charleswood

<p>Fred "Art often changes retroactively and takes on different meanings because of what has happened since it was created."</p> <p>That looks like it was the case with how Wood himself interpreted his <em>American Gothic</em>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gothic">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gothic</a> .<br> "Wood's earliest biographer, Darrell Garwood, noted that Wood "thought it a form of borrowed pretentiousness, a structural absurdity, to put a Gothic-style window in such a flimsy frame house."</p> <p>But later: "Iowans were furious at their depiction as "pinched, grim-faced, puritanical Bible-thumpers".<sup id="cite_ref-9" >[9]</sup> Wood protested that he had not painted a caricature of Iowans but a depiction of his appreciation, stating "I had to go to France to appreciate Iowa."</p> <p>and "However, with the onset of the Great Depression, the painting came to be seen as a depiction of steadfast American pioneer spirit. Wood assisted this transition by renouncing his Bohemian youth in Paris and grouping himself with populist Midwestern painters, such as John Steuart Curry and Thomas Hart Benton, who revolted against the dominance of East Coast art circles. Wood was quoted in this period as stating, "All the good ideas I've ever had came to me while I was milking a cow."</p> <p>Will the real Grant Wood please stand up?</p>

<p>Bill, I too have some doubts about when and by whom the photograph was titled. However, from the editorial comments accompanying the photograph in the OP link "Parks posed Watson with her mop and broom in an image derived from Grant Wood’s painting American Gothic, 1930" It doesn't say that interpretations derive from the Grant Wood painting, it says that the image itself was derived from Grant Wood's painting, says that the photograph is a derived work. That's the best indication so far that we need to consider the title in understanding its photographic intent. I don't think Parks would have appreciated his work being described as derived (copied from) someone else if it wasn't. The title basically says "It's a copy job, a derivation of someone else's idea" and I can't imagine that Parks would have appreciated the title if it hadn't been his intention to reference G. Wood from the beginning. That's my reasoning so far based on the sources available to me here in this thread. Like I say, I have some doubt, but am dismissive of that doubt because of other things I read.</p> <p>I disagree with Alan's musings. The narrative accompanying a photograph can attempt to strip it of its meanings and in contrast the accompanying narrative can attempt to bring those meanings into relief for the viewer. That's why it is important to discuss the visual elements of a photograph, those visual elements also able to communicate meanings that are often grounded in our fundamental experience of ourselves as human beings with inherent moral compasses. For example, the eyes are said to be windows to the soul and Ella's eyes are a visual element of Parks photograph.</p> <p>From the material Bill provided: 'Now think about what you just told me.' We can get a strong sense about what Ella was feeling from her eyes, a visual element of the photograph, without being guided by written material. "...her father had been lynched, her daughter had died at childbirth, and she was bringing up two kids on a salary fit for a half person." Without even that written material we have a good idea of those elements of her life experience just by another visual element in the photograph: her skin color. Her skin color is just as much a part of our visual experience of the photograph as are Ella's eyes. From her skin color we know a lot without having to be told in accompanying words.</p> <p>From the editorial accompanying the photograph in the link to it in the OP "Watson signifies how African Americans living in segregation during this era did not possess the freedoms and opportunities symbolized by the flag in the background." That writing euphemizes Ella's life experience. That writing attempts to strip the photograph of important meanings, glossing over them. African Americans weren't living in segregation, they were forced to live segregated. It isn't that African Americans 'did not possess' freedom and opportunity. Freedom and opportunity were actively taken from African Americans just because of their skin color.</p> <p>From Bill's material we know that Parks said 'Now think about what you just told me.' What he conveyed to Ella with those words was "Now think about your skin color." At that moment he took her picture. He took the picture of Ella when she was thinking about her skin color. Her skin color was her life experience. That for skin color her father had been lynched. That for skin color her daughter died at childbirth. That for skin color her surviving kids had nothing. Right there in Washington D.C., our nation's capital, right there in Washington DC such political-economic policies were enforced by political power represented in the picture by the flag. The flag belongs in the Parks picture of Ella, it is a political visual element without which Parks couldn't have as fully told Ella's story. Ella's eyes are a window to our soul and from that photo of Ella, our own soul speaks to us. The flag under which Ella is standing, at the time, represented the Master's house, and African Americans in it were outside that house, just maids. Parks' courage and determination, the determination of many during the end of an era referred to as the nadir in race relations in the USA, the courage and determination that in reply to being told "You're just a maid." with their lives said "No I'm not. Now watch things change."</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think the photo without a title would lack an important context and blunt the statement made by Parks in the significant space he created for us in the photo. But the photo does have a title. Its title links it to a well known painting. For reference, here is a link to the 1930 painting: <a href="http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/american-gothic/5QEPm0jCc183Aw?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kp&hl=en&projectId=art-project">http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/american-gothic/5QEPm0jCc183Aw?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kp&hl=en&projectId=art-project.</a> Does the title Parks chose help us better understand his photographic statement? Does a comparison of the visual elements of the two works give us more of a handle on what Parks was saying? I think so. By titling his photograph, Parks asks us to also look at the Wood painting. Let's do so.</p> <p>The background in Wood's painting is a house. The background in Park's photo is the USA flag. In Wood's painting the presumed homeowners stand in front of their house where we can presume the couple owns the house by their attire. (Were that Wood's couple was dressed like a cleaning woman and a groundskeeper, we wouldn't' presume they owned the house, quite the opposite.) Going strictly by the visual comparison then, Parks said that in this house, that in this nation of ours at that time, this particular woman is not an owner, based on her attire and work implements. Maids don't own the houses they work in. But we know that the USA is a house where we are all political owners regardless of what we do for a living. Parks clearly said with his photograph that the woman's non-ownership can <em>only</em> be on account of her race. It's to that fundamental injustice that Parks spoke, and he was speaking when about as far away in time from the end of the Civil War as we are now from the end of WWII.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Parks, in his critique of the USA made in <em>American Gothic, Washington D.C</em>.<em>,</em> raised the issue of racial inequality during a war in which our enemies propagandized against the USA for its racial inequality. For example, Japan represented itself as an Asian nation liberating Asian territory from white supremacist imperialists. For me, that Parks spoke up at that time speaks to Parks' courage and strength of conviction.</p>

