alan_zinn

<p>Jumping in rather late... .<br> In the arts critical discussion is essential and each medium has its own canon . I found that to be especially true when asked to co-jury art or look at student portfolios. In photography for example, jurors coming out of journalism, advertising or fine art look for different things. I might go nuts about some “arty” picture that would be immediately tossed in the reject pile by everyone else and have had to persuasively defend my choice. In turn, I would have to reluctantly accept a worn-out subject done spectacularly <em>correct.</em><br> <br> Think about literary genre. “Literature” and “Poetry” have their own shelves. They are “seriously creative<em>”</em>. I have a mental niche for my <em>serious</em> work and another for the stuff that is less serious. Serious work comes out of deeper, never to be resolved feelings I want to express with art. A crit of feelings is more in the realm of psychiatry. You just have to <em>make</em> art. I have found I enjoy doing both equally well. If someone <em>gets</em> it even a little that is nice. I look forward to discussing the <em>approachable </em>serious work with a trusted artist friend. <br> <br> I was often dismayed that my non-photographer artist friends knew so little about photography. Most were art instructors with MFA’s! I have <em>always</em> said that modern era painting started with, and owes <em>everything</em> to photography. Don’t expect much of a useful crit from anyone who hasn’t thoroughly studied the canon. There are a lot of good art crit books but you <em>must</em> have someone to discuss them with.<br> <br> BTW: Never buy a book with “Creative” in the title </p><div></div>

<p>My first impression of Chicago, and the start of my urban photography passion forty years ago was arriving at Union station in the morning rush hour. An enormous flow of people poured out into the city. I went there last month and took a few hundred frames. <br /> Among the results there are a couple that seem to feel right, but looking closer they didn’t express what <em>I</em> was feeling. The only way they looked good as <em>traditional</em> b/w images, looked like Metzker, Kline or Sugimoto. I love <em>doing</em> those guys all the time but not this time. I joyously took pictures of half-awake people trudging off to work and got "Urbanism’s deadening effect on the human spirit". I am used to going out at the noon hour and shooting people in line at gourmet food trucks. <br /> A word about selfies. I had to learn about some of the effects available to smart phones and P&S cams from my 5^th grader grandson. Like, “Ken Burnes effect” and “old films” <br /> He has no idea what they mean but <em>looks</em> cool. What does that tell us about visual sophistication and fluency? <br /> I agree with Fred G. and those who say selfies are punctuations or gesturing. And they are “real-time”. Forget about reality <em>and </em>meaning. They change with every picture. New forms of expression always arouse and selfies will continue to evolve just like all gestures. The ability to gesture with a camera intrigues me. <br /> Give a monkey a mirror and what does it do first? It looks at its ass. It knows it has one because all the other monkeys do – but they are not <em>his</em> ass. So just to be sure and self-aware… . My reflection or shadow is commentary about myself. It places me somewhere <em>actual.</em></p> <p>There will be a special selfie app for everyone. – you heard it hear folks!</p><div></div>

<p>RE selfies, photograph-as-medium and deliberate antagonistic work: Very well said by all. Glad to see new Forum topic!<br /> I was inspired to think more about polemics and deliberatively antagonistic creative work. The most deliberative means of expression we have is with art. It is our selfie stick of self awareness. We attempt to get away from our self-centeredness and achieve <em>nirvana </em>or some-such, but find various modes of <em>selfie-</em>expression more interesting. <br /> <br /> I believe a better term to use instead of “aggravate” is “arousal”. And ‘creativity” is too vague. “Novelty” is more precise. Art tends to cycle from novel to commonplace, and then back again, especially in our meme-driven world. “Creativity” workers are caught up in a capitalist model of competitive novelty –“Mad Men”. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you enjoy the rush. Being creative, for me, is an unshakeable urge to be just <em>too</em> clever. Got to relax. <br /> <br /> The way art seems to me now, much to my delight and confusion, is that <em>anything</em> goes. The compressed, novelty/commonplace cycle gives us endless choices to exercise expressive needs. I feel that the pictures I choose to make have certain expressive <em>content.</em> I want them to arouse. That does not necessarily mean that I want you to see what I see in them. Just see something. They most often are not <em>about</em> something. Or, a picture <em>of </em>something. I may be just testing an idea of how the picture looks. I find consistency <em>and</em> growth in my own outlooks and feelings in them. <br /> <br /> Art has always been POP! Art. The idea of what is “contemporary” art is impossible to pin down. I find in it high arousal in both a good and a bad way. So-called “Museums” of contemporary art” are supposed to arouse. I go in knowing I’ll be either terribly annoyed or inspired. I’ll fall into the bad humor of <em>everything</em> about the present generation looking grotesque – as was mine to the to the previous. But the new guys are grotesque-er faster. <br /> <br /> </p><div></div>

