Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Rob C on August 10, 2013, 07:29:08 am

Title: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 10, 2013, 07:29:08 am
After many decades of observation and analysis (obviously including self-) I have to conclude that the visual message of Art, the search thereof, is bunk: there’s no such beast.

The quality of Art, however, is to be found in the execution; the value in the perception, in the very religious, political, societal and market forces that cause it to be considered Art.

For the artist there’s the outlet for, and expression of, some skills. For the independent viewer an endless puzzle of grading, according to the rules of some game never quite understood.

In an ideal world the artist is allowed carte blanche, freedom to create whatever turns him/her on. Clients may or may not be obligatory depending upon the status of the artist’s financial resources. A positive to having clients is the vague (when not direct) discipline they might impose on the nature of the output – the artwork. They cause the creation of timescale, often an essential factor in making the artist do anything any time soon; artists are noted for being denizens of a world without temporal restrictions  - of an elastic mindset, if you will. They can either beaver away furiously through the night, depriving themselves of sleep and ruining any family relationships they might have otherwise enjoyed or, just as likely, put everything off until a more auspicious moment drifts along, spending much time in the local pub discussing the pros and cons with others of similar bent or, as likely, just enjoying the drinking.

Whether that ideal world without restrictions has existed broadly, is the exception, or has even produced much of worth is debatable; there have certainly been gentleman artists before now, as gentleman photographers too (I intentionally mention the latter just in case they have been thought excluded from the general category of artist), but it seems to me that even they usually require the outlet of a magazine or gallery in order to motivate themselves into production. That they (gentlemen artists) are often as good at what they do as the less fortunate members of society is not in question. In fact, they sometimes have to fight even harder against the odds to get due recognition: Snowdon and Lichfield were both fine photographers, but I groaned at the number of times that I heard people put their work down for their birth into wealth (so much envy in this world!). I was well aware of Armstrong-Jones and his outstanding work before he met and married Margaret! Lichfield performed a remarkable trick in hanging on to the same calendar client for many, many years and producing memorable work more often than not. And that ain’t easy, especially when dealing with the same company for so long that the problem of ‘what next?’ raises its inevitable head.

But in all of this work, where any message?

As alluded to before, one might point to the work of the photojournalists, expecting to find it there, but is there really message? There might be courage, recklessness, and yes, even geometry, but message? Is photojournalism even an art or is it acute observation, which may or may not be the same things at all. And what about landscape painters and photographers? Can they create message or, as with the photojournalists, can they but capture what is already there or happening or about to happen, regardless of their presence? Few landscape artists can justly be held responsible for escalated violence and even deaths, but war photographers are a case apart: can their presence actually cause the events to occur? Are they making a situation happen, showing a deadly creativity in frightening situations? But are they saying anything?

There can be plenty of pretty, moments of madness and an excess of pity/exploitation (difficult to separate, at times) for humanity but that is not a message: it’s become a theme, a genre. War junkies don’t offer you message: they show you human nature and callousness; as do others, they show you the thing, not what you can or should think about it: that comes from your own ideas and interpretations of what you see before you. A corpse is a corpse is a corpse. Unless you know the corpse, when your views become personal.

Emotion and message: different things, in my opinion.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: WalterEG on August 10, 2013, 04:20:48 pm
That's funny Keith.

Message received and understood.

Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: RSL on August 10, 2013, 06:05:56 pm
I think it depends on how you define "message," Rob. I've forgotten who said it, though I think it was Archibald MacLeish, or exactly how the statement went, but the meaning's always stuck with me: Prose is like a train that travels from an origin to a destination. It carries and delivers meaning. But good poetry (as opposed to doggerel) is like the dance. It conveys an experience that's beyond what we usually call meaning. I don't think it's unreasonable to call both of these results "message."

It seems to me there are two kinds of visual art too. I'll fall back on the difference between documentary photography and street photography to make the point.

A purely documentary photograph conveys meaning: "This is the way it was." We can argue whether or not the fact that the photographer crops reality means it isn't necessarily "the way it was," but in documentary the purpose of the work is to convey meaning.

