, John, is that you pick and choose the usages of the word "art" and randomly assign it an out of context meaning when others seem to know exactly how the word is being used and to what the speaker is referring. For some reason, you claim that "art" refers to something hanging in a motel when you know it is commonly being used in the context of this forum to refer to something more like what you, yourself, recognize in Luis's statement about the breath of life or mine about spark.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, Anders, when you wanted to respond to John on his opinion about words and symbols, I guess you thought that was in some way on point and helpful to the discussion. For some reason, when I chose to respond on the very same matter, you respond like this: <em>"It does not solve the question on what we are trying since very long to discuss. I feel that someone around is pronouncing the death of ART just like God was pronounced dead by others."</em></p>

<p>I must have been absent the day they taught that what's good for the goose is NOT good for the Anders. (I couldn't help it. LOL and smiley face and all that jazz.)</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred hit one out of the ball park with "</strong>what's good for the goose is NOT good for the Anders. (I couldn't help it. LOL and smiley face and all that jazz.)"</p>

<p>*Beeping* funny!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps already stated, but here are my simple responses to the OT</p>

<p>"What (have I learned to see?)":</p>

<p>What I hadn't seen at first sight.</p>

<p>"How (have I learned to see?)":</p>

<p>By taking the time to understand the subject, to analyse, decompose and rebuild it in my mind (and to do the same, as a learning exercise, with the many other images I look at here and in museums and books).</p>

<p>And to some degree, by considering what is important for me and what I might wish to communicate in my photography (habit or prior paradigms often control the result, but unless the former are products of accident my best images come from the better understanding and analysis of the subject).</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred for me: "<em>different people in different contexts and with different sensibilities and intentions"</em> is a clear definition of an individualized approach. Language is a social phenomenon and does not exist in a vacuum where individual invent their on private world of words and their meaning.</p>

<p>Just a few words on how I see the question of "what is art".</p>

<p>When I refer to museums (not motels!) is as mentioned a short cut. Museums are institutions set up to possess and exhibit works of art as defined by those at any time that decide such purchases acquisitions. Much what is purchased is later on stocked away and not shown, or sold. Slowly over time a museum like Louvre ends up with a collection of art works that at a given time is considered worthwhile exhibiting and representative for specific art traditions, schools and/or certain cultures. It can also be seen as a collection of art artifacts that the museum believes the visitors expect to find in a museum of art at a given time in history. It is therefor a long process of choice, selections and rejections. Going to museums is therefor one approach to understanding what ART is in line with such an institutional approach. </p>

<p>Another approach to what ART is, is of course to go by your purse, and follow prices in galleries and auctions Worldwide. This is the marked approach to ART and is a so many other economic processes subject to manipulations, spin and customs of the day. </p>

<p>The approach that I mostly see presented here on PN is a personal, individualistic approach of going by what you as a person like or fell good about and consider as art - if you accept the very word. </p>

<p>None of these approaches are exclusive. They are probably complementary. In my view to impose the individualistic approach as the only acceptable approach makes it very difficult for us to discuss ART. One result of this might be the extreme of declaring art as dead, as mentioned above, or, as Marcel Duchamp wrote, to demand Louvre (or any other museum of art) to be burned for the sake of artistic expression.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now I feel as though you are simply willfully misunderstanding me to make an argument out of this when we absolutely and definitively agree on this matter. I keep saying that it is groups of people, not individuals and we agree that it's about usage and understanding (presumably understanding requires more than an individual). And that's my last word to you on this particular subject, for my own sanity.</p>