<p>I need the lens shade adaptor thingy for the Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake.</p> <p>RSVP if you know <strong>exactly</strong> the URL for that part or the part No.. I diligently searched myself and only got lens caps and body caps.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>Fred,<br /> I am sticking to the “every person is a special kind of artist” thought. It is an essentialist notion that appears in Eastern and Western culture. I find that art provides a means to express thoughts that resonate throughout humanity. Excellence of expression in any endeavor is praised as <em>artful</em> or as having great <em>beauty</em>. If nothing else it gives me hope that some wisdom exists in an irrational world.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred G.<br /> There is no point of separating art from craft – sorry if I was unclear. Craft in all endeavors reveals humanities expressive capability. “Artists are not special kinds of persons. Every person is a special kind of artist.” (or something to that effect?) 11^th C. Scholastic Monk.<br /> <br /> The point I wanted to stress is that all pictures, literary, or musical expressions can be perceived as art. Were paleo people making <em>art</em> by their own reckoning? Nothing astounds me more than the sophistication of human thought with regard to expression. Earliest people were expressing life in the most humanly natural way. Who knows if our mind prepares naturally, special context for art to exist. Spaces exclusively for art? That is a modern, post paleo, thing, isn't it?</p>

<p>I just had the privilege of seeing original Leonardo da Vinci drawings. I have seen them all my life in books. Who would not agree that they are not among the most precious art ever made by our culture? Who can put a price on any art with some logical relation to artistic value? It is has no bearing on quality of expression or craft. Like everything, it only has our present material culture’s value. <br> <br> The depth of expression you obtain from art depends on your experience. It must express a certain intelligence and authority accessible to you. Strive to widen your critical point of view. You shouldn’t ask “Is that art?” The answer is always “Yes”.<br> <br> Art isn’t about media or craft. Art is part of our species’ expressive ability. </p>

<p>Time to catch up! All the responses are thoughtful and provocative. In no particular order, here are mine: <br> First, thank you Michael L. . "Placing Our Work in Our Current Culture." I’ll go with that!<br> Tim L. – <br> I think in important ways that is true . The so-called “taste- makers” operate in their own little culture of capitalist greed. Immediate needs for novelty and entertainment drive them the same as everybody else though. Photos recycle the more durable fads for awhile, then, loose their immediacy. <br> The classic Luce-Life magazine and FSA era pictures gave us artfully done propaganda that encouraged us to take a closer look. Their signifying intentions are lost, however. Critical analysis of images since then puts forward the idea that “handing off” (messaging) the image to the viewer <em>releases</em> it. It becomes free of context or purpose. In a manner of speaking it is “re-taken” each time it is seen. Each viewer re-purposes it. <br> Alan K.: Everyone snapping away with little deliberation or fore thought must have <em>some</em> sense that family pictures speak volumes over time. But no, we are too content with our appearances at that moment to imagine change. Co-joined with messaging (not in different shoe-boxes) , how do you suppose they will integrate into cultural memories? Is there any big difference? <br> “Images of our lives.” is like the “music of our lives” meme, and might apply here. Pop music now mostly accompanies some activity on portable devices. Head-bobbing, global music gets around swiftly. You could make that case for imagery that accompanies text. It is economical and simple. It needs little depth or quality for the task. I don’t mean that in a negative way. The visual <em>fidelity</em> is secondary to the <em>benefits</em> (thousand word-value). <br> Arthur P. – First, congratulations on your sales! Art that <em>travels </em>well is a joy. Hanging a picture from a trip can inspire buyer’s remorse. We want regional art that <em>connects</em> our family lives in some way to decorate our homes. <br> One of my pet peeves is business that decorate with crappy lithos rather than local artist’s work. Why not: “Locally Grown, Fair Trade Art”? <br> Today so many micro cultures live side-by-side . The outsider-insider thing may be less restricting. Finding a micro-region to inhabit is better than feeling like a stranger in your own genre all the time. <br> A practical situation regarding placement is guessing which pictures might attract the curator or juror of an exhibition and still <em>represent</em> me<em>. </em> Gaming the selection system is futile – it is all pot luck. Think of a show that attracts photo “enthusiasts” AND recent art grads. Poor juror!<br> </p><div></div>

<p>Barry Fisher asked in the “Connecting” topic, how Vivian Maier would relate to our new social media world. I think that for photographer observers and commentators, then and now, that the urban world is <em>always</em> a visual feast.<br /> With no more than a gesture required to make and send images, we all seem to feel the same delight with photography. It is more than just a pass-time.<br /><br /> I believe visual/verbal co-expression is essential and will become more sophisticated. It is a continuation of the photographic vernacular. Even photos that expresses “a thousand words” – the same words every time, nevertheless, signify more.<br> <br /> Messaging: “um like im going like duh” might express anything. <br /> “um like im going like (click) duh” is more nuanced.<br> <br /> Mindful of the millions of images made and put in circulation <em>each day </em>do you think that the ability to <em>see</em> images in today’s visual/verbal torrent is problematical? <br /> What about those who want not only to observe, but the pleasure and satisfaction of more thoughtfully sharing - maybe a lifetime of observing? “Will my efforts<em> play</em> on future media?” becomes less of a question of technology, but a question of culture. Over the millennia cultural memories are lost. It seems today it is inter-generational, or even of shorter duration. We have to explain to most people how to really <em>look</em> at pictures. <br /> What art essentially<em> is</em>, is always in flux. I believe any kind of contemporaniety is now impossible. I want to explore how we culturally <em>place </em>our work in the present image world. Our PF space amounts to no more than a nano-culture among countless other affinity groups on the Web. <br /> I hope a kind of (not web-centric) regionalism provides immediacy to my work at least. I have a work habit that includes some sort of exhibition venue but galleries are <em>so over</em>. <br /> See: The Public Eye – 175 Years of Sharing Photography. The New York Public Library. <br /> <br /> AZ<br /><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/public-eye">http://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/public-eye</a></p><div></div>

