A good photograph/photographer or work of art/artist you don't like . . .

Norma Desmond · January 31, 2012

Of course there is a difference between art and the art market. But Julie is still wrong about art.

.

"Art requires a me." --Julie

</blockquote>

So what? Peeing requires a me. "Art requires a me" is a great example of sophistry or empty rhetoric. It sounds poetic, passionate, and profound but says nothing, at least nothing unique or informative about art.

The difference between art and the art market has to do with purpose. It has to do with consumerism and commercialism. It's about sales.

Again, it is simply a matter of intellectual laziness and incoherence to say that we each determine what is art. It ignores and undermines art's rich history.

And, again, any one of us has the freedom to call the table a chair or to claim that the Mona Lisa is not art or declare that unicorns exist. In a world of subjectivity, anything goes. It's the stuff dreams are made of. It can also show one to be completely out of touch or delusional.

_____________________________

You can't say it does when it doesn't. --Julie

</blockquote>

Here, Julie and I agree. That's why, from the beginning I've said that there is art that just doesn't do it for me. I think we all experience that, or at least many of us seem to. I just don't see myself as the art Goddess, ordaining what is and is not art just because it "doesn't" for me, just because of some all-powerful and supposedly definitive subjectivity.

aplumpton · January 31, 2012

"I think it's more productive to discuss things like beauty, symbolic form, expressiveness, contemplation, communication, transcendence, consensus, the art world, transformation, creation, plasticity, etc. Those are the kinds of things we all mean when we discuss art. We can speak intelligibly about what art is." (Fred)

Fred, that is what I also believe the discussion should be in regard to specific works and our feelings in regard to other photographers, among other such parameters that also allow us to evaluate a specific photograph or work of art. My own objective in making images is to provide a visual communication with a viewer, including my desire to identify and share little seen or not often appreciated things of beauty, complexity or mystery, or to try to pose questions for the viewer about our world and our existence. Oft seen pretty flowers or birds or sunsets are not my bag, unless their visual effect on me trascends my perception of their oft seen reality.

While I think that art cannot be qualified in so concrete or unambiguous terms as a scientific law, I do subscribe to factors such as you, Luis and others have mentioned, which are interpreted and applied in respect of my own understanding of their meaning in regard to the work. Although not a musician but simply a music lover (a term which doesn't ignore the elements of subjectivity, although it is not exclusive to that), and it is easier for me to understand music of an 8 note rather than a 5 note musical structure, I can listen, enthralled and moved, to a full concert of the music of a Ravi Shankar and his musician friends, gaining very much from that experience, even though it is not part of my daily cultural fare. My appreciation in such case is partly subjective and partly based upon some elements of form, harmony and communication.

Terms such as like and dislike are general and seem to privilege a subjective view, whereas I am sure your interest lies in the specific evaluation of a work or the works of a photographer based upon those elements of art evaluation and human appreciation that are based upon concepts or ideas that are understood by those having some familiarity with the world of art. Liking and not liking can imply wider and personally more evocative and often subjective terms than more specific questions, such as "Do you appreciate or not the works of Eggleston for the assumed importance of his statements on contemporary culture" or "Do you believe that Weston's series of peppers are important in respect of their qualities of transcendence?" The OP and its responses are most valuable (I admit to the fact that I must do some re-reading), but we give a lot of effort to definitions and perceptions of art and photography (Not a bad thing in itself, of course) rather than in discussing the why, namely the very specific qualities of a work that is appreciated or not or in considering the opus of the photographer. In many examples of like and dislike, considering here only those interesting recent ones of Luca, the objective fors and against can be further qualified with the likelihood of enlightenment.

Wouter Willemse · January 31, 2012

the specific evaluation of a work or the works of a photographer based upon those elements of art evaluation and human appreciation that are based upon concepts or ideas that are understood by those having some familiarity with the world of art

</blockquote>

Very true, Arthur, and that would make a good discussion too. But the question Fred posed here is simply another one. Indeed subjective, but our mutual subjective opinions can be most interesting too. Not for comparison, not for gaining a 'shared' better insight into something - but for the exchange of thoughts, ideas. How much does the label "art" influence your opinion? Can you see art and say "yes, sure, it's art for all the right reasons. And I don't like it because....".