The purpose of street photography, on the other hand, isn't to convey meaning, at least not in its literal sense. It's the dance. If it's really good it conveys experience that transcends our literal definition of meaning.

I can extend the same argument to painting, and I think to music, though in the case of music it would be harder to distinguish between the train and the dance.

I'd quibble with your use of the word "emotion" in your last sentence. Certainly good prose conveys a message, though it also can convey emotion. But what really good poetry or non-documentary visual art conveys goes beyond emotion, though emotion may be part of the tool it uses to convey what it exists to convey: a transcendental experience; something you can't put into words. If you can put it into words either the poem or the art failed or you just didn't get it.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 10, 2013, 07:56:38 pm
Oh, "Message!"
I thought Rob was talking about "Massage," probably by one of his former models, and he's complaining because he can't get no massages no more.   :(
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 11, 2013, 04:11:41 am
Oh, "Message!"
I thought Rob was talking about "Massage," probably by one of his former models, and he's complaining because he can't get no massages no more.   :(

I love American triple negatives!

Jeremy
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on August 11, 2013, 09:19:50 am
I love American triple negatives!

Jeremy
Well, I prolly shudda said "cain't" for "can't" and "mo" for "more," but I warn't thinkin' two kleer.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Justinr on August 11, 2013, 03:04:54 pm

Emotion and message: different things, in my opinion.

When was it suggested otherwise?
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Iluvmycam on August 11, 2013, 03:36:27 pm
OP, I don't get into all the BS. Either it is love at first sight on not with a pix.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Michael Haspert on August 11, 2013, 11:32:23 pm
If you've not heard of him already, check out A.C Danto, whose contributions basically changed the philosophy of art in the 20th century.
A VERY compressed summary of part of his conclusion is that if you can't ask, "What's it about?" and have that be a sensible question, then it's not art of any kind.
It is a bit of work to get through his 200 page "Transfiguration of the Commonplace", but worth it if you have any taste for philosophical debate in the first place. 
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Gulag on August 12, 2013, 01:47:43 am
 removed
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 13, 2013, 05:14:53 pm
Thanks for varied inputs!




1. Emotion and message: different things, in my opinion.

When was it suggested otherwise?  … Justinr

Okay, you ask a question. But I wasn’t supplying an answer to one: I was making a statement, not referring to a previous question, so your question is redundant.

2.  That's funny Keith. Message received and understood. … WalterEG

Yes, Keith’s message was clear. For you to understand what he meant, though, it required three things:
a. image;
b. a caption;
c. the situation which led to the publication of Keith’s link.

Without those additional two factors, the purely visual would have had no message relevant to this thread. So, whilst it is an everyday event to add message via captions, there remains no finite, intrinsic truth or message in image – it is variable, so nothing to do with author’s intent: it’s interpretation, which isn’t message.

Its just the same as advertising: you tie together disparate things to create yet another: the sales pitch, the message.

3. OP, I don't get into all the BS. Either it is love at first sight on not with a pix. … iluvmycam

I couldn’t agree more: like I suggested, it’s emotion. At best!

4. Russ

I agree with you regarding writing - it can be very precise and also as vague as one might wish; but my proposition was about images. (I should have written still images – but I had imagined that would be obvious by dint of where we find ourselves: LuLa; the ‘amateur’ sections, devoted to non-motion.)

But I haven’t been convinced that content, which can suggest many things, is capable of revealing message, which I read to be a precise thing, not a vague suggestion. Which then becomes the ‘truth’ in the eye of the viewer and not of the author. How can that possibly be message? It’s reversed: it’s interpretation.

I’m currently spending more time than is good for my circulation slumped in a typist’s chair, reworking my website. Of the hundreds of images I’m looking at every day, all my own over-familiar work, I see lots of memory, lots of failed ideas and near misses and some shots I would be happy to have staked my reputation upon. But I see no message. I see locations, beauty, ‘hand of some man’, sport, riches etc. but no message. And no, not in any other websites either.