<p>Sure sounds like We Five changes "When I" to But in When I woke up this morning. If I'm hearing it right, that would explain the upbeat peppiness increasing in the song. Going to the corner still left her waking up in the morning with 'you on my mind'. So instead of easing her pain getting drunk and sick, she resolves to ramble and walk her blues away, rambling tempo then increasing in the song. The Ian and Sylvia performance has that tempo shift too. So it's upbeat about being unhappy momentarily, showing a creative attitude change as I hear it. And that change to the word But from When I is nice work, emphasizing with a word the change that is also reflected in the tempo in both versions.</p> <p>You Were On My Mind lyrics</p> <p>Ian and Sylvia<br /> <br />Got up this morning, you were on my mind, and you were on my mind.<br />I got some ache's and<br />I got some pains and<br />I got some wounds to bind.<br /> <br />Went to the corner just to ease my pain, it was just to ease my pain.<br />I got drunk and<br />I got sick and<br />I came home again.<br /> <br />I got a feelin, down in my shoes. it's way down in my shoes.<br />I got to move on.<br />I got to travel.<br />Walk away my blues.<br /> <br />Got up this morning, you were on my mind, and you were on my mind.<br />I got some ache's and<br />I got some pains and<br />I got some wounds to bind<br /> <br />We Five as I hear it<br /> <br /><strong>When</strong> I woke up this morning<br /> You were on my mind<br /> And you were on my mind<br /> <br /> I got troubles, whoa, oh<br /> I got worries, whoa, oh<br /> I got wounds to bind<br /> <br /> So I went to the corner<br /> Just to ease my pains<br /> Yeah, just to ease my pains<br /> <br /> I got troubles, whoa, oh<br /> I got worries, whoa, oh<br /> I came home again<br /> <br /> <strong>But</strong> I woke up this morning<br /> You were on my mind and<br /> You were on my mind<br /> <br /> I got troubles, whoa, oh<br /> I got worries, whoa, oh<br /> I got wounds to bind<br /> <br /> And I got a feelin'<br /> Down in my shoes, said<br /> Way down in my shoes<br /> <br /> Yeah, I got to ramble, whoa, oh<br /> I got to move on, whoa, oh<br /> I got to walk away my blues<br /> <br /> <strong>But</strong> I woke up this morning<br /> You were on my mind<br /> You were on my mind<br /> <br /> I got troubles, whoa, oh<br /> I got worries, whoa, oh<br /> I got wounds to bind</p>

<p>Wow. I hadn't seen that picture before. Clearly shows that photography as part of an open ended on-going conversation and across art forms.</p>

<p>Yes and that kid of makes it come together for me to see photography, a more individual activity, as a collaboration of sorts when considering that there is, through work that is shown, a dialog going on between artists.</p>

<p><a href=" <p>Here the crow has learned dog language: the crow gets on its back in mock surrender to temper the mock aggression of the puppy. And at the end of the video: to the puppy the crow signals its playful intention with a dog style play bow. I'm sure this has something to do with creativity, I just don't know what.</p>

<p>A great example of Clive's brainstorming group practice is in Suzi Weissman's interview with We Five's Jerry Bergen about 20 minutes in here: <a href="http://archive.kpfk.org/m3u.php?mp3fil=23131">http://archive.kpfk.org/m3u.php?mp3fil=23131</a> , talking about how We Five brainstormed to interpret Sylvia Tyson's country song <em>You Were On My Mind</em> into their rock version.</p> <p>Ian and Sylvia's original <a href=" <br> We Five <a href=" </p> <p> </p>

