another angle on "interpretation"

[ernest-b]

<p>Luis, is the series linked by Anders ("Genius of Photography", 5 one-hour parts) the same one you're referring to, on Ovation?</p>

<p>(Veoh's index only lists 4 parts, but those listed are numbered #1, #2, #4, and #6. (?))</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>I subsequently did a bit of googling, and found the answer to my question (I think).</p>

<p>Ovation's website does list the same "Genius of Photography" series--in six parts--and it provides a 3- or 4-minute teaser for each part.</p>

<p>However, there appears to be no way, through Ovation, to watch a full episode online. The website just allows you to get Ovation's future TV-scheduling info, if/when the series is scheduled for re-broadcast.</p>

<p>So, for anyone who may want to watch this series (at least, 4 of its 6 parts) on your computer, Anders's link to Veoh will allow you to do so.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Yes, it's the same series. How about these on You tube?They seem full length.</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=genius+of+photography&aq=f</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p><a href="http://www.FotoTV.com/contemporary-photography">FotoTV</a> has also lots of photography videos / photographer interviews.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Luis, I just checked out the YouTube index.</p>

<p>"Ovation TV" is the listed uploader for almost all the "Genius of Photography" videos available on YouTube. When I called up the first four listings, they all turned out to be just the 3-minute teasers.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Phylo, that's a very interesting website. Thank you.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>If we think of art in a performance context, including photography (Adams' "...print is the performance" comes to mind). What happens afterward? For many types of art, there is applause as feedback. Is it enough? Or the comments from the coterie of inner-circle friends? Awards? Print sales? Getting into pricier galleries? Does the art end at the point of contact with the recipient/viewer/listener etc and simply speed up entropy? We'd like to think that at the very least the experience is somehow integrated with or absorbed into the lives of those who witnessed the art, no?</p>

<p>Criticism, description, analysis, etc. are more complex forms of feedback/intercourse. Leaving out a myriad other significant issues, there is a point in the process when <em>the art begins to perform back to the artist</em> (and between viewers) through the viewers/audience. I'm not saying this, or any part of it, is better-or-worse than anything, just another aspect of the art process.</p>

<p>__________________</p>

<p>Ernest, sorry about the You Tube teaser thing.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>"Does the art...simply speed up entropy?"</p>

<p>Luis, you compressed a lot of potential meaning into this one sentence. Although I'm imagining possibilities for "speeding up" entropy, I'm not sure I grasp your intent.</p>

<p>Could you elaborate?</p>

<p>----------------</p>

<p>Luis, no problem (re. YouTube). Thanks for making the suggestion.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ernest - "</strong>Does the art...simply speed up entropy?"<br>

Luis, you compressed a lot of potential meaning into this one sentence. Although I'm imagining possibilities for "speeding up" entropy, I'm not sure I grasp your intent.<br>

Could you elaborate?"</p>

<p>The part you snipped out was what distilled out a lot of other potential meanings. What I mean was is the energy simply dissipated into the background? Or as a moment's distraction for the witnesses? Or does it do more? And if so, how do we know?</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>To finish the intermezzo on "Genius of Photography" the original BBC version was in fact in six parts and can now be found on DVD (2) (google it) for some 30 dollars. It has been or is still to be found in its full version on Ovation. It is also one of the most pirated video series, but that is another story. As you have seen some of the parts can regularly be seen on Youtube. </p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Luis, I was just on google, refreshing my non-scientist's understanding of the ramifications of entropy (of which there are many).</p>

<p>Assuming you're referring to the concept in the sense of "nature's tendency, in isolated systems, to take things from order to disorder" it seems to me that an act of (artistic) creation embodies the <em>opposite</em> of entropy (i.e., the bringing of disparate elements into a new order)--no matter what may happen, subsequently, to the created art itself.</p>

<p>But as you say, your intended focus is on the effectiveness of the audience-artist feedback loop. That's what I don't quite understand. Is anything actually speeded up?</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Thank you, Anders.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"...it seems to me that an act of (artistic) creation embodies the opposite of entropy (i.e., the bringing of disparate elements into a new order)--no matter what may happen, susequently, to the created art itself."</em> - Ernest B.</p>