I simply happen to have finally concluded that we like to think we are part of something mysterious, an art form that is way, way deep, but it isn’t: it’s all surface. And upon that surface we, the viewers, build our own, voyeuristic interpretations and imaginings of a moment in the life of a photographer’s finger.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: 32BT on August 14, 2013, 01:47:17 am
Poultry factory (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/image_galleries/China_Gallery/CHNA_MAN_17_05.jpg) by Burtynsky (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/)

And no, you don't need the title to understand it is a poultry factory, since the real print is like 6 feet high with details so sharp, it will pale digital cameras for years to come.

The image contains that exact type of ambiguity that may well be a part of any good expression of art (and that Russ so desperately seeks in streetphotography), and yet the message conveyed can hardly be called ambiguous. Interpretative sure, but any reception of message is interpretative. But you can't separate this interpretation from interaction, because, as with all successful communication, it requires an overlap in previous experience by both the sender as well as the receiver in order to convey a message and have it understood with reasonable accuracy.

And contrary to popular believe, it is additionally interesting to read the Artist Statement that goes with this series and some of his other works, since it is a good example of a statement complementary to (but not necessary for) the message.

Speaking of Artist Statement: Since you are busy with your website, do you also plan to add an Artist Statement? Could I suggest that, in any case and regardless of your own sentiments regarding such statements, that you might try writing one about your own images? I for one, would be interested in reading it.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 03:14:52 am
Poultry factory (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/image_galleries/China_Gallery/CHNA_MAN_17_05.jpg) by Burtynsky (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/)

And no, you don't need the title to understand it is a poultry factory, since the real print is like 6 feet high with details so sharp, it will pale digital cameras for years to come.

The image contains that exact type of ambiguity that may well be a part of any good expression of art (and that Russ so desperately seeks in streetphotography), and yet the message conveyed can hardly be called ambiguous. Interpretative sure, but any reception of message is interpretative. But you can't separate this interpretation from interaction, because, as with all successful communication, it requires an overlap in previous experience by both the sender as well as the receiver in order to convey a message and have it understood with reasonable accuracy.

And contrary to popular believe, it is additionally interesting to read the Artist Statement that goes with this series and some of his other works, since it is a good example of a statement complementary to (but not necessary for) the message.

Speaking of Artist Statement: Since you are busy with your website, do you also plan to add an Artist Statement? Could I suggest that, in any case and regardless of your own sentiments regarding such statements, that you might try writing one about your own images? I for one, would be interested in reading it.


Thanks for your reply, Oscar, but there’s a problem: I don’t believe in statements of that sort, and to make one of my own would really be another hypocrisy too far!

Another aspect of the thing is that my site, from the beginning, was dedicated to my late wife. She knew me from when I was seventeen; there’s nothing worth knowing about me that she didn’t know. From my highs to my frequent lows, she shared it all and provided the sanity, the refuge, the spiritual and emotional nourishment that kept me going, day after day and year after year, through good ones and poor, and there were plenty of both.

My pictures are but records of where we went, what we shared. Though she was no photographer and didn’t even like it much, thinking it one of life’s oddest, most awkward career choices, she did all she could to make it succeed.

I’m not unaware that success in career comes from both one’s self and the interaction with those who decide to give one a try; that’s why I felt it a duty to thank publicly those people who made real, life-changing decisions in my favour. It’s not easy to hire a snapper: you never can tell how good, crazy or hopeless he/she will be on the day.

So really, when you know the above about snapper and site, what’s real that’s left to report with the pen?

Ciao –

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 04:31:32 am
(http://tinyurl.com/ktpe5sf)

You need a caption?


"Sacrilege"?

As someone once said: I'd give all the paintings of Christ in this world for a single photograph.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 04:33:41 am
Thanks for your reply, Oscar, but there’s a problem: I don’t believe in statements of that sort, and to make one of my own would really be another hypocrisy too far!

Rob C



Oscar, I bowed to pressure and just put in an Artist's Statement at the end of Notice in the website.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: 32BT on August 14, 2013, 04:42:58 am

Oscar, I bowed to pressure and just put in an Artist's Statement at the end of Notice in the website.

Rob C

Ah, trying desperately to have your pictures be worth no words at all. And succeeding. Your art is surface art, sir.