<p>Clive - You described a word game that didn't have an intent other than to play it. I said that sort of game wasn't analogous to creative process, lacking the purpose of making something new and meaningful. Brainstorming has intention, isn't an activity that is closely related to the word game you first mentioned.</p> <p>Yes I think games take the pressure off though.</p>

<p>Clive - "Think of the first word that comes into your heard, say it, I respond by saying the first thing that comes into my head, next person does the same - I'm sure we've all done it and been surprised at where it all ends up."</p> <p>The definition of creativity I cited is making meaningful new things. The word game may unintentionally produce something new, but not something meaningful, being a game and not a modeling of an intentional process that can produce meaningful new things frequently enough to matter.</p>

<p>If the word creativity's definition requires making something new, then exploring creativity to an extent becomes an attempt to explore and explain change. Expressionism offered a new interpretation of an apple and Impressionism offered a new interpretation of apples in its day. Why the change when there was no change in the apple itself?; and change didn't happen in a vacuum because interpretations were communicated, much what I take Fred to say when speaking to dialog and history where we can find some of the reasons for progress. What's at stake, and how much are we invested, how much do we personally need something new: it's tricky, this is crap, I'm crap. Oh wait. <em>This</em> may be OK. Who knows where <em>this</em> came from? Sometimes it is the difference between life and death, we are that invested even if we got there from mere boredom or ambition.</p>

<p>Maybe Erwitt and Karsh have in common that they both attempted to give us something familiar to view. I do feel I could have known the Potwup family; and Karsh too with a famous subject gives me what I already think I know of that famous person.</p>

<p>Maybe we shouldn't be surprised though. Consider my earlier comment "Interesting that the latin root of create is to make, produce, and is related to the latin word for to grow."</p> <p>So if we think of making, creating, producing as all related to growing, as in growing a business? Then creating becomes less restrictively defined and hierarchical, broadened by becoming less distinguishable from the organic process called life itself. </p>

<p>I don't know if with the elephant they go through 4. I hope not.</p>

<p>Clive - "The simplest way of talking about your gastronomic invention is that you would be deluded if you thought you had been creative - and you probably know that too, but the idea that we can reduce "creativity" down to "in the mind of the creator" is, as we all really know, just a little inadequate."</p> <p>I think you meant to write something like: ...but the idea that we can believe a maker's claim to originality isn't adequate? If so, nothing I wrote meant to suggest we much care about a maker's claim to originality. The maker may be right, they may be wrong, the only thing that matters is that their offering is meaningful and new in deciding if 'creative' occurred where creative's definition includes the words meaningful and new. It isn't for the maker to proclaim creation, as indeed we all know and of which fact we scarcely need to be reminded. I learned that well from my snack treat making experience, and we all had something happen to us like that, you can assume it is common knowledge as do I. My point was that in focusing only on that restrictive definition of creative, we miss that a creative process, more loosely defined, could have occurred in a re-invention. In other words, that maker may indeed know the full measure of the sting of number 4 in the process and not really appreciate your constant harping on it or grading system. In summary, on the face of it, your words quoted above, suggest that rooting creativity in the human mind is inadequate, which I'm sure you recognize upon a re-read and further reflection that isn't a supportable assertion.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I found this on a friend's Facebook, without attribution, I didn't write it:</p> <p>Creative Process<br> 1. This is awesome. <br> 2. This is tricky.<br> 3. This is crap.<br> 4. I am crap.<br> 5. This might be OK.<br> 6. This is awesome.</p>

<p>Julie "... and creating a <em>beginning</em> (what Clive mentioned earlier, a new or changed question); an opening, a passage, a fissure, the interstices, window, door; ... whatever stimulation or or provocation or kick in the ass that shifts you off balance, into some place or condition that you haven't been able to get to before. In this case you can never point to anything and say triumphantly or happily, 'there it is!' because what you've been given is access. Serious voodoo. Or not. It's up to you."</p> <p>What comes to me in reply is that we can tell a child they are special. What we can't tell them is why. That it is so they must discover for themselves.</p>

<p>Julie "There's a big difference between creating an <em>end</em> (a result, a conclusion) that you can point to triumphantly, or happily and say, 'well, there it is! look what I just created' and everybody will agree; 'that's it. There it is.'"</p> <p>vs. the new.</p> <p>There is and yet what I feel what might be missed is that it's the same creative phenomenon that reinvented my snack treat. Yes disappointment came when I 'published' my finding, all my little friends said they had invented peanut butter on saltine crackers too. I also soon realized it was pointless to discuss with them who among us did it first. We all had done it, and it became apparent that so could have any other kid.</p>