<p>Bringing purported "disparate elements into a new order" is not similar to appreciating a photograph...it's more similar to interpretation, which is more similar to theft than to creation. "This is a picture of a duck" is interpretation, surprise or puzzlement etc are cut short, yet they're the locii of "art" ....if indeed art is being addressed.</p>

<p>Intepreters and critics are inherently downstream from artists and IMO from people with developed aesthetic/intellect who have learned to appreciate passive perception (as in Zen, for example). Scholars and critics interpret...do photographers address them? If they do, isn't that an iffy practice? (thinking of Lee Friedlander here, perhaps Alex Soth).</p>

<p>An earlier claim was that we're dealing complex ideas. I think some are and some aren't. When someone claims all perception is a matter of interpretation s/he is asserting that everything is everything, "it's all a matter of interpretation," and <strong>the artist's non-explanation</strong> is indicative of an unfinished creation (awaiting input from interpreters and "loops"). That is primative, not "complex."</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p>Luis, while reflecting on the questions you raised above in the context of entropy, one particular category of artistic creation/destruction came to mind. In its original setting (remote Himalayan monasteries) the art's "audience" consisted of its creators--plus, presumably, "the universe":</p>

<p>(short, creation process only - 2 min, 10 sec.) >

<p>(longer, destruction ceremony - 22 min, 26 sec.) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k33zYkrfq1k&feature=fvw</p>

<p>(creation and destruction, interesting content but low image quality - 8 min, 38 sec.) >

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Does the art end (?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not withstanding what "art" Luis is referring to, most art is rooted in the time it was made and losses, or changes, its value/function/relevance/meaning ... over time.</p>

<p>Religious art of the 15th century as for example <a href="http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/2/7/12972-madonna-of-humility-trivulzio-mado-fra-filippo-lippi.jpg">Lippi's Madonna of humility</a> can be said "never to end" but it has surely outplayed its role of counteracting societal entropy in the Italian renaissance society - it functions maybe especially now together with so much other art of the renaissance, counteracting entropy of esthetics as well as entropy of history and our place in history. At least seeing the thousands that every day, year long, passes by such art in Italy and elsewhere, it must have some kind of function also in contemporary society.</p>

<p>I'm aware that I do not even try to answer Luis's much more complex series of questions especially concerning</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>when art begins to perform back to the artist"</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

[jtk]

<p>Art doesn't "end" because "art" means nothing in that frame of reference. That frame of reference entails dumbing-down the work in order to make it easy for everyone. The belief that critics/scholars obtain the meaning of the work is a way of passing the buck to a "professional." The person who produced the work did it for her/his own reasons. S/he wasn't capable of doing the work better in words, so any explanation/analysis is the work of someone who misses the point. We all miss the point to a degree, but that's the fun of the work, that tension is where the significance resides. Interpretation attempts to kill the tension and claim responsibility for the work. A critic attempts to steal the work. Nothing wrong with a little theft, but I think that's what Sontag was addressing.</p>

<p>Appreciation of artwork (or any human production) continues and changes over time and it does reflect the sensibilities of people who deal with it. That doesn't change the work, and the interpretations are not the work. We change, the work does not. The best remains a mystery, which is why we value things we don't fully understand and make postcards of things we (think we) do understand.</p>

<p>People who are incapable of quiet perception will force interpretations on the work. If the work was intentionally religious (eg African objects, Sistine Ceiling) a contemporary Western person may force Born Again or athiest or craft/engineering or the ever-popular deconstructionist perspectives on it. Or that contemporary Western person may be sufficiently alert to turn the interpretation off and turn the perception up.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Interpretation attempts to kill the tension and claim responsibility for the work."</p>

<p>John, yes, perhaps in Sontag's sense, and particularly in regard to the evaluations made by some critics.</p>