The list of likes and dislikes of Luca can be further qualified with a likelihood of enlightment with highly subjective fors and againsts too. Let's say: we take that list, choose 3 or 4 photos and describe why we like them, or dislike them, for all our subjective reasons. I am sure that makes interesting reading. You may make me see things I did not yet see before, and vice versa. Objective points are no better than subjective ones in that respect. It's an exchange of experiences, rather than facts.

Wouter Willemse · January 31, 2012

By accident just trip over <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html">this article</a>; not exactly new (though for me it is). It does touch upon this discussion, I think. Does the 'label' art change context enough for you to change your perception? Disliking art seems an active "choice", but what if you do not recognise it as art?

luis_g · January 31, 2012

Wouter, in the case you cite, context matters. When I'm catching a train, I am often without a lot of time on my hands, and focused on getting to the platform. Plus one's expectations of finding a master violinist on the way are sub-zero, so we don't hear it. OTOH, people who know art have found great works at garage sales, antique shops, etc., out of context and with low expectation.

Wouter Willemse · January 31, 2012

Luis, fully agree... if I'd be rushing to work before morning coffee, anyone playing the violin would probably just only make me far more annoyed. While I like the Bach piece discussed immensely... But that was a bit the point: yes, some people find great works out of context, with low expectation. Most of us don't, and our perception of art is contextual. But I saw a link to this discussion.

Isn't this "context to recognise art" something we develop, much like we train our eye to 'spot that photographic oppurtunity'? The way we develop our sense for art (and learning to recognise it out of context), does affect/intertwine what we like and dislike as well, I think. The better one gets at spotting art, the easier an solid, founded opinion is formed. But does one still tend to dislike as easy, or does one also get more perceptive to spot the strong points and dig in deeper? Appreciate, even if one does not like it wholeheartedly?

My sense is not that well developed, especially for many modern art I'm in infancy. However, that limited experience tells me that it becomes easier to spot the strong and weak points of a work, and with this have more appreciation, more tendency to postpone saying "I like it/ I don't like it" in favour of studying better. Earlier on I spotted two sorts of liking, and this would be a development towards more and more 'rational liking'. Does that make any sense?

I'm just thinking out loud, maybe I'm way off topic.

Norma Desmond · January 31, 2012

tendency to postpone saying "I like it/ I don't like it" in favour of studying better.

</blockquote>

Why postpone? Why not feel whatever you feel and then continue to study, learn, or otherwise experience it and be willing to alter or let grow your original reaction or perception?

I don't see "I don't like" as any sort of proscription. It's sort of like an exclamation. Here's what I feel. Right now.

I would worry that too much of a tendency toward "rational liking" would undermine one's more blind passion, which can be a key here.

aplumpton · January 31, 2012

Luis, I understand your point of context being important, when our mind is necessarily elsewhere or temporarily shut off from other stimulae because the adrenalin is making us hurry elsewhere, that can happen. But I venture to think, that whether you would be naturally interested in the music or not, that in the case Wouter mentions, the sheer beauty of the playing and the sublime nature of some musical compositions would likely make you completely stop in your tracks and listen. Correct me if I am wrong, but all art has quite a bit of overlap or crossover with sister media, in terms of what is capable of interrogating and enchanting the human spirit. Not subjective parameters, but those that relate to the fineness, the structure and the emotion expressed by the media, whether visual, tactile or audible. In commenting photographs and visual art I bring some objective parametes into play that I am to some degree familiar with. But when music or poetry or architecture or sculpture catches my attention, with which my experience is less developed, I am influenced by some qualities of the experience that pervade the various media without their being unique to any one.

Wouster, art is just a descriptive word for me that perhaps just separates what it is from craft or the assembly line creation. I don't see it as a title. Whether it is art, or not, depends upon a personal evaluation of a person who has some experience in regard to the qualities required to make it art. While being informed and educated by art movements, one can think outside of their constraints. And, as has been said before on like versus dislike, opinions on what is art also vary.