And no, you never indicated otherwise. But you keep telling me I have to feel the beauty in my gut somewhere. But an empty feeling of a missed lunch seems all I detect.

;-)
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 09:04:25 am
Ah, trying desperately to have your pictures be worth no words at all. And succeeding. Your art is surface art, sir.

And no, you never indicated otherwise. But you keep telling me I have to feel the beauty in my gut somewhere. But an empty feeling of a missed lunch seems all I detect.

;-)


Not today: I had a lousy lunch which I really wish that I had missed: paella that was a reheat and frito Mallorquin that was probably the leftovers from yesterday or possibly the day before! (My own Sunday paella, made by my gentle hand, is wonderful.) Some you win, and some you lose: yesterday's lunch was fantastic- fish soup and calamar à la plancha - same place, same exhausted chef, go figure. And you want excitement in art! Luncheon roulette is enough for any sane man-about-village.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 09:19:22 am
Rob, I'm staggered that a photographer who has had his say in over 10,000 posts here on LuLa believes he has never had anything to say with a camera.


Keith, what would you have me say? Should I pretend that all my pictures were an expression of the impermanence of now captured on the transient latency of film? An ephemeral moment preserved on the butterfly wings of perhaps, only to be fixed forever in the acid baths of the darkroom?

Man, I could write crap like the above for ever and not run out of words, metaphors to mix nor infinitives to avoid splitting...

So what do your images offer as message'? I see plenty of beauty, travel images and records of what's decaying all around us as we sleep it all away. But that ain't you: that's my take on what I see. I have no idea what you see and where you envisage the client structure to lie. For all I know your vision might be of a symphony in colour, a magical meld of moods and impressions I have never had the pleasure of enjoying.

Writing is easy and as I think I've said before, can be as explicit or as opaque as the mood takes. Images are fixed as what they are, bound by the difficulties that mechanics and electronics put in the way of free expression. Worse, they are old before you see them.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 14, 2013, 11:49:48 am
Rob, I wouldn't have you say anything, it's for you to decide.

I can't believe that your motivation consisted solely of earning a buck and getting one up on your competitors. Just because many artist's statements or comments on their work are complete bollocks doesn't mean yours has to be. As far as my own work is concerned I comment where I feel it is necessary as can be seen on my website. Now, it might be that you think that what I have to say about my own work is complete bollocks, that’s your call.

You obvious have had a great affinity for and rapport with women and have gone to great lengths to capture their power, beauty and sensuality. But WTF do I know, perhaps you should just replace WYSIWYG with WTF, or WTF is the point?

Hey, WTF, I'm done.

But Keith, that is not the totality of what I have claimed:

a.  earning a buck and getting ahead of the local pack was truly a delight, and winning a commission more cool than I can say; I thoroughly enjoyed much of my work – that didn’t mean I was doing anything other than making the best shots I knew how, which was bliss enough;

b.  I never passed an opinion about what you have to say of your own work – its up to you to say something or leave it open to viewer opinion; I did just that in my preamble on my own website;

c. thanks for the comment on my aptitude for my genre – appreciated indeed! Again, I enjoyed it mostly, it gave me my dreams – Vogue and calendars – and what’s not (for me) to like about that? But it’s all about pretty pictures or it’s about nothing. For me, getting that right, on and off, is something really, really worthwhile. Still is, when I find the enthusiasm for something special.

I just can’t understand why anyone feels there should be more. Isn’t it enough to create beauty and enjoy those moments when success comes tripping along? Maybe I need to be more cerebral – but that’s a frightening direction for stumbling feet!

