Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"  (Read 7105 times)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

Quote
I have come to regard photography as an art form equal in importance and satisfaction to painting. As a painter-photographer I find that each medium contributes immeasurably to the other, that my photographs suggest new approaches to painting, that my painting helps me to compose on the ground glass with fresh vision. The same instincts, thought processes, and techniques are imployed, inversely, in both media: in making a painting I add; in making a photograph I subtract, select until I have isolated in an 8" x 10" area a newly conceived little universe which exists as a unique experience in seeing and is in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects whose familiar shapes inspired it."

Edith McKee Harper, artist statement, 1961 solo exhibition at the Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati.
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2015, 04:31:18 PM »

And your point is....?
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2015, 04:49:38 PM »

Are you scoring points against someone?

If you see nothing to interest you, that's fine.
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2015, 05:10:35 PM »

Are you scoring points against someone?


Not at all. I am just wondering what your take on this comment is. You posted, I presume, with the intention of starting a discussion which would normally have the OP including a comment as to how it chimes with, or disagreeing with, their own views.

Maybe I 'm just a bit cranky because I am seeing an increase in this sort of post as if the OP is just putting things up to incite a discussion with no real interest in it themselves. The worst sort post the comment then never actually contribute them selves (not that I would expect that from you  ;D )
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2415
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2015, 06:30:10 PM »

Sorry, spidermike, but I have no trouble with someone posting a quote like this with or without their own take on it. It is thought-provoking and helps in the understanding of photography. One can chose to contribute to that discussion or not. It is certainly atypical of forum posts, but I don't see it as being out of line.

The quote certainly causes me to think and rethink my take on photography as art. I don't think it changes my mind, but it is food for thought.

If it was a quote like "the sky is blue", then I would agree with you regarding the usefulness of it.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2015, 07:00:41 PM »

I am just wondering what your take on this comment is.

My take on the artists statement: That's interesting.


… I am seeing an increase in this sort of post as if the OP is just putting things up to incite a discussion with no real interest in it themselves. The worst sort post the comment then never actually contribute them selves…

It's doubtful that anyone posting to a public discussion forum is especially concerned about your likes and dislikes :-)
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2015, 07:19:01 PM »

On "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects whose familiar shapes inspired it" my opinion is that the statement is nothing more than mythological: the human brain is (among other things) a machine that mixes everchanging internal models with external experiences.

Suggesting that "the meaning" of an experience is fully contained in the experience itself makes me think that the word "experience" is incorrectly used.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2015, 08:30:21 PM »

The quote certainly causes me to think and rethink my take on photography as art. I don't think it changes my mind, but it is food for thought.

To the artist Edith McKee Harper, photography was just another medium.

To the photographer … ?
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5150
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2015, 03:06:40 AM »

My take on the artists statement: That's interesting.


It's doubtful that anyone posting to a public discussion forum is especially concerned about your likes and dislikes :-)

Denigration Isaac? tut tut. :(

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "in no way dependent for its meaning upon the ordinary objects"
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2015, 12:00:40 PM »

Denigration Isaac?

You do not express any concern for spidermike's likes or dislikes.

You do not express any interest in the topic.

You just attack other forum users.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up