Sadie Gray

Except, Warren, that the cliché adage is proven false by your post, which tells us that some in Beethoven's audience were listening to beauty but simply didn't have the ears yet developed or cultural norms yet set and understood to recognize it. So, the beauty of Beethoven was not in their eyes (or ears)! ;-)

Warren, clearly artistic style and/or taste may change from time to time. But I'm somewhat reluctant to tie art primarily to these factors, among others. I have little doubt that since the time photographs have entered the realm of commerce, some really terrible photographs have been sold for lots of money.

Fred, I'm asking this out of curiosity. Would you compare Reinhardt To Zeno of Elea's pronouncement that "What is is, and what is not is not?"

Fred,
My feeling is that very often perception is reality to many people. Ask a dozen people to describe a work of art (visual or aural) and you might get 12 different perceptions of it. Some quite at odds with others given. Some people might find the work in question "brilliantly beautiful" while others might dismiss it as "less than ordinary." That's the same piece, seen or heard on the same day, in that same room, at the same time. Perhaps I should change "the eyes of the beholder" to the perception of the beholder. That might work better for what I was getting at.

When "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is brought up, my own thoughts often go to "Beauty is only skin deep." I just hope we don't kid ourselves. Quite a bit of what's been talked about in this thread is physical attractiveness, which I would limit but not completely minimize, since I think both art and beauty have physical components, though even physical features aren't limited to pleasing ones in a lot of art. Nothing wrong with mentioning skin texture and tone when discussing a photo. And shapely nostrils and other features are fair game. Curves and body weight . . . sure, I get it. But I like to see or at least be made to think about character, personality, humanity, and expression. I think beauty, art, and particularly women often deserve more than we give. Whether beauty is just what each of us perceives or some more objective reality is less important to me than deepening my sense of it wherever it lies, inside me or out.

Michael, no, I would just scratch my head. ;-)

Fair enough, Fred. Scratching one's head sometimes works very well.

Dear friends, I'm REALLY HAPPY for your veryveryvery interesting words and comments.
But BEAUTY exists in NATURE? The first who discovered and described the numerical and geometrical in the human body was Phidias, the greatest sculptor of ancient Greece that brought in its "perfect" statues a "numerical ratio" (1,618033....), the NUMBER AUREO, which was also used in architecture. But previously very often in ancient architecture this numerical ratio had been used as in the Egyptian pyramids but not only. But we go further, the Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci who was the first to use (in the XIII century) Arabic numerals in Europe, created a numer sequence (SEQUENCE OF FIBONACCI: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55...etc...etc...) where each number is the sum of the previous two...). But even here the reletionship between a number and the one that follows is getting closer to NUMBER AUREO. And now we come to the most important and obscure point: it is seen that NATURE "works" right on the "project" of this number. The proportions in the bodies of all animals, the numbers of petals of the flowers, the arrangement of the spirals composing the flowers of many plants (for example the SUNFLOWER...), the spirals of the shells (NAUTILUS...), the multiplication of the branches of the trees, the buds of the plants,...etc...etc, follow the Fibonacci Sequence. In recent studies it has been seen the frequencies of the various colors, of the sounds, even in their rhythms, are combined in a way that MAN defines BEAUTY if they follow the Fibonacci Sequence. In addition it is also demostrated that placing solar panels respecting the GOLDEN RATIO, their yield increases dramatically. It therefore seems that what we perceive as beautiful has to do with a concept...better evolutive use of energy. Even the evolution of the concept of beauty in our culture seems to be linked to a best evolutionary use of energy. But the root is always the same: NUMBER AUREO. But at this point we must also add that the human brain has infinite variables that depend on genetic, neuro-hormonal stimuli, education, experience and an infinite and continuous succession of stimuli and events that make each brain different from the others, which means that each person will have different sensory stuctures which follow different sensory perceptions, both physically and emotional . However the NEURONAL MIRROR SYSTEM allows that there is a possibility of interaction between individuals and...EMPATHY. All this applies also and more in ART, both for the developer and for the user. I hope my words are of interest for you and that now we can more enjoy all the ART and OUR PHOTOGRAPHY, the true ART OF UNCOUNSCIOUS BRAIN. I only hope I was clear enough.Ciao, Mau.

Maurizio,

I am quite familiar with all the observations of the Golden Ratio, Fibonnacci sequences and other mathematical models

applied to reduce the perception of beauty to a psychological equation. No doubt there is some validity in these

observations.