;-)

Rob C

Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: fredjeang2 on August 15, 2013, 03:53:54 am
The meaning is only linked to the programming.
It means that something has to be previously "learned"
(Some datas have to be stored in our brain)
For ex, the Meca cube has a meaning for the muslman.
For a mative american it's just a form with no particular
Association.
And the programming generate value system and
Emotional patterns that aren't under our control
Precicely because we are conditionned from the very roots.
Rob's women are only considered as beauty in a
Specific context of time and space. But if Rob were
Born 200 years earlier, those same bodies would
Have been considered as hugly. That's what does a
Guy like Botero;  he paints bodies that are the exact
Opposite of what our time and space is considering
Acceptable as woman's body shape.
The locations: beaches, boats, sunshine...has
A lot to do with the congés payés culture. Not such
A long time ago, beaches, sunshine, hollidays and. Bikinis
Were absolutly irrelevant.
A high heel is not a sexy object by itself. It only becomes
Sexy if there is a specific data that tells us what it "is"
And the kind of emotions that derivate from the function.
But for a man from the Fuji islands, a high heel is
An uncomfortable and ridiculous way to walk, untill
Western culture comes into his world and pass the
Information: "hey look, this shape is 1:associated with
The woman gender, 2: it is sexy"
Doc Martens were just orthopedical shoes that nobody
Wanted until the punk fashion. Now Doc Martens is
A respected and desirable brand. The datas changed.
Got a few Clarks in my shoe collection. I remember that
When I was young, Clarks were not desirable at all. Now
The same brand generates desire.
Same happens in art.
The very same definition of art fluctuates a lot within
The space-time and therefore all our beleifs.
All is unsubstancial but only a programming.
All this is a big illusion folks.


 
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 15, 2013, 04:35:29 am
Absolutely; can't argue with that, Fred.

At best we are but conduit for the ethos of the time. It's why we do what we do. We know no better. It's why I yearn for the grainy Sarah Moon era of veiled cloche hats, of droopy eyes heavy with loads of mascara... it's my magical potion, my drug of choice. Why would I crave or understand today's plastic, Photoshop skins?

As I wrote earlier, for me at least, it's all emotions.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: amolitor on August 23, 2013, 11:29:09 am
There is this depressing problem with the way we talk about Art with a capital A.

We use words like "message" and we say things like "a good piece says something" and these phrases get interpreted to mean, roughly, that a work of Art corresponds in a fairly literal way to a written or spoken message, that Art somehow "encodes" a paragraph or so of actual language. This is a natural way to interest phrases like "it speaks to me", or "it says something to the viewer"

When I stupidly bandy around phrases like this, at any rate, it is NOT what I mean. What I mean is that the piece provokes a reaction in most viewers, that it generates an emotion or a response. It doesn't have to be emotional, but it usually has a strong emotional element.

If Art was just encoded text, we'd surely just write the text down and be done with it, right? Why bother hacking up a 2 ton chunk of marble when all we're trying to say is "humanity suffers and becomes beautiful for its suffering" or whatever literal message I might have in mind. I could spend 10 seconds with a slip of paper and a pen, instead of 2 years with chisel.

A piece of Art that does merely encode some literal paragraph of language is arguably a failure. It ought to be connecting at a more primitive level, or in a different way. That's kind of the point.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: mezzoduomo on August 23, 2013, 09:00:50 pm
We use words like "message" and we say things like "a good piece says something" and these phrases get interpreted to mean, roughly, that a work of Art corresponds in a fairly literal way to a written or spoken message, that Art somehow "encodes" a paragraph or so of actual language. This is a natural way to interest phrases like "it speaks to me", or "it says something to the viewer.

Your words resonate with me, amolitor. There's all kinds of chatter on photo blogs and podcasts lately about 'storytelling' in photography as in, "I'm not trying to just capture compelling images, I'm trying to tell a story." "I see myself as a 'storyteller' through my images." "I want to tell the story of how I experienced this scene." "Great images tell a story...", and on and on.

I have a hard time fully understanding this, and maybe its me being dense or uncultured, or maybe 'story' is not exactly the right word. I can certainly concoct a 'story' from many images, and I think decisions we all make in framing, exposing, presenting images can certainly suggest a mood or feeling, or can influence a viewer's inferred, concocted story. But to me, this is all emotion, and subjective interpretation...not 'story' as such.

Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 24, 2013, 05:22:44 am
Amen! I'm happy to see, at last, a few folks understanding my stated problem with photographs and 'message'!

Don't be shy; iconoclasts often have a very good point to make, and within photography - especially within photography - it often consists of cleaning out the bullshit.