We know that Mahler's art had been forgotten for very many years before being rediscovered, largely by the research and perceptive abilities of only a few persons. If it was also art during the dark period of its rejection, why was it so hard to be so recognised? Time is the key variable of much scientific observation and measurement, and it also seems to have some effect on the progression of art in the minds of the viewers, or the abstraction that is useful in appreciating art out of its normal context, like that of Wouter's violin example.

If you get a chance to see a DVD of "The Red Violin", mentioned in the rather long Washington Post article, it is one of the better films emanating from my own small country, quite an exhilarating visual/audible and romantic experience and an ode to the beauty of both the art of Italian violin creation and playing.

Fred, you are right about the importance of what is passionately liked versus what is rationally or objectively appreciated. The passion can also be based partly on the art parameters we privilege. Maybe we should make more attempts to express in writing such passionate reaction. Like "which works of art/photography touched your passionate spirit and why". That is badly worded perhaps, and it sounds a bit psychoanalytical but I think the question might be a good addition or corollary to your OP. If I am lucid enought to recall some of those fabulous moments I will certainly try to convey them in your OP. Unfortunately, not all, but a good number of them occurred long ago for me.

luis_g · January 31, 2012

Arthur - "But I venture to think, that whether you would be naturally interested in the music or not, that in the case Wouter mentions, the sheer beauty of the playing and the sublime nature of some musical compositions would likely make you completely stop in your tracks and listen."

In an ideal world, I would like to think that, too. But...er...objectively speaking, it didn't happen in the case mentioned, except slightly, for a literal handful of passers-by. Why do you think that was? The concertgoers don't take the train? None happened to go by?

I think the same thing at play in the violin train station concerto is happening all the time (in spite of the differences between hearing and seeing and all that goes with it) with both viewers and creators of art.

_________________________________________________________

Wouter, I agree with you that there are multiple levels of opinions. Like/dislike, which is not something I personally spend a lot of time thinking about, but nevertheless is a realization, is an analog to the difference between state and trait type conditions. There are also informed and uninformed opinions, etc.

About postponing like/dislike...it's not something that happens de rigueur, though as Fred points out, it happens in real time, and one can disavow it, or balance it, but there it is. A kind of first-impression chemistry or lack thereof.

_______________________________________________

Norma Desmond · January 31, 2012

Context plays an important role, as does presentation and even packaging.

Had Joshua Bell been playing at my local train station, the crowd of mostly gay men would surely have stopped in their tracks, more because he's so cute than because they would have immediately noticed his playing. It helps to have a hook, even for the finest of art!

I think it may not be so simple as the art being great, the music being sublime, and the playing being so skillful. This is pretty sophisticated stuff and it's not heard just on the surface and just in passing. There is something to be said for drawing attention first and then allowing the beauty and complexity of expression to sink in. It makes sense to me that people might pass something like this by. And there's nothing nefarious about the fact that if people are told it's great music and he's one of the great violinists that they would then listen with a different kind of focused attention and they might just hear exactly why both the music and the playing are so notable. There's no rule that says people have to detect it without guidance or without introduction. This is why good curation can be so important.

This is, to some extent, why there are museums. They can help focus our attention in a certain way. Remember, Duchamp DISPLAYED the urinal in a museum. That was part of the art statement he was making. He didn't just tell us to look at any toilet bowl in any old bathroom. He put the toilet bowl into an "art" museum, an art context. Subsequently, we might begin to look at all toilets differently.

All this being said, I can imagine someone walking down the street, hearing Joshua Bell's playing and being completely swept away by it, even without any kind of attention-grabbing or focusing context. There are so many possibilities.

AJHingel · February 1, 2012

Fred I agree very much with most of what you write in this very interesting thread. Concerning the role of museums, I think it is fair to say that museums serve as witnesses drawing conclusions, sometimes mistaken, from long circles of considerations over time by multiple persons and institutions on what is art and what is probably not, at a given moment of history. Duchamps' "chosen" ready-mades (that by the way all have disappear - what you see now in museums are replicates) did not start in museums, but in expositions and the urinal was rejected by the Armory show (1913).