<p>However, interpretation for the viewer of, say, a work in an an exhibition is also perception in the sense of the viewer sensing and trying to understand the mystery in the work. Interpretation is indeed a result of quiet perception. Otherwise the viewer would have no thoughts about what the work means to him (allowing of course that also that can happen).</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, I appreciate how it is always possible to anticipate your input but I still believe that it would be more constructive if you would admit that</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Many approaches are possible and equally valid. To confront them might not be the best way of filling this forum. It might be more optimal for understanding each other to separate them because they are of very different order.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for quoting myself.</p>

<p>John, let's take at a later point of time the discussion on "postcards" that you keep coming back to. There might be mysteries hidden there also, that you have not bothered confronting up till now. Maybe because you think you understand.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Many approaches are possible and equally valid."</em> <strong>--Anders</strong></p>

<p>John's confrontational style is one of them.</p>

<p>And, in the real world, many approaches are NOT equally valid or useful. Some photographs, some critics, and some approaches are downright lame.</p>

<p>Confrontation shows respect. Pandering to each other shows a lack of it.</p>

<p><em>"Interpretation attempts to kill the tension and claim responsibility for the work."</em> <strong>--John</strong></p>

<p><em>" . . . perhaps in Sontag's sense, and particularly in regard to the evaluations made by some critics."</em> <strong>--Arthur</strong></p>

<p>No, not just in Sontag's sense. Some interpretations given here in the last few weeks attempt to kill tension and impose significance where it is not. Not only that, but the proclivity to interpret (in advance of creating a work) can kill the photo before it even begins. Because often the idea is grander than the vision and the vision doesn't bear out the expected interpretation. The vision is often overwhelmed by such aiming toward meaning.</p>

<p>Believe me, I've been pissed at John on many occasions, but luckily I realize how much of that was my own armor not wanting to be pierced. The minute I opened up to some of the things he was saying, I started to get something out of them. Making photographs and the entire process, including a level of honesty I've been seeking when I shoot, criticisms I've received, ideas (and even writing style) I've been called on, a big ego and simultaneous insecurities I've had to confront, has not been easy. These forums are not easy. The tougher the better. I say bring it on. Who here can't handle it?</p>

<p> </p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Geez Louise, Fred. Sounds like you're organizing a knife fight.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"Academic quarrels are so vicious because the stakes are so low."</em> -- attributed to Henry Kissinger</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, we do differ in the way we either approach non-interpretive viewing of photos or at least in the way we describe it. I don't see myself as a passive viewer at all. For me, a lot of it is about acceptance. But even that, to me, is an act. It doesn't just happen for me. I don't receive another's photograph so much as I bring myself to it. I question, I wonder, I imagine, I get angry, whatever. But I don't think of it as passive. I engage photos. </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Confrontation shows respect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense !</p>

<p>To confront antagonistic approaches is in the nature of things. Systematically to create artificial confrontations is anything but showing respect to others or for that sake to the subject we are discussing.</p>

<p>What is being confronted is two archetypes of modes of appreciating art.</p>

<p>One based solely on a personal appreciation and projection when contemplating a work of art (I like it; it reminds me of a friend of mine or of a good meal etc).<br>

Another is an interpretive approach to works of art based on accumulated knowledge and (often contradictory) expert analysis. The reality is that neither of these approaches are substitutional.</p>

<p>They are to different degrees both in play in all cases and for all people. </p>

<p>Where we might have a problem agreeing, and where "confrontation" is certainly needed, is maybe when either of these approaches are presented as "better" than the other.<br>

My personal view on that "confrontation" is that anyone that exclusively cultivates the personal appreciation of works of art as the only valid and genuine approach is not only taking an easy ride, but risk, as we have often seen, to be buried up to the neck in narcism without having touched more than the very surface of a work of art.<br>

On the other hand anyone that believe they can "understand" art by merely parroting experts and repeating accumulated lexicon knowledge is nowhere nearer to the work of art than the former. The two modes of approaching art are complementary. Confrontation between the two is a waste of time - or pure nonsense. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Nonsense !"</em> <strong>--Anders</strong></p>