<p>I’ve been fact checking my recollection about influences.<br> I remember taking a more scholarly look at poets and photographers once I began reading more critical art writing. Not wanting to “get in the head of some long-gone artist I admire.” is not true. <br> The imagist poets were and continue to inform my work when I drift into a particular frame of mind. It is right there in my bookcase “Cubism, Stiegitz, and the Early Poetry of William Carlos Williams” by Bram Dijkstra among other similar titles. <br> The <em>imagist</em> poets were part of the turn of the century (19^th) avant-garde. Literary and graphic affinity can’t get any closer. I like their determination to see and feel what is clearly there to be seen - the mood or tone of the thing. There <em>heads</em> are accessible even with (dated) obscure metaphor and symbolism. They retain a timeless tone. <br> The certainty of a poet’s choice of words covey in photographic clarity what thoughts transpired in the “seeing” of things. It is the camera-like record or brief sketch that flicks into a more complete realization. </p><div></div>

<p>Thinking about significant influences on my work, I can say frankly that “permission” to do art in a particular fashion was always too important early on. If it was OK with someone I really dug, I could then go ahead and do it.<br> The people that dominated the emblematic mid-century, 35mm, gritty, non pictorial trends were for me: Frank, Klein, Metzker, and the like. <br> I think the painters of Warhol’s era pretty much set everyone with a camera free. I see more painting I like a lot now than I do (non-altered) photographs. <br> There is no way to get in the head of some long-gone artist. I am interested in the <em>mood</em> they have on me NOW. <br> Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way (the worrisome “permission” thing. <br> The influences of literature or music is only an accompaniment to my work. It is all I can do to express things graphically. The picture is THE text. <br> I firmly believe that all art is completely <em>of its time</em> and anything <em>I</em> make is of mine. I shamelessly appropriate stylistic qualities I fancy - knowing that I am making them my own.<br> “PoMo seeks other PoMo for casual relationship.”<br> <br> </p>

<p>Lex, this topic is an interesting “then and now” idea. For us older guys raised on “The Americans” I’d have to say Frank was there in all my work. Today the genre has matured and the influences are so broad. Everybody, it seems, finds urban life and cameras go together. I’ve gone over to the dark side with PS plug-ins. <br> <br> My street epiphany was when I stepped off the train in c. 1975 Chicago. Right at the beginning I favored the graphic style of Ray K. Metzker. It fit in with my panoramic passion. At some point I amended my self-description to “urban photographer” only because the popular notion of <em>street</em> was that it is tight, grab shots. Patience, is a requirement for panoramas. I much prefer that my pictures have people. </p><div></div>

<p>Today I peaked at PF, and was rewarded with Aurthur P’s great topic and the good, thoughtful responses to it. It seems to me that ALL the feelings expressed here about vitality in a picture meshed in a comprehensive and stimulating way. <br> A year or so ago, PF was draining my vitality so I went on a sabbatical from it (didn’t even lurk) and only did a personal art journal. Over-all the journal has turned out to be about vitality. <br> I am satisfied if only I <em>get</em> a picture. I like my pictures to arouse others, of course. I don’t believe (as James may) there needs to be a check-list of criteria for art. But “good” art has significant <em>layers</em> of interest. Intentionality isn’t necessarily required. I agree that how art is conceived is the artist’s business. Liking it is the viewers’. <br> Some looked at the topic as depicting vitality in some kinetic or formal way. Some saw a more <em>felt,</em> latent, or potential vitality - the kind that grabs you and you can’t at first see why. <br> I photograph all the time but am limited now to producing pictures only for screen images and Blurb books. Finding a creative, enjoyable, and personally distinctive method to replace material-media is my quest. <br> I continually worry if my screen-only work is purposeful and engaging on a par with traditional material media. I gain comfort in the fact that the audience is fully capable of <em>being in the moment</em> with the terms and conditions of every media. My No.1 fear is that it over-reaches and is only a poor substitute for more venerable media. The curse of photography! <br> Being a product of “60’s-think” -- originality and creativity is everything and anything else is “so over”, and the idea of there even being “contemporary art” - I’m always decades behind – is angst-producing. I have to talk myself out of it in my journal. <br> I wrote in reassurance to myself: <br> “<strong>All</strong> art is contemporary”<br> “Cultural memories dissolved in the stew of global communities are felt more than consciously acknowledged.”<br> “ Something about a picture (or the moment) just seems right for that picture”<br> Old camera store sign: "Photographs Live Forever"<br /><br> AZ<br /></p>