Although these mathematical parameters stay static, peoples' perception of beauty does change, in society as a whole,

and in individuals over the years. I find it difficult to reconcile changing subjective values ( beauty in the eye and mind of

the beholder) with the static, immovable nature of mathematical equations. You see, it's my scientific training that gives

me a healthy dose of skepticism late in my life. (Heh!)

All very good Maurizio, but what has this to do with your shot of Nicole?
Personally I would neither start nor end with seeing "beauty" as a cornerstone of your portrait of Nicole. I see your shot as "organic" as some of the flower paintings of O'Keefe. That's where your portrait of Nicole becomes something, some of us, would see as artistic and not just another photographical shot.

Let me quote Paul Valéry, the French poet who wrote that a "work of art should always teach us that we have not seen what we see". So maybe also you, Maurizio, should look again at your own portrait of Nicole.

Paul Valéry: "Une oeuvre d'art devrait toujours nous apprendre que nous n'avions pas vu ce que nous voyons" (See here for those who master the language of Molière).

Anders, I admit difficulty reading through your Valéry reference related in part to the work of Leonardo da Vinci, not so much because of the fact it is in French, but more so because it is assumes much specialist familarity with the theoretical subject of discussion. However, apart from the familiar aspect to many photographers of desiring to produce a work of art as being more than what it appears to be, as stated by Valéry, the following declaration of his is I think equally important to this discussion, and to the scientific basis Maurizio mentions as being important to the artist-inventor:

"Men of science calculate and measure within the sector of their comprehension, whereas artists proceed in a much freer manner, but as if they had already measured that which they have created" (freely translated from "Les hommes de science calculent et mesurent en faisant usage des catégories de l’entende­ment, alors que les artistes procèdent de façon plus libre, comme s’ils avaient mesuré").

In other words, attempting to create art by golden rules or other mathematical concepts appears to be more in the approach of the scientist than the artist. Maurizio seems to have both experiences, so a reliance on science to express creative qualities is probably natural to him. But where does that leave the artist's approach to this POW?

The artist in Maurizio may well act more spontaneously than his discussion seems to indicate, but that is just my assumption. In my own case I have made some images (unfortunately one I have in mind is not in my portfolio) that when examined or appreciated by breaking down their composite sections show a very close relation to the golden rule. I found that a bit shocking. The past is the past (1990s) and a bit hidden, but I will try to find one or two such images that have exhibited that and post one at some point. It educated me on how my (or one's) mind works in photography.

I believe that we have these building blocks of beauty, order and disorder in our minds and they may come into play more or less unconsciously as we compose our images, and depending upon how we feel or think at the moment of image capture. Referring to the photo of Nicole, I think that Maurizio may well have composed it (or reacted to its evolving compositional change with time) in a fairly spontaneous manner. Those who admire it beyond its technical qualities may be responding to what they effectively see in it (that what may not show at first glance and may not appear later to others less impressed) and that may or may not be related to Maurizio's intention. Mathematical or other constructs of beauty or order may well be less important than the mood of the subject, her hand-face gesture or Maurizio's feeling upon perceiving the photo. Things like the golden rule and other known patterns are probably not what relate to this image.

Arthur I can only agree with you.
However, when I earlier on in this discussion tried to highlight what I saw as the compositional elements of the portrait it was in order to give some hints of why I believe the organic features of the portrait : the entangled circular framing of her face, is maybe what makes the portrait so much more than just yet another portrait of a pretty lady. My reference to Valery's "seeing what we have not seen" I made because it goes beyond the ever repeated "in the eyes of the beholder" type of escape from talking about more objective visual qualities of an art of work.
This being said, as a "clin d`eoil", one might make reference to the obvious compositional elements of the portrait of both the "Golden Ratio" and the "Rule of thirds" whether it being the result of a spontaneous or calculated choice of Maurizio or not.

Yes, the POW is of interest and not so usual for its placement of the subject with low angle of view and to the left and with the positions of arm and hand in the overall image, whatever rules of composition are invoked. I see little of the well known rules (golden, thirds, etc.) but I am brought back to the question of what does it communicate? Perhaps one needs to know more about the subject. Maurizio is very good at B&W photography is evident in his nude studies and in what I think is a more successful portrait. This image,

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6877100

is for me what he means about human beauty. The young girl is framed really well in the vertical format and her expression seems to be highly natural and unforced. My impression in looking at her is that her beauty goes much beyond that physically apparent. Og course, the simplicity of the pose leaves less work on the part of the viewer and easier to interpret than that of Nicole. Just saying that the POW is a symbol of naturalness or beauty is not enough I think.