Wouter Willemse · February 1, 2012

Fred,

Why postpone? Why not feel whatever you feel and then continue to study, learn, or otherwise experience it and be willing to alter or let grow your original reaction or perception?

</blockquote>

Luis,

it happens in real time, and one can disavow it, or balance it, but there it is. A kind of first-impression chemistry or lack thereof.

</blockquote>

Valid points, but I did not mean postpone what I'd feel or surpress that first reaction. I meant it more in the sense that I'll refrain from publicly commenting, discussing. It is, however, fair to say that it's typically also a case of lack of first-impression chemistry.

Wouter Willemse · February 1, 2012

Arthur,

We know that Mahler's art had been forgotten for very many years before being rediscovered

</blockquote>

Not quite. One of the best things coming from my little country (genuinely little): the Concertgebouw Orchestra. One of the best (if not the best) Mahler orchestras in the world, with a continuous tradition (except from 40-45) of playing Mahler. The NY Philharmonic Orchestra also continued playing Mahler - it wasn't Bernstein who rediscovered Mahler in the US, but he did bring him to a larger audience.

The underlying point, however, is art art when nobody recognises or knows it? Was Joshua Bell a famous violin player playing exceptionally beautiful music, while nobody listened? Winogrands undeveloped film? Vivian Mayer's work? Again, a valid question, again: not what this thread is about.

What would you have thought listening to Mahler while he was in relative neglect? Would you have liked it, even when most critics those days told the music was too heavy, too complex and basically too much in every dimension?

Maybe we should make more attempts to express in writing such passionate reaction. Like "which works of art/photography touched your passionate spirit and why".

</blockquote>

Agreed. Early in the thread, several tried to describe why some photographers or photos completely fail to touch their passionate spirit, though. Equally interesting, I'd say.

____

Fred, agreed on your last post.

I did not post the Joshua Bell article to imply otherwise than what Fred and Luis posted in reply. But I liked the practical experiment done, how it turns out. Not completely unexpected, but it helps remembering why Mondriaan-wallpaper does not quite work as well as a real painting of the very same Mondriaan.

Norma Desmond · February 1, 2012

Was Joshua Bell a famous violin player playing exceptionally beautiful music, while nobody listened? Winogrands undeveloped film? Vivian Mayer's work? Again, a valid question, again: not what this thread is about.

</blockquote>

Wouter, good questions. It seems related enough. Naturally, Bell is only famous if a lot of people have listened to him or heard of him. But, yes, he was making beautiful music, beautiful art, even alone in his studio. Yes, Vivian Mayer is an artist no matter how small her audience. Likewise so many unheard of folks are making art in their studios all over the world.

Before anyone pounces, this does not mean that any individual determines what is art. It just means that any individual can create art or come into contact with it, even alone. Just like the carpenter working alone in his workshop. He can create a table all by himself even though he, alone, doesn't determine what a table is.

The question about undeveloped film is interesting. It might be similar to an unplayed score though an unplayed score can be "read" by musicians and even heard (inside their heads). An outside observer doesn't really have access to undeveloped film. I think there is art both in the process and in the result. I'm trying to imagine a photographic project centering around undeveloped film. Perhaps something akin to John Cage's silent 4'33", 4 minutes and 33 seconds of a performer sitting at or with his instrument not playing. Cage's piece allows for the ambient sounds to become part of the experience of this particular music. I suppose whatever is in a viewer's field of view when looking at undeveloped film could somehow be considered, though it's not quite an analogous situation.

