A man - story of...4

What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

add one of these: &nbsp&quot&nbsp&nbsp before and after that comment, and then reference the source:

--from Cool Hand Luke by Donn Pearce, also author of the screen play for the movie of the same name, 1967, starring Paul Newman.

Marc you are definitely mastering the [french] rhetorical art of philosophical dissertation, supported in the speech by citations of some authorities (smell academic background..!)... interesting reading indeed (reminded me a good friend who studied at Ulm... spirited exchanges guaranteed)...

Who is right, who is wrong? ... Isidro I am quite in sympathy with your interpretation... and Marc I dont think someone has to be or is wrong here. That is the advantage of looking at photography, you are free to interpret it as you feel, your truth, and what people have elaborated for century has no much of importance at this point and is quite polluting by the way.

Cultural background both experimental (lived) and theoritical (believed) will make your interpretation different from individual to another, and will probably generates some groups especially if your interpretation is by-the-book, based on theory and observation of some 'art or philosophic gourous', this is the first step of alienation IMO.

The historical and common guideline (not yet totally universal ... fortunately) will be useful only in a second step, as a basic reference, if I want to understand what the photograph wanted to express in term of aesthetic and how he was lead to this result.

My approach is certainly less rhetoric, more ontologic, with a certain sense of ellipse, I would say that imagination makes free. An infinite debate between reaction and revolution in art, isnt it Marc! (BTW have you ever read Toni Negri, incidentally a teacher at Ulm..:-))

Marc: another debate... for next week may be: Art and Truth? (PS: you are authorised to bring N.Goodman, Y.Michaux and K.Walton books in class)

=<:o)

Carl says that "images don't have hearts, people do," but from the track of these last several comments I would say that photographers can suffer from too much intellectualizing. It's good to know why one doesn't like an image, but one shouldn't allow one's university degree to objectify one's enjoyment. I feel a touch of pity for those who have been taught how to appreciate a piece of work, who's aesthetics are locked in the footsteps of academia, and who's appreciation of a work is over reliant on the thoughts and writings of others, no matter how prominent(should I say popular)they were in their lifetime, or after.

 

There will be no persuasive argument with regard to this image that will change anyone's mind and the reasonings behind any one's enthusiasm or disdain will be personal, and for the most part, permanent.

 

Sometimes I wish I had a more extensive background in Art and Art History, for example: So I could understand half of what has been written here in the past one or two days.

 

Then again, sometimes I like to wallow in my ignorant enjoyment of an interesting picture with a free mind.

Doug writes: "It's good to know why one doesn't like an image, but one shouldn't allow one's university degree to objectify one's enjoyment. I feel a touch of pity for those who have been taught how to appreciate a piece of work, who's aesthetics are locked in the footsteps of academia, and who's appreciation of a work is over reliant on the thoughts and writings of others, no matter how prominent(should I say popular)they were in their lifetime, or after."

 

It's a double edged sward, isn't it? Amateurs like me, knowing little about art, strive to learn just so we can elevate our critique to a level considered acceptable. Once internalized, however, we risk becoming pretentious in our view of art that's almost impossible to shed until we reach the next plateau - many years later, if ever. Lost innocence is impossible to reclaim. Maybe this site should be more tolerant of the untrained intuitive photographer, their views, as well we their work.

All pretensions aside, Michael.

 

Upon first viewing this photo of the week, let me say, first of all:

 

Congrats Piotr on your wonderous image and your great striving to protray a graphic representation of your feelings as shown in this image.

 

When I first viewed this photo I said,

"self - this shows an anal retentive personality" Self replied "Yes, I see the anal retentiveness in the expression and in the brighter white background silhouette in the shape of the 'thrown'. The scratches also reveal much in the way of anal retentive personality -- blockages and enjoying the same".

 

Then on the other hand, it might be that comic personality referred to earlier in the thread -- what's his name -- the spinach eater? The heavy grain over lying the image certainly does lend itself to POPEY, the Sailor man in the the comics.