If it leaves us all with not a lot, then at least let that tiny bit be honest.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Gulag on August 30, 2013, 01:59:13 am
Amen! I'm happy to see, at last, a few folks understanding my stated problem with photographs and 'message'!

Don't be shy; iconoclasts often have a very good point to make, and within photography - especially within photography - it often consists of cleaning out the bullshit.

If it leaves us all with not a lot, then at least let that tiny bit be honest.

Rob C

removed
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Manoli on August 30, 2013, 03:01:42 am
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5326/9320408766_b18afed28b_o.jpg)

NOW I understand ! Simple.
Couldn't you find something slightly more esoteric to make your point ?

Of course, Jean Baudrillard, Frenchman, sociologist, philosopher and post-structuralist ...

quote
With the attack on the World Trade Center, we have now witnessed the ultimate event, the mother of all events, an event so pure it contains within it all the events that never took place ...and to the fascination that it exerts... directly proportional to the prodigious jubilation felt at having seen this global superpower destroyed, because it was this insufferable superpower that gave rise both to the violence now spreading throughout the world and to the terrorist imagination that (without our knowing it) dwells within us all.
unquote

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/the-mind-of-terrorism/
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2013, 04:17:56 am
Tried to read that link; for some post-modernist reason much of it contains gremlins that distracted me from its message.

On the whole, of what I could grasp, it's rubbish; bullshit wrapped in cling film.

Exactly the kind of 'post' that, had it appeared here, in LuLa, would have found folks reaching for the imaginary red button that can't be implemented.

But look at it like this: the time he wasted writing was his own; the time I spent reading was educational and confirmed yet again my suspicion that gurus are not to be trusted.

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Manoli on August 30, 2013, 05:15:02 am
bullshit wrapped in cling film.

That's got to be the understatement of the decade, particularly coming from you, Rob.
I'm (fairly) sure that Gulag posted that placard with a humorous sense of the ridiculous. But the offensiveness of the quoted content beggars belief and certainly puts ANY other of the Frenchman's pearls of wisdom into context.

Guru ? I can think of many, somewhat more appropriate descriptions.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: jjj on August 30, 2013, 05:46:28 am
Doc Martens were just orthopedical shoes that nobody
Wanted until the punk fashion. Now Doc Martens is
A respected and desirable brand. The datas changed.
Got a few Clarks in my shoe collection. I remember that
When I was young, Clarks were not desirable at all. Now
The same brand generates desire.
You may find this (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/oct/28/clarks-shoes-reggae-jamaica-feature) interesting then.

Quote
Same happens in art.
The very same definition of art fluctuates a lot within
The space-time and therefore all our beleifs.
All is unsubstancial but only a programming.
All this is a big illusion folks.
The illusion commonly known as Fashion.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2013, 11:42:27 am
You may find this (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/oct/28/clarks-shoes-reggae-jamaica-feature) interesting then.
The illusion commonly known as Fashion.



My daughter actually burst into tears in the shop on one occasion when her Mum was buying her 'sensibles' for the new scholastic year... Thing was, they were reliable and came in many precise fittings, which is good for young feet and helps them develop as naturally as any shoe can. But I'm terribly grateful my wife loved stilettos.

Obviously another form of Golden Age...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: jjj on August 30, 2013, 02:33:05 pm
The thing about fashion is that sensible shoes are fashionable at times as are stilettos or any other kind.
The thing with items being fashionable is they must by definition go out of fashion, to make way for the next new fashion.
Tattoos being trendy at the moment is really going to bite hard in the future as embarrassing clothes from 20 years ago have been replaced, whereas tattoos......may buy some shares in tattoo removal clinics.