___________________________

Re: Joshua Bell. A friend pointed out to me that an artist might very well be more pre-disposed to recognizing the magic in the air, even out of context. I think Luis was getting at that when he talked about finding art at garage sales, etc. While art is a process of creation, art is also a way of life, of being, of looking and listening at and approaching the world. Many go about their days in a sort of rote or habitual manner. That's the equivalent of many "snap shooters," who sort of shoot by rote, in a fairly predictable way with a fairly predictable rhythm. Artists tend to notice what others don't and tend to experience the world with fresh eyes each moment. An artist/photographer would be more likely to notice that special picture forming before his eyes that would cause him to grab his camera even while he was rushing to catch a train, maybe even cause him to miss his train. And the artist might be more likely to recognize the beauty emanating from Bell's violin even though surrounded by hot dog vendors and guys in suits on their way to work. It's a way of paying attention to the world.

je ne regrette rien · February 1, 2012

My feeling that sometimes the reasoning becomes too "linear" here. Photography, and the works of renown photographers, no matter about how wide their audience, are not watched first considering some elements and then others, and then "I recognise it" and after having recognised it "I like it" or "I like it not".

We are exposed, or expose ourselves, to photography, and other works of creativity, plunging into them. I am drawn into photographs or reject them. If I am drawn in maybe I start looking better. But I do not believe that ordering my appreciation in a rigorous sequence ever happens.

More than a line of appreciation probably it is something like a spiral going up, if I let it go up. I have tried to say it in this forum before: my reaction to an image involves my whole being, my skills, my experience with life and my specific experience with photographs in a completely non linear way and iteratively. This does not mean that I do not have perceptional and interpretative patterns, but again, I am aware that there is no linearity in the application of them, and that they are not rigid. The reason is that I try not to be constrained by my patterns. I take advantage of them but at the same time I wonder whether I should work to be more or less detached from them to be open to the innovative and the unseen.

In respect to Joshua Bell's experiment, I believe it is a bit unfair to draw general conclusions. Imagine the situation: a rush hour in the metro, everybody is trying to get where they have to get, there is no time to appreciate and in that situation the right perceptive patterns will seldom be activated. Moreover, sophisticated classic music requires background, interest, attention and time and probably the situation depicted is one of the worst I can imagine to appreciate such a piece of music.

Most passer-bys in that situation either did not have appropriate perceptive patterns to understand what they were listening to or these perceptive patterns were not activated simply because their minds where busy with something else.

I would like to talk about perceptive patterns, about how they come to being, what elements flow into them, how they change and evolve. When I look at the photographs - the likes and not likes I have mentioned, and all others - I apply my perceptive patterns to them, in a non linear fashion. And at some point in time I ask myself if my perceptive pattern hinders me to "see" something really good or some kind of innovation. And so my perceptive patterns evolve.

That's why I am unable to accept or reject a photographer as a whole, without considering single works or sets of works. I have to look at pieces, apply my patterns to them and develop them.

luis_g · February 1, 2012

Luca - "That's why I am unable to accept or reject a photographer as a whole, without considering single works or sets of works. I have to look at pieces, apply my patterns to them and develop them."

Except that the type of like/dislike Fred mentioned has nothing to do with "accepting or rejecting" a photographer "as a whole". Part of the importance and beauty of what Fred made this thread originally about has to do with the ability to hold opposing points of view simultaneously, in this case about different levels (the very personal and the less so). It's not about being "fair", "just", "logical" etc. Nor may it be justifiable, the like/dislike.

aplumpton · February 1, 2012

"Re: Joshua Bell. A friend pointed out to me that an artist might very well be more pre-disposed to recognizing the magic in the air, even out of context."

I'm glad you mention that, Fred. It is related to the type of question I was also considering a bit earlier.

It has at least some importance to your OP. For instance, one does not need to be sitting in the acoustically or architecturally most beautiful concert hall in the world, clutching the stubs of long anticipated top seat tickets, before world-renown musicians (there are many superb musicians not in that highest sphere), to be acutely receptive to something of beauty. While it might be true that an artist might be more predisposed than a non-artist to hearing and being affected by a situation such as Joshua Bell's playing, amid the distraction and noise around it, but many equally sensitive persons have similar antennae for such occurences. Bell may not have been playing in the best milieu for that (given the panic of rush hour and the probability that many otherwise sensitive commuters may have been too focussed on their own routine, as Luis mentioned), but I'm surprised that not many recognised the quality of what was going on around them. Whether it is Bell or a lesser known player of high quality is of little or no importance I believe (I cannot give you an example here of one from an unknown, although I no doubt could from the Photo.Net galleries if I looked - but something like a superb and life-affecting photograph - I am reminded in a flash of Capa's falling Spanish war fighter - or Frank's little girl and the open hearse on a London street of monotonous row houses), it is instead the quality event and the experience that are all-important.