 

As for Cool Hand Luke -- huh? I lost you there?? You said, he said , we said? WHO CARES? Ooops another Freudian slip, who CARESS.

 

Different strokes for different folks. The Elves get off on this one, who am I to complain?

 

In the end we should consider the photog's INTENT, just as last week. Piotr I see you, and call you! What is the Intent?

 

Marc, thanks for the prose and instructions in philosphy. I wonder, if your old philosphers might need an update? This old word keeps turning around. Or does everything remain basically the same from age to age? :))) Including ART?

Doug I quite agree with you when you talk about "too much of intellectualizing"... it what I wanted to suggest in a humourous tone using my bad english ... it reminded me the thread on Phil M. "6 sandstones" ... one the first I put comment in (some of them were cleaned by the way ... I still cant clearly understand the reason ... may be because I was referring to some kind of brain-masturbation (:-)). Already, Isidro was making a still valid point IMO:

"The universe! Nietzsche! Time, space, and matter! Our world and our moon! Rule of thirds unto the infinite fraction! Ancient civilizations! Barbarians! Decisive moment! Nothing, yet everything at once! Gods, kings, palaces! Faces that seem to stare up from the earth! Stairway to heaven or hell, and back! Volcanoes that melt dirt and convert it into rock! Eternity, mythology and the theory of relativity!

What are you guys talking about? (...)"

~%)

I came here to look again. I have insomnia, have this cured me? Almost, too bad ;-)

 

I want to "quote" something Barnett Newman said in a film called Painters Painting: " Even if you(the esthetes) can figure out a system that explains "Art"..... it is of no value.... it is like ornathology is for the birds"

 

Marc,

 

You are very talented, and very generous, you make a lot of very good observations imo, but throw out the philosphers, especially Nietzsche.

(who are they anyway except a bunch of boring old farts ;-))

Throw them out for good, for I think you have been indoctrinated, and that is one of the worst possible things of all, that you can allow to happen to yourself.

Too much of Nietzsche, too much philosophy, too much or too little wine...? :-)

You mean "in your opinion", right...? :-))

Doug Burgers, Master of Colors, glad you can feel pity for someone for what he says and about which you admit not to understand much. That's the way to go, Man, keep it up !

By the way, there's one thing I've noticed many times: those who claim they never learned how to read are always those who call pedants those who did. The second chapter generally condemns all rules, all references as well as the "academy", while glorifying the "Free (empty) Mind" which surely needs no cultural references to understand the whole World. All this rates a Zero in Originality, really, but feel free to go ahead and enjoy yourself. And burn all the books before you walk in next week - thanks God books are useless... So useless that even Hitler burned quite a few, I heard...:-)

Marc....

 

I guess I made you angry? I'm not sure, but anyway, I don't feel any hard feelings that you are calling me a moralist :-), I'm curious to know why though.

 

As much as it would be sad, it would be better to burn all of the books and art etc.in the world than to burn one life, don't you think? And yes I know that it starts with the books, still that's my feeling.

Marc,

"Hi, how are you ? Still angry ? :-)) Don't know whether you realize that most of your previous posts are, alas, conjectures about other viewers and the way they understand or fail to understand what YOU understand"

 

 

Hee hee. Yes, smoke and mirrors there, and quite a bit of them.

 

I photographed a family once, and they were the most visually ill-fitting bunch of people I had ever known. Without going into detail, none of them looked like they belonged to each other, and their house was hideously appointed, especially the wall paper, which was faux-gold leaf, and which clashed horribly with the green carpet. There was no way I would be able to create a "pleasing" portrait, although I struggled for quite some time. When the proofs returned I held onto them for about a week and a half because I was so disgusted and I didn't want anyone to see them. This family lived with that wallpaper every day, and every day their aesthetics were influenced by it.

 

My children have a dog that occasionally eats his own excrement. Watching him one day I couldn't help expect him to suddenly spit it out, realizing what he was doing, but he never did and munched happily to his heart's content.