I wore Clarks Nature Trek [had to google real name]  or 'pasties' as we called them to school and even a teacher commented on their oddness [at the time] during class, yet a year later they were the trendy shoes to wear. I of course had moved on to the 18 hole boot versions by then.  ;D

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HvRdw0YeK2A/TI3CVE7ax1I/AAAAAAAAAhE/xY2TOU3mfuc/s400/shoes1.jpg)
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Gulag on August 30, 2013, 11:07:35 pm
"[….] modern art: though seeming to deal with aesthetic problems, it is really performing a work of psychological education on the public by breaking down and destroying their previous aesthetic view of what is beautiful in form and meaningful in content. The pleasingness of the artistic product is replaced by chill abstractions of the most subjective nature which brusquely slam the door on the naive and romantic delight in the senses and their obligatory love for the object. This tells us, in plain and universal language, that the prophetic spirit of art has turned away from the old object relationship and towards the—for the time being—dark chaos of subjectivism. [….]

Great art till now has always derived its fruitfulness from the myth, from the unconscious process of symbolization which continues through the ages and which, as the primordial manifestation of the human spirit, will continue to be the root of all creation in the future. The developments of modern art with its seemingly nihilistic trend towards disintegration must be understood as the symptom and symbol of a mood of world destruction and world renewal that has set its mark on our age. [1957]"

— Carl Gustav Jung / The Undiscovered Self / p.77
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Telecaster on December 15, 2013, 02:30:29 pm
Apropos this thread, an interview with Alain de Botton regarding the new book "Art As Therapy" of which he is co-author.

http://www.denverpost.com/books/ci_24709853/alain-de-botton-offers-radical-way-see-art

A quote:

"We have too easily swallowed the Modernist idea that art which aims to change or help or console its audience must by definition be 'bad art' (Soviet art is routinely trotted out here as an example) and that only art which wants nothing too clearly of us can be good. Hence the all-too-frequent question with which we leave the modern museum of art: What did that mean?

"Why should this veneration of ambiguity continue? Why should confusion be a central aesthetic emotion? Is an emptiness of intent on the part of an artwork really a sign of its importance?"

Care to comment, Mr. Gursky?

-Dave-
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Digital Finger on April 16, 2014, 05:39:23 am
I think the problem comes from the Art establishment convincing people that 'the message' is where it's at
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 16, 2014, 04:10:02 pm
I haven't piped in on this thread before, since I find the original question rather silly.
One might just as well ask: "Visual Art: is it bereft of Blue?"

Both questions suggest the possibility of sweeping generalities that obviously don't fit all instances.

Some visual images contain some blue. Many do not. Most of mine do not (since most of them are B&W.)

Similarly, some individual instances of visual art may contain something that can arguably be called Message, but a great many do not, or at best communicate something rather simpleminded (like "I thought this scene was pretty.")


Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: lumiway on August 20, 2014, 03:06:51 am
(http://visual.merriam-webster.com/images/transport-machinery/road-transport/road-signs/major-international-road-signs_3.jpg)


I wonder.........do these carry a message?.....they are after all "visual art"

read Saussure
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: jjj on August 22, 2014, 09:59:45 am
They are design.
Title: Re: Visual Art: is it bereft of Message?
Post by: Incastone on November 23, 2014, 11:51:07 am
"... it is really performing a work of psychological education on the public by breaking down and destroying their previous aesthetic view of what is beautiful in form and meaningful in content. "

— Carl Gustav Jung / The Undiscovered Self / p.77

This is backwards in my opinion.
The public are performing a work of psychological education on the artist, not the other way round. By choosing to focus on specific styles at specific times, and creating patterns through collective agreement, the consumers tell the creators what they hold to be important or relevant.

This 'collective agreement' is usually restricted to cultural boundaries and norms. Truly global agreements are rare, and not usually triggered by art in itself, but accompanied by explicit written messages designed to provoke a response - what we normally call 'advertising'.

All art commentary that originates from groups/individuals trying to interpret for others therefore is 'bullshit wrapped in clingfilm'.

Artists of any genre may like to think that they are wielders of messages, defining meaning for others. All they're doing in reality is creating messages for themselves, and then presenting these personal messages to the public, much like publishing a personal diary.
Sometimes it strikes a chord (and not often for the reasons originally intended), and sometimes it doesn't.

For me this just confirms that the only pure reason to write a piece of music or capture an image is because it means something to me. As soon as I start trying to undertake artistic projects with the express intent of preaching a message to others, I 'll know I finally disappeared up my own arse  ;)