Arthur if one wish to refer to rules of aesthetics (beauty?), the Golden Ratio is so very much present in the portrait of Nicole, with focal points on her eyelid and chin. My reference to "entangled circles" are the relevant so-called "golden curves" building up her face (like in this schematic example).

Dear friends, I have changed the name of my model because so she prefer. I assure you, when I photograph I do not think the rules but as I see the world and people. We have already within us, if we cultivate them, the innate rules of beauty. Of course there are those who have this abilty, some other persons have not. Dear Arthur, I agree with your words and thoughts, I photograph just following my emotions but as I know my camera(...but this does not mean that it alone photographers....) I want to know ALL... the "how and why" of ART (...including the rules of the Golden Ratio, the Fibonacci Sequence, the basics of neuroscience related to communication, its philosophical, psychological, and historical sides... ). I am free to know the nature of things but do not ever try "to plan" that I photograph because EMOTION can not be..."to plan"! However I did not expect such a "great" discussion that really fascinated me and not only me!

Dear Anders, with your exemple you have done a very good and clever work! And I'm sure you have understud (...as many of you...) the presence of my "soul" in my works! Ciao, Mau.

I think this is only partly true. There will always be emotional stuff that is not planned, but I think it's perilous for a photographer not to recognize that some aspects of emotion can be thought about, planned, and considered. Don't think, for example, that a photographer like von Sternberg, or Greene, or Hurrell, or Horst didn't consider what emotions they would try to realize in their photos of Monroe and/or Dietrich. They weren't necessarily standing their with their cameras thinking about it, but I bet they thought about it to some extent before or after some of their shoots and when they were considering the purpose and expressive nature of some of their photos. The feeling Gerry got from the Dietrich photo I posted, which I also got, what he so aptly called "androgynous potency" didn't just spontaneously combust. They worked at that stuff and honed it over years of refinement and maturation of the idea. Dietrich and her photographers very consciously created a persona and photographers very consciously want to capture certain emotional expressions that particular subjects lend themselves to.

We don't always want to plan or control our emotions, but we can certainly consider how to get emotion per se or a specific emotion we might be feeling or wanting to express into our photos. That's what I've been saying is so much the problem in so many portraits. Things like skin tone and features and lighting and composition are attended to, considered, and dealt with and then when it comes to emotion, many seem to leave it all up to chance, as if somehow it's just going to get into the photos. Sometimes it does, for sure. But I think it's something worth thinking about, especially in the early stages of making photos, and the reason so many portraits lack it is because the photographer feels it in his soul but doesn't ever consider how to translate that to a photographic image.

Again, I don't want to minimize how important a role spontaneity can play in getting emotions into our work, but I think it is not often enough balanced with some intentional attention being paid to it as well.

I think Anders said it well, in talking about "beauty in the eye of the beholder" as an escape from talking about more objective visual qualities of a portrait. And those objective visual qualities—not speaking for Anders, though he may agree, but speaking for myself—are not just limited to golden ratios, compositional relationships, and feminine features that males are attracted to. We could also speak about how expressions and emotions get pictured and what, by actual visual description, is causing us to feel a certain way or causing the subject of a portrait to come across as feeling a certain way.

For fun, I just read the Wikipedia description of the Mona Lisa. It weaves talk of compositional and technical aspects with talk of what causes us to see certain emotional sides of the woman pictured. Our discussion here has completely left the emotional aspects and whether and how they're pictured out. I think that's owing both to the photo and to the nature of the discussion.

I agree, few of us would go out in the real world and shoot photos restraining our visions by imposing whatever rule out there, telling us how to do it. If certain "rules" have survived as relevant for artists and art throughout many centuries (the Golden rule, the rule of thirds...) it could, however, just be because such rules surpass the changing of cultural norms and are related the objective physical abilities of humans (our eyes, our brain and backbone) of seeing, exploring and interpreting what we see.
Some visions, like the portrait of the woman named Nicole, embodies such "rules", others don't. Some visions violate such rules and draw our attention and painful admiration because of it. It takes an artist repeatedly to do both.

Mau,
A beautiful image of a beautiful woman. Congratulations to both you and Nicole on the image, and the recognition of it!

Jim Phelps