Art X Photography

January 6, 2009

Fred, I accept that history and political intent are evident in works of 'art', right from the time of the ancient Greeks (and before), through the Byzantium era, all the way through WWII, in civil governments of communism, democracy, totalitarianism etc... and so on. Art can have many meanings and intentions both collectively and subjectively. Often I associate this with propaganda rather than "art" in the "artistic" sense or a documentary of historical events. That said, I understand and agree, to some extent, with your reference to the meaning of art and it's 'understanding' in the context with which you refer to it.

As you have alluded to, this thread is very much a discussion similar to that of religion, where IMO there is no right or wrong, just interpretations of subjective meanings (correct me if I've read into your suggestions anything more or less than I have written here)

January 6, 2009

Larry: "To return to my dislike for the quote: I dislike it because understanding art is impossible, except on the superficial level of historical context, or meter of a poem, or plot."

I agree with you Larry only if you take that as being Wilde's meaning of 'understanding'. As you yourself suggest " Maybe "understanding" has been misunderstood." Your subsequent example of "apocalypse now' is perfect in reflecting what 'understanding' means for each individual (great movie btw). If you are familiar with Wilde's theme in his writing you will notice he is very much a non-conformist against society norms. Sarcasms is very much his most valuable tool.

"that understanding art becomes an oxymoron"

I agree with you here too. In fact I think Wilde would as well and that is his meaning behind the quote . The quote is actually a sarcastic way of him suggesting "art" is not to be understood. "Art" is created for reasons other than it's understanding. "Art" can be about everything that results from the process of trying to understand it. Wilde never suggests "art" can be understood (refer to the quote) If everyone here actually reads the quote they will see it as a suggestion that IF 'art' ever could be understood, then it would die, not WHEN. Everyone, who has posted on this forum, has been working on the basis that Wilde suggests 'art' can be understood at some point. The fact is he doesn't say this nor does he assume that. What he is inadvertently suggesting with this quote is merely that 'those so called critics' who claim to understand art are dead to it before they ever begin to interpret it for themselves, perhaps he is even suggesting they are 'oxymorons' Larry:) Wilde uses the phrase "...the moment you..." to suggest 'as soon as' you try to analyse "art" the viewer is dead to it, not the art itself.

January 5, 2009

I think it's important to understand that this is a discussion based on individual perceptions, opinions and experiences and that, if and when this individualism is expressed, we maintain a level of appreciation for each others opinions. As passionate as each and every one of us may be about this subject matter, it's important that we don't allow sarcasm and cynicism to replace the level of maturity evident throughout this thread. Attacks on race, creed, and individual opinions has no place here. Anders, I respect your choice to withdraw from this discussion but would add that Ilia is only one of many people here contributing to this forum thread.

In your initial posting you state: "The real question on whether "does creative photography lend itself to life and death ?" needs in my opinion more elaboration before a meaningful discussion can be expected."

When I initiated this thread I chose not to elaborate beyond what I did (initially) so that this "meaningful" discussion could be initiated. Had I gone beyond this and elaborated perhaps this discussion would have had a premature and painful death. As it stands, yours and everyone else's opinions have made it what it is. For that I thank you all and hope you withdrawal from this discussion is based on having exhausted your opinions and not because of another's

January 5, 2009

i'm simply offering what I see as understanding to me, not avoiding any issue

January 5, 2009

hog-wash means rubbish

January 4, 2009

Ilia "Can anyone of understanders come forward and tell us just what they understand, say about Picassos art works? Or any other of your choice?" I don't pretend to understand the mindset of any work of art's (photo, drawing etc..) creator, nor is it a priority for me to understand that mindset in order to appreciate it both visually and in meaning. Very much the same way as reading a book, listening to music, or watching a movie. I can understand a work's significance to me and I can understand what visually, acoustically and metaphorically stimulates me (or doesn't). I can come to understand that creativity has no bounds. I can understand that people have various tastes by the way they associate, talk about, or feel about art. I can come to an understanding of different views of the world. And if all that seems nothing more than hog-wash to you, I would suggest that art can also work as a conjure to an understanding of one's own imagination.

January 4, 2009

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4786029">me kawayi</a>

I see no relevance, in what you have written, to this forum.

January 3, 2009

I like your approach here D.B. Understanding certainly adds to the level of appreciation and that in turn can either keep that work of art interesting or not.

January 1, 2009

I wonder if our understanding (or interpretation) of art is as subjective as our "taste and judgment" of it. If so, could the relation between the two be the "way" (the journey or process) in which we come to understand and judge?

December 31, 2008

Btw, Happy New year everyone. Australian time has come and gone perhaps I should have begun my last posting with a disclaimer that I am still recovering from my celebrations and so I hope I'm making sense.