I find this aspect of human and cultural behaviour at an impromptu musical event or sighting of an unexpected image to be quite defining in regard to perception of art. It gives me some small comfort and optimism, as in my own photography where I am often sensitive to things that arrive unexpectedly and are not so evident in a mass of life and events that are going on around them, whereas they are not visible to all who tread the same path. Art is in large part exploration and interpretation in the making, also in its later viewing, and it may not be discernible to those who may be mainly preoccupied by or more sensitive to other considerations. This is not something somehow restricted to a few, it is simply an attitude and a way of looking at the world.

Wouter, I agree with you about Mahler (and much enjoy listening to your fine Dutch orchestra, Haitink and other famous Dutch musicians) having had a certain popularity before and during Bruno Walter, but it was quite limited. While it is true that some find his music too "heavy" or complex, it certainly isn't more so than that of Bruckner (an interesting case, an artist so different from the cosmopolitan Mahler), R. Strauss, Sibelius, or other composers of about the same period. I think it relates mainly to the degree of acceptance by the overall population (the Dutch have always been avant-garde, in many fields). The art of Beardsley, Britten or Vaughan-Williams may constitute other examples of exploratory visual art or music that is not recognised or liked quite as much as other art, but merits more attention. Which comes back to what Fred was saying about passion in response to (and making of) photographs.

As a local sculptor who exhibited in my small gallery once said (and I did not "like" him or much of his work very much, but thought it should be exhibited), it is the "passion and not the compassion" that is important. I think both are important, but would love to see any comments that display a passion for particular works or approaches of photographers, and why. I have a passion for many great images I've seen (Frank's little girl running, Picasso's Guernica or The Drowning) and those probably relate to my love of certain aspects of the human condition and how that has been represented pictorially (to generalize what are no doubt more complex emotional/aesthetic feelings, as well as appreciation of the genius of beautiful composition).

je ne regrette rien · February 1, 2012

Except that the type of like/dislike Fred mentioned has nothing to do with "accepting or rejecting" a photographer "as a whole".

</blockquote>

Luis, excuse me, probably a linguistic failure on my part. Like/dislike a renown photographer to me has some acceptance involved as well as something concerning the entirety, so I used the terms as equivalents. Can we agree on that?

Part of the importance and beauty of what Fred made this thread originally about has to do with the ability to hold opposing points of view simultaneously, in this case about different levels (the very personal and the less so). It's not about being "fair", "just", "logical" etc. Nor may it be justifiable, the like/dislike.

</blockquote>

But that's the point I'm trying to make. What do you mean?

aplumpton · February 1, 2012

Fred et al,

A contemporary image (a few minutes ago) of a certain like-dislike issue, where a love of the beauty of four distinct seasons is mitigated by a certain dislike of some of its encombrances. I am culturally at peace with winter and its imprint in the psyche of me and my fellow citizens and our consequent dance with nature, and while I can maintain opposing points of view about it, I might enjoy also not being encapsulated by both (Ah, well, "tant pi", 90 degrees F climes are only 4 or 5 months distant) views. Not being a "snowbird", I am content to hold my opposing views about it (perhaps those in Mexico or California or Morroco hold opposing views about the predominance of continuous sun and warmth?). <div></div>

alan_zinn · February 1, 2012

Anders: "Duchamps' "chosen" ready-mades (that by the way all have disappear - what you see now in museums are replicates) did not start in museums, but in expositions and the urinal was rejected by the Armory show (1913)."

</blockquote>

I took this picture of the original a year ago on a sort of Duchamp pilgrimage after thinking about it for almost thirty years. He is a rare paradigm shifter. After him, going home again is impossible. True, many of his other items, like the urinal "Fountain," are replacements. But that is the point isn't it?