 

From the first example (from photography) I arrived at a conclusion that was reinforced by the second (from nature,) that there is no accounting for taste. The people might have been taught to know better. They could have been schooled to understand color, or design, but one can still excuse their aesthetics based on either ignorance or maybe cultural preference. On the other hand, what can be said for the dog?

 

We can learn much in our lives, either through formal education or experience, but one concept we all need to understand is that some tastes are acquired and some we are simply born with.

 

Would it be too much of a stretch to say that preferences based on education are influenced by culture, whereas inborn preferences are based on Truth?

Marc,

 

I wanted to ask you something. Who would you rate higher for originality, Nietzsche or Sartre? I would have a hard time deciding here, but I think it would be 3 and 7 from me ;-)

What do Piotr Kowalik, Matt Hoyle, ONG Hooi-giin, Lars Raun, Dominic Rouse Eolo Perfido, Dave Nitsche, Roberto Carli and Charles Eustace have in common?

They were all nominated for Photograph of this Week.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006dix

Enjoy!

There are a few unfortunate souls on this earth who try to persuade the world to see that their way and their point of view, is the only way and the only point of view. There are also a few poor souls that like to *APPEAR* superior DURING their efforts to convince others that their viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint. There are yet a few more with so much pride, and egos so large, and that their opinions are stated as if they are actually facts with a seal of authenticity. And then, believe it or not...some are all of the above!

 

For those unfortunate people that have elevated themselves to such high position in their own MINDS.....the fall is great indeed. The thud can be heard for miles around....for a long, long time. Too bad for them.

Would it be too much of a stretch to say that preferences based on education are influenced by culture, whereas inborn preferences are based on Truth?

 

Yes, it would.

Doug, I think much can be said of the dog's occasional preference for excrement - it's a Fact, determined by science for its supplemental bacterial need as opposed to Truth, derived from philosophy. The two are not fungible. I think this might be where Marc's position is on shaky ground, of substituting Fact with Truth.

 

But there's much to be said of Marc's comments also. Ones aesthetic preferences and individual differences are to be respected, for sure, but somewhere between the aesthetic extremes lies Marc's position: the incremental gradation of aesthetics that we all know exists regardless of cultural or educational background. The problem, I think, is the fuzziness of the line once it's passed our ability to scrutinize with authority, and that might be where Marc comes in, to provide an opinion on subject matters less understood by those of us who are undereducated.

 

I think there's value to academia providing it doesn't entirely dismiss nonacademic truths.

I don't see a two dimensional background, but an almost three d. Could it be a

boulder?

but, equally certainly, this does not "do it" for me and having seen Patrick's post whoever chose it missed 9 chances to pick something better. FWIW I do not find him to be scary, or out of control or even angry. Just contrived, and not at all inspiring in terms of empathy, at least from me. To reiterate, I am not saying that it is "bad" or not "artistic" and not judging it in any way other than to say that from my standpoint it doesn't cut it and certainly not in ways that most if not all of the other 9 pictures in Patrick's folder do.

The prominent vein in the central forehead suggests that the subject is straining, as in "taking a dump". I don't agree that he's necessarily "angry" or full of "angst". This doesn't make it a bad photo, but it's not an original idea either.

Well I thought that it was a photo of the Red Hot Chili Pepper's

bassist Flea! This guy looks like his twin.

 

If this photo scares you, beleive me, you do not want to go see

the Chili's play live!

 

Grrr... wooooo!

:O

Wouldn't say crazy, or scary. Instead, what I see is pain.The man is in pain, It is a portrait of pain.

i used to make that face when i had too much sugar as a kid. i dont see anger in that at all. its the same face the Ninja Turtles have when they are in action. dont laugh heres what i mean -

Great shots wonderful work the only one thing I just feel like I'm looking at myself in antique merr :)

Good God almighty, Piotr? What dog had to bite his butt to get this shot?