December 31, 2008

Fred "Our talking about art presupposes a common understanding of the term just like talking about pain presupposes an agreed-upon usage for the term"

I would like to add here, or rather ask a question. Does talking about art, even from a subjective standpoint, suggest a common "appreciation" of it? is this appreciation the same as the "understanding" of it (Fred refers to)? An if so, isn't that appreciation, the common fit? (ok three questions not one).

Patrick "And if you don't want people to understand what you have to say, then why bother showing your work? That being said, for me personally one of the biggest thrills I have personally in viewing artwork is attempting to understand what the artist was trying to communicate"

I'm glad you added the 'thrill' art gives you Patrick, because in doing so you partly answered the question you ask. I think "artists" (didn't forget the quotation marks Fred) show their work to give the viewer that 'thrill' andt also to act as a conjure into their imagination. They may not necessarily want you to understand it so as to continue the thrill and imaginative exploration.

Ilia "Art works are basically produced for decorative purposes or for intertainment or as a objects manifesting power status or religious worship of some kind or as a pure creative art form inheritantly devided of any meaning at all or a product for sale."

This is true Illia, and sometimes it's also a way of expressing 'meaningful' emotions (to which the viewer isn't privy to). Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can ever look at "art" and suggest there is no meaning (all be it subliminal).

"Please bring here an example or two of what you would call Art without "", better known in the big world of ours and which does not fall in at least one of the kinds I mention"

I would suggest Jackson Pollock's works were very much meaningful emotional expressions. works that he produced for himself and friends (although some very few works were designed to help him make a financial living all be it mediocre). Only after his death did they have the global acclaim they now have.

Glenn "When I view a painting, drawing or sculpture, does that piece of art communicate with me subconciously? If it doesn't, I move on to the next on. When a work of art talks to me (reaches out and grabs my emotions), I know the person that produced that work has touched me. I don't need to understand it beyond that point"

This works for me too Glenn. Perhaps in using the word "understand" Wilde referred to the lack of ability for the viewer to connect with that Art as much as a reference for appreciating it's creators intent?

December 30, 2008

Don, " I use those terms to indicate the coarseness that results from desensitization".

Thank you Don, I see we are in agreement here

December 30, 2008

It is with great delight that I read the postings on this topic. Thank you all for your thoughts

Fred "I think of "understanding" as a process, as something which evolves and changes over time."

I too have come to this understanding of "understanding" a work of art Fred. I don't think it ever dies unless, as you say, you try to understand it as you would a text book.

Ton "Irony is also an art to be understood ;-)" agreed Ton. would you classify it as abstract:)?

Don "Gah. I am not a morning person..."

That's ok Don, to take another of Oscar Wilde's quotes "only dull people are brilliant at breakfast":) It's better to be 'bright'. I like your suggestion that the "naive viewer sees a magical vision" I hope to always remain naive. For me, naivety helps my evolution of understanding and interaction with art

Glen " I think Wilde was saying that understanding kills the experience of interacting with a work of art."

yes he was. But as long as that understanding is an ongoing process, the interaction is ever evolving too.

Phylo, " a work of art dies the moment you CREATE it ".

I think this may be true (sometimes) for the creator rather than the viewer.

Arthur, "I think Wilde might have been saying only that one goes on from one experience to another"

I would suggest Arthur, that Wilde considered his meaning of 'death' as the process in which art stops being questioned, appreciated and interacted with.

Ellis I like that quote. It reminds me of another quote (i cannot recall from whom) "war is politics, by other means"

Again I reiterate my gratitude for everyone's thoughts here

December 30, 2008

In the current context, life = a continued appreciation and interest to the viewer, while death = a lack of interest once observed and understood. This is the metaphor with which Oscar Wilde refers to "a work of art dies..."

And so the question remains, does understanding the photographer's intent in his/her creation (and therefore remove any query with which we initially view it) make that image any more or less appreciative and interesting to the viewer?

December 30, 2008

Oscar Wilde once said " a work of art dies the moment you understand it" Working on the basis that

photography is an art form (as much in the creative sense as in the technical one), I've often pondered this statement

when viewing creative (manipulated) images. My question is, does creative photography lend itself to life and death

(in the metaphorical sense) based on the viewer's understanding of it?

December 30, 2008

Pnina "I still don't see how a photograph will help the homeless, only if you really work with them and document the situation, but than you don't post it in a photographic site."

So my question to you is why have you with your image of "street Carlsberg"?

December 30, 2008

As long as awareness is the photographer's inent

December 30, 2008

Yes Pnina, the key word is "document". To document is to create AWARENESS. Awareness may lead to questions, questions that need to be answered.