Art theoreticians are essential to art the same as they are to physics. The Big Bang for Duchamp or Beuys isn't their material remnants. It is what remains as their cosmic background noise. It doesn't matter that we don't get an aesthetic thrill from the work. Each piece of art, in its own way, is theoretical - a proposition.

AJHingel · February 1, 2012

Each piece of art, in its own way, is theoretical - a proposition.

</blockquote>

I agree, Alan, if you are referring to "conceptual art". There are however many other forms of art and expositions and museums are filled with them.

aplumpton · February 1, 2012

I would agree with Alan that the most provocative and ultimately (with time) the most interesting art are propositions (theoretical, questioning, enigmatic or challenging, often unanswerable), coming as much or more so from the mind of the artist as from his skilled handiwork.

Norma Desmond · February 1, 2012

We have to be careful.

I think of Michelangelo's David as the apex of skilled craftsmanship which, as skilled craftsmanship, achieves a kind of Beauty that is very much art. We might extrapolate a proposition from it (or project one onto it) but more important than the proposition is that I want to be in its presence. Just to feel it (literally and/or figuratively . . . I know I'm not supposed to touch it.) Such craft transcends itself and is art but, I would claim, not mainly for propositional reasons. Duchamp is another matter and I agree with Alan's take on that type of work.

The Impressionists? The Expressionists, in particular? Please don't force a dichotomy of conceptual/propositional and skill. And, of course, we'd want to add sensuality and several other things. They are all too intertwined to be pitted against each other. Expressionist color is provocative enough in itself, on a purely sensual, even physical, level . . . but that's not all there is. It's provocative also within the context of what it is "expressing." Art can show every bit as much as it can propose, conceptualize, or express.

Something to learn from Duchamp is that what he has shown us (it wouldn't have been the same if he had just proposed it or conceptualized it, say, by writing about putting a urinal in a museum, he had to or at least chose to show it) about art and about the world is that it doesn't just apply to "conceptual" art. There is a little bit of the urinal in all art, even a Monet. As I said, I think it's at least to some degree about attention.

Shiny white porcelain has its own kind of beauty.

aplumpton · February 1, 2012

The most interesting and provocative art transcends craft for me, even though I rejoice as well in the latter, and have spent considerable viewing time in touching sculptures (in a gallery confine, not a museum) as well as walking around them and thinking about them. Propositional creative art, not limited at all to Duchamp, is what ultimately touches me more. A question perhaps of personal taste, but the conscious welcoming of a different art experience and its power of communication.

luis_g · February 1, 2012

The word 'proposition' means a statement that asserts a judgment or opinion. It is easy to append the idea that all art is a statement, but there are different kinds of statements. DuChamp's were (and are) of the Ultima Thule variety.

In Michaelangelo's work we see perhaps the pinnacle of realism, and the extreme craft necessary to achieve it. For a work of art to be realized, it needs the right amount of craft to actualize the vision behind it. With things like realistic sculpture, that means a considerable amount that is as Fred alludes, palpable. Transcendence doesn't come from one aspect leapfrogging the other, but from the synergy between the two.

As Michelangelo's faculties declined with age (his drawing suffered from hand tremors) and his sculptures lost their signature spectacular realism, he gives hints or glimpses of what was to come in art as he was forced/limited into expressing his vision in a different way. I think this is perhaps most apparent in his latter drawings and sculptures.

Just like our DNA, our thoughts, individuality, etc., are all derivations and recombinations of prior configurations, all statements in art are derived from other statements, and about other works of art, all tempered to some degree by external reality. It could be said they aren't so much statements as they are additions or constructions of language. It is easy to forget, but each work of art is in its own way a (re)definition of art.

Pythagoras was looking for the art-o-meter, as have many others. IMO, in photography, the most influential, recent --- and closeted --- Pythagorean was Ansel Adams, whose Zone System is analogous to Pythagoras' mathematical analysis of the string instrument. Neither could take their system any further, but perhaps someone will in the future.

Sign In

A good photograph/photographer or work of art/artist you don't like . . .

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in