<p>Interesting that the latin root of create is to make, produce, and is related to the latin word for to grow.</p>

<p>Yes I was deluded when I thought that I had made a new snack treat, as was Newton deluded until he found out about Leibniz. Of those two, which wasn't the creative one? The answer is that, accepting they worked independently, both were creative even though one produced something before the other did. Julie asks why we should believe, say in my snack treat, that I was creative. If creative means the making of something new, then either Leibniz or Newton fails the creativity test. Reinventing also, and I can't imagine that any would disagree, can be as 'creative' an act as invention. Perhaps the starting point should be in agreeing on definitions that are adequate to describe the phenomenon under discussion which may be the only phenomenon that differentiates us from plants and other animals.</p>

<p>Julie - "And why should I believe that you've been creative?"</p> <p>Because its origin wasn't imitative. Some discoveries are often more or less simultaneous and it's hard to tell who was the first. For example, I invented peanut butter on saltine crackers, a first for me. So if you get there without having been taught, isn't it the same creative process used by the first person to put peanut butter on a saltine cracker? This definition that requires of creative something entirely new is starting to bother me.</p>

<p>Dictionary.com create: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.</p> <p>So, and not in order, a scholar's rock is a new interpretation of a rock and an interpretation is a thing, an interpretation is thing that is made, but apparently an interpretation is only a creative one if it is new. An interpretation has to be made before we can decide if it is new. I could interpret a rock as a pet, but that wouldn't be new, I couldn't patent it or claim to have been creative. Only if it's new is it creative.</p> <p>A bird species can be identified by its nest, nests then are invariable as to form, and therefore can't be an example of bird creativity.</p> <p>Your dog imitated a song, sang a song but didn't make the song up, so your dog's singing can't be an example of dog creativity unless s/he had a new interpretation of the song Pavarotti taught him, which we probably agree is unlikely? My dog can solve problems, but there's nothing new in his solutions. His solutions come from his ability to think through a problem to arrive at an answer that, sadly, some other dog has already arrived at. Just like birds make the same old tool that birds have made for countless generations.</p> <p>Cooperation between species is nothing new, symbiotic relationships, e.g. a falconer's hawk will hunt cooperatively with a hunting dog, coyotes and badgers team up to get rodents, all traditional solutions to problems, by definition, not creative. I think rather those are examples of plasticity in animal behavior, not of creativity where I've come to accept that creative requires something new.</p> <p>When I see domestic dog behavior, I see a disconnect between the behavior and it's proper function (survival function), behavior misplaced, not in a direct relationship to the only two things that my dogs are capable of doing: getting food and reproducing. Coyotes and wolves in situ exhibit similar behaviors yet exhibit those behaviors working in concert with each other towards obtaining food and reproducing. These separate patterns of behavior in domestic dogs don't all necessarily relate to each other in concert, and in their fluidity and plasticity we may think we see signs of creativity, but creativity just isn't there, only misplacement is there. Lack of necessity, our feeding our dogs, is the mother of their only apparent creativity. Domestic dog behaviors are traditional and we can and have influenced those behaviors with our ability to create. Animals don't do anything different, and have been doing the same things over and over for a long long time. They are conservative traditionalists quintessentially. As a species we claim to have the ability to change, to conceive of something new, to imagine it and make it. A cow can't claim to be <em>that</em> unpredictable.</p> <p>That said, I'm not convinced that elephants can't create. From the videos I've seen, they interpret their subjects in ways I find astonishing.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Let's try to make an argument then from some foundations.</p> <p>Broadly speaking, nature recreates itself through successive generations with variations over time whose causes we don't ascribe to conscious intent. Food and reproduction rule in the animal and plant kingdoms where outside of our species, we don't recognize in a tool anything other than utilitarian purposes. As a species we aren't unique in making tools.</p> <p>We so far claim to be unique in our propensity to decorate tools without a strictly utilitarian purpose, without a direct and immediate relationship to either food or reproduction. Feathers on an arrow shaft are one thing, needlessly colorful feathers on an arrow shaft are another. Feathers on an arrow shaft aren't art, and poorly selected colorful feathers aren't Art. At some point tool decoration became decoration for decoration's sake where it wasn't even a tool being decorated any longer. We create when we make a tool, so does a crow. But a crow doesn't try and decorate a tool when s/he's done with it. A crow puts its tool to use right away.</p> <p>So to create is to make something, whether it's imitative or not. You made it, nature didn't. To create art is to create something with no utility. To create Art is to have been really good at making a thing so useless it is appreciated just for itself. Otherwise you just throw it away or turn it into something useful around the house. If it's a printed photograph, then other than burning it for warmth I can thing of only one other use.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Also for me then in elementary school, it was an introduction to photography beyond family photos, National Geographic, Look, and Life magazines.</p>