Don, your differentiation of the homeless and homelessness is, as Pnina has pointed out, accurate. The terms "wino" and "bums" I use are quoted from you. I know full well, in Australia at least, who the homeless really are. But I also know those who have lost complete hope. Those who beg and, to use your term, "panhandle". I know for a fact they also don't wish to advertise their plight, it's their feeling of hopelessness that leads them to that stage. I take nothing away from the desperation of the homeless that walk the fine line between hope and hopelessness, but I certainly don't take away anything from those who have crossed that line into utter despair.

I reiterate what I said earlier that if, at the very least, even the image of their "final destitution" is documented and creates some AWARENESS, then it has achieved something.

December 29, 2008

Don: "I don't buy the notion that photographing The Homeless is commonly motivated by humanistic concerns"

I completely agree with you Don, and am not arguing to the contrary (please refer to my earlier postings)

your distinction between the "homeless" and "homelessness" has hit me like a bolt of lightning (thanks for that) because it's surmised what I've been 'trying' to say all along and is exactly the distinction I've been trying to make myself, all be it in a very round about way (in an attempt to elaborate on Fred's original question to me posted on the 25th).

Deciding to capture 'homelessness' as a subject matter inevitably requires subject/s, that is, the 'homeless' (please correct me if I've missunderstood your distinction here Don). For me genuine intent is evident in the collage of images (homelessness) to which a single photo belongs to (homeless). That said, there are singular images, such as that of the migrant mother, who's creator (the photographer) has the ability to transcend the power of such collages through their use of perspective and context. For me, such singular images are few and far between and rely as much on the photographer's technical skill as on their intent and so are an exception to my rule.

(on a side note: as much as i appreciate and am grateful for the thought provoking postings made here, I cannot help but wonder if this topic should be kept for a different forum to the current one)

December 29, 2008

Pnina:"Art You did not refer to the point that it is not ethic" On the 26th I posted: "The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposly points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves. Capturing the misery of the homeless or desolate because it may make for a great image rather than because they want to bring to the forefront the injustices of the world are immediate examples I can think of here." my subsequent postings continue to question and challenge the intent with which photographers document those less fortunate. I think these postings are pretty self explanatory about my reference to the unethical photography of the homeless Pnina. Pnina: " A coins and even a smile is not going to really better his situation,let alone his will to be photographed if asked."

I beg to differ Pnina. A coin here and a coin there WILL make a difference (it's a matter of degree much the same way as when you compare YOUR financial situation to that of the extremely wealthy. The value of $100 to you would seem insignificant to them, much the same way as a coin to you might seem insignificant) certainly more so than walking on the other side of the street and pretending you didn't see them. No one WANTS their misfortune documented and I'm not implying that when I say I thank those for ensuring this topic remains in the forefront of our minds by photographing it, that they are necessarily doing the homeless a service. What they are ensuring is that we never forget it even if we choose never to walk down the, so called, mean streets Don refers to

Don E: "What becomes entrenched in the minds of people is the notion that homelessness is something affecting bums and winos rather than people like themselves"

If thats all that is documented then thats all that will be portrayed. Does the image of the migrant mother give you that impression Don? what about the image of the homeless war veteran on veterans day? it certainly doesn't to me. The tell tale signs (Fred has previously referred to) often show if a photographer is genuine in there documentation or simply out to get a "good"(NOT) shot. Dont know about the US but here in Australia the "easy" shots (of "winos" and bums")are often right outside your door, while those such as the image of a migrant mother require a deeper sense of exploration (including inner exploration). btw I don't subscribe to the view that the "wino" or Bum" (both derogatory terms in my view) don't stir as much emotion in me as does the image of the migrant mother (or for that matter the photograph of animals in cages exploited and abused, something which hasn't been mentioned in any of the posting here so far) If one views an image and simply assumes, then their ignorance of the homeless is perpetuated. On the other hand if viewing such images makes them question, explore and investigate so as to become AWARE then that image HAS achieved something special (much the same way as the images of abu ghraibe prison made us all AWARE of what was happening there).

December 29, 2008

Pnina: "I think that even though a photographer has the best of intentions, and doing it with the best feeling of concern and compassion, it will not help the homeless"

No, you're right Pnina. More often than not it wont help the homeless, but once in a while it may stir enough emotion for someone to actually do something about it. Even if it means the next time you pass a homeless person you look at them rather than simply pass them by as if they weren't there (maybe even offer some change and a smile). If you look at my earlier postings, I too agree that exploitation of the homeless is rife in photography as in other facets of society, but I also like to give the benefit of the doubt since I cant always be sure of the photographer's intent and that's why I thank them.