<p>That's the spirit, Anders. Confrontation at its finest. I like it!</p>

<p>I prefer that one of these modes of viewing art and photographs is seen as better than the other. That's where commitment comes in. I don't like things necessarily balanced. Some people like pretty pictures, all in harmony. Others don't. Some people like all approaches to photographs and/or art to be considered equal. Others don't. Count me among the ones who don't. I think one is better than the other and I am happy to say that. I value some photographs more than others, some pieces of music more than others, and some paintings more than others, though I can appreciate all of them. I photograph and view and discuss with passion. I do take sides.</p>

<p>By the way, Anders, neither of your two "archetypes" comes close to describing the way John and I are talking about viewing photographs.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ernest - "</strong>Assuming you're referring to the concept in the sense of "nature's tendency, in isolated systems, to take things from order to disorder" it seems to me that an act of (artistic) creation embodies the <em>opposite</em> of entropy (i.e., the bringing of disparate elements into a new order)--no matter what may happen, subsequently, to the created art itself."</p>

<p>It would seem that way, or that life does the same thing, but in reality, both speed up overall entropy. Whether in the materials and energies spent in production, or in the case of life, think of what we turn the food of our sustenance into. The rest of what I said is more important, IMO, than the entropy comment.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>Not withstanding what "art" Luis is referring to, most art is rooted in the time it was made and losses, or changes, its value/function/relevance/meaning ... over time."</p>

<p>Anders, I do not disagree with you, but am talking about much shorter spans of time. When I am addressing art from the viewpoint of performance, I mean in real time. Whether a sculpture or a dance. After the art-is-viewed event, what happens? What do we take with us? How is that shared? As I wrote earlier, we might hope that something of the work becomes absorbed or integrated into the viewer's psyche. The viewer claps, (on PN, like two characters on the street ogling women, give a 0-5 number) or whispers "That's great", but criticism, description, and analysis, IMO, all play an important role in the transmission and diffusion of information that the artwork itself originates. They also play a role in the echoes of the artwork's energy going back to the artist.</p>

<p>________________________</p>

<p><strong>John Kelly "</strong>The belief that critics/scholars obtain the meaning of the work is a way of passing the buck to a "professional." The person who produced the work did it for her/his own reasons. S/he wasn't capable of doing the work better in words, so any explanation/analysis is the work of someone who misses the point. We all miss the point to a degree, but that's the fun of the work, that tension is where the significance resides."</p>

<p>Two things: First, I do not see criticism in as negative a light as John does. La Sontag also did not see it entirely that way either. Here: "<strong> </strong><em>It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past." </em>I also agree with the darker aspects of criticism, that it can kill art en utero, stunt growth, retard development, dampen l innovation and change. But in my view, it is neither intrinsically positive or negative. And I can imagine descriptions that could also have similar effects. </p>

<p>Second: There is no "the meaning" of the work. The work potentially has as many meanings as it has viewers, no matter what the artist intended. It always did, but during Modernism, art was more like a puzzle, in that it tended to have one "solution" that was more correct than others. Post-Modernism, which Sontag was ushering in with her essay, accepted the idea of a multiplicity of meanings. Since the days of Walter Benjamin, and earlier, there were railings against many of Modernism's tenets, and photography was central to one of them: The uniqueness and preciousness of the art object.</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The tougher the better. I say bring it on. Who here can't handle it?"</p>

<p>(like a cheer) M-a-c-h-o, that is where we want to go.</p>

<p><strong>FG- </strong>"These forums are not easy"</p>

<p>Ewwww...I'm feeling that! Don't you love it when Fred talks boot-camp dirty? This is so Marlborough Man (where'd I put my lilac Alcantara chaps?)/Sgt. Gunny/Kong/Dirty Dozen/Top Gun - ish! Can we cross swords now? At least slam bellies? These forums tough? (should that be a "booyah" or "huzza" here?). John Kelly makes them tough? I'm feeling massaged and whipped by a thousand pom-poms. Aren't you?</p>

<p>Fred, I think one of just trespassed into a parallel universe.</p>

<p>The real question is not who can't, because they're already lurking, but who <em>wants</em> to participate? :-)</p>

<p> </p>