December 28, 2008

Ben Long: "my belief that the world has been photographed to death, and it's hard for single images to have much impact"

Ben, the world is ever evolving, one (or for that matter, many) can never photograph it to death. Additionally, I see many examples of singular images in PN that have great impact, at least to me anyway. I understand what you're saying about the impact of combined images but I would argue that sequential images (in a particular collage) have an equal impact. I admit my knowledge and exposure to diptych type images is limited, and they seem a fascinating (if nothing else) way of documenting or expressing one's voice graphically. It appears as much a form of artistic expression as single images. Like Jeff I don't accept that a single image is all I have to say about certain subject matter (most of the time), while at other times, it is more than enough.

December 27, 2008

Before I answer you Josh, let me clarify one point here. Whatever the motives of the photographer in taking a photo of the homeless, desolate and poverty stricken, I thank them for ensuring these issues remain well and truly entrenched in our minds and not swept up under the carpet as something taboo and unspoken.

I suppose my meaning, Josh, is that for me, some images, powerful in meaning, go beyond the need to be rated. That's why I find critiquing them or talking about them to be of greater value. Sometimes (and please don't jump down my throat for this statement people) I think ratings cheapen a photo because they place an exact or quantitative (even somewhat tangible) value on them, rather than allowing the image to remain unattainable, for want of a better word. What also cheapens an image and what I refer to as deceptive, is when one knows the image will probably rate well because it's subject matter stirs emotions to which the photographer does not subscribe to themselves (I really hope this makes sense). I've always felt that that's the deception, rather than the manipulation of an image in post production. And yes, I agree most probably submit photos (for rating) for added exposure, as do I. Actually I would add here that I look at my ratings for as much of an ego boost as I do to gain valuable feedback to help me become a better amateur photographer (I hope in time to have a collection of images with greater "depth" that don't necessarily require a rating for me to be equally happy (as with a high rating) with that body of work. In a way that may be part of the evolutionary process for me). To go one step further, I sometimes mistakenly use rating averages to judge a person's ability before I view their collection, something I try to do less and less of. Sometimes I might be right, more often I'm wrong.

But to get back to the topic at hand, seeing isn't always believing and believing isn't always about seeing. Whether the scent of an unseen flower, or news from a country we havent visited, all is subjective through the senses of the intended viewer. Don't you think?:)

December 27, 2008

The word "depth" is very appropriate for this forum (thanks Josh). I agree with you (Josh) that we are becoming desensitised to poverty in general and more specifically, the homeless, but the impact of these images for me, remains the same when viewed because, as you say 'they put a fresh voice to an otherwise overdone subject'. As long as the intent to photograph is ethical then there is no reason to stop taking such images, and voice one's opinion on even the most overdone of subjects. I don't intend to criticise, disapprove or condescend those who continue to take such images (nor I suspect does anyone else), I only seek to question their motives when I look beyond the photo to the portfolio in which they belong to, or to the feedback the photographer asks for (by placing such images up for ratings for example or simply for critique). This is the basis for me of what is truthful and what is deceptive.

As Fred has pointed out, there are tell tale signs that can be used to gain an understanding of the photographer's motives (I'd like to also point out that as a rule, I view images for what they are, how they were intended to be viewed, what they mean to me and the impact they have on my psyche and I do all this in ISOLATION well and truly before I ever look at other works from the same photographer. Only after I've appreciated the image in singularity do I become curious about the photographer and look at their other works). I can appreciate the message in both images Fred has posted the links to but I would not be seeking ratings feedback, instead opting for critical or opinionated feedback.

Don "Whatever a photographer's intention, it cannot trump the response of a viewer, something which the photographer cannot know or control".

I agree with this statement. It cannot and should not. The impact of certain subjects, like poverty and the homeless, stems as much from our life experiences as it does from the image viewed. This is out of the photographer's control and therefore, I believe, should not warrant rating but rather critique.

December 26, 2008

Fred, I agree, for me context is pretty much all one can go by as well. I think the fine line you refer to in an earlier posting is never more fine or blurred than when trying to give an "artistic" (for want of a better word) spin on the plight of others (I don't mean to offend anyone here by suggesting some post production work can't in fact highlight the message their images intend to convey, nor is it my intention to take away anything from the photographer's motives either). There is one recent example in PN for me where I think both creativity and documenting a serious topic works well (and I'd like to know yours, Don's and anyone else's view on this). Here is the link:

<a href="../photo/8396974">http://www.photo.net/photo/8396974</a>

Don, I think your example is a very good one here, because it can be intended with either humanist or bigotry and racist intentions (I suspect though, that photos documenting lynching may have originated for the pleasure of racists and bigots and inadvertently became documentary evidence of man's darker side). The scent of an unseen flower is much the same as the intent of the unobserved finger clicking the camera.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by Art X Photography