Topic: From the Big House to the Outhouse (Read 28943 times)

alainbriot · « **Reply #40 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:08:08 pm »

Quote

Alain, with all due respect to Leonardo - and I support the intent of the comment - there is an underlying presumption that only enemies criticize or that critics are enemies - an inference I have a bit of trouble with. True friends are people who offer constructive criticism knowing that it will be received as well-intentioned and worth considering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86759\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no underlying assumption on my part. I agree with you that friends --and teachers as well-- can provide very valuable feedback.

Alain

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #41 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:28:37 pm »

Quote

There is no underlying assumption on my part. I agree with you that friends --and teachers as well-- can provide very valuable feedback.

Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain - quite correct - I wasn't attributing the underlying assumption to YOU - rather it was to Leonardo! (Unfair I guess because he's not quite in a position to defend himself!)

Cheers,

Mark

alainbriot · « **Reply #42 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:33:41 pm »

Quote

Alain - quite correct - I wasn't attributing the underlying assumption to YOU - rather it was to Leonardo! (Unfair I guess because he's not quite in a position to defend himself!)

Cheers,

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed... and funny :-)

Here's another interesting quote:

You have to learn to disregard people who do not like you. As far as I am concerned those who do not like you fall in two categories: the stupid and the envious. The stupid will like you in 5 years time. The envious will never like you.

Johny Depp playing the Earl of Rochester in The Libertine.

32BT · « **Reply #43 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:34:19 pm »

Quote

Alain, with all due respect to Leonardo - and I support the intent of the comment - there is an underlying presumption that only enemies criticize or that critics are enemies - an inference I have a bit of trouble with. True friends are people who offer constructive criticism knowing that it will be received as well-intentioned and worth considering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86759\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Besides the fact that this begs the question how many true friends we really have, I believe your observation about an underlying presumption is otherwise incorrect: note how "deception" can go both ways: you can criticize yourself too harshly and produce stunning work by all other standards, but never follow through with it or be content as even your closest friends judge equivalently. Like minds apparently are not your best tour guide in the deepest dungeons of your soul...

alainbriot · « **Reply #44 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:41:18 pm »

Quote

Besides the fact that this begs the question how many true friends we really have, I believe your observation about an underlying presumption is otherwise incorrect: note how "deception" can go both ways: you can criticize yourself too harshly and produce stunning work by all other standards, but never follow through with it or be content as even your closest friends judge equivalently. Like minds apparently are not your best tour guide in the deepest dungeons of your soul...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is an acknowledged fact, that we perceive errors in the works of others more readily than in our own... It will be well for the artist to have a looking-glass by him, when he paints,to look often at his work in it, which, being seeen the contrary way, will appear as the work of another hand, and will better show his faults.

Leonardo da Vinci

alainbriot · « **Reply #45 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:57:49 pm »

Quote

Great quote! Thank you for sharing it.

It leaves me to wonder if through art (and/or criticism), enemies could eventually become friends?

Regards,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would certainly help make the world a better place.

ALain

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #46 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:58:20 pm »

HA! I don't need a mirror, I have a wife!

Seriously though she is my best critic in that she knows that I trust her judgment and do not get upset at her frank and accurate criticisms. No man can truly go on fooling himself when he has a wife who will happily burst all his bubbles for him!

When I shoot Landscape I have a personal criteria, would I purchase that photo, is it good enough for my wall. If the answer is no then I don't bother taking the photo. When processing at home my wife adds the next stage - will anyone buy it. If the answer is no then I don't put it up for sale.

Contrary to that article I do think that the publics purse can be the greatest criticism of your work. If no one buys it then it is not something that appeals to the public at best, and just not good enough at worst! If you make the viewer look again, if your vision has invoked the emotions you yourself aimed for when making the photograph (as talked about by Alain in his last essay) then you have succeeded in your art.

What else is the point of art if it is not to provoke a certain reaction from the viewer? If you deny that reaction or the validity of that reaction then you are fooling yourself in calling your work art.......in my humble opinion.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #47 on:** November 23, 2006, 05:02:12 pm »

Quote

HA! I don't need a mirror, I have a wife!

Seriously though she is my best critic in that she knows that I trust her judgment and do not get upset at her frank and accurate criticisms. No man can truly go on fooling himself when he has a wife who will happily burst all his bubbles for him!

When I shoot Landscape I have a personal criteria, would I purchase that photo, is it good enough for my wall. If the answer is no then I don't bother taking the photo. When processing at home my wife adds the next stage - will anyone buy it. If the answer is no then I don't put it up for sale.

Contrary to that article I do think that the publics purse can be the greatest criticism of your work. If no one buys it then it is not something that appeals to the public at best, and just not good enough at worst! If you make the viewer look again, if your vision has invoked the emotions you yourself aimed for when making the photograph (as talked about by Alain in his last essay) then you have succeeded in your art.

What else is the point of art if it is not to provoke a certain reaction from the viewer? If you deny that reaction or the validity of that reaction then you are fooling yourself in calling your work art.......in my humble opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.

Boghb · « **Reply #48 on:** November 23, 2006, 06:48:41 pm »

Quote

Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The point of such art is for the artist to look at him/herself. Art is the mirror.

Boghb · « **Reply #49 on:** November 23, 2006, 06:55:14 pm »

At the moment the artist thinks of what someone else might like, the flow of the subconscious into the object of art is interrupted. Then it is no longer an endeavor to paint the purely subjective.

John Camp · « **Reply #50 on:** November 23, 2006, 09:03:56 pm »

Quote

At the moment the artist thinks of what someone else might like, the flow of the subconscious into the object of art is interrupted. Then it is no longer an endeavor to paint the purely subjective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rembrandt painted many of his greatest works as direct commissions -- and his career faltered badly when he painted a portrait that was not accepted because it was not liked.

JC

Pete JF · « **Reply #51 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:15:52 pm »

I think i puked in my mouth a little bit after reading that article and this thread.

Happy Thanksgiving, I hope everybody had a nice meal with some good fellowship and that you didn't talk about photography in these terms during that meal.

My aunt would have hit me on the head with a spoon and might've said..."watch those cliches, you made me puke in mouth a little."

Boghb · « **Reply #52 on:** November 24, 2006, 01:46:45 am »

John

Making art as entertainment for others certainly does not invalidate it as art; it just changes the process from one of exploring the purely personal to one of pleasing others.

DiaAzul · « **Reply #53 on:** November 24, 2006, 04:55:13 am »

Quote

Great quote! Thank you for sharing it.

It leaves me to wonder if through art (and/or criticism), enemies could eventually become friends?

Regards,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Friend or Enemy is a monika that you put on the other person - rarely something they decide themselves. Same with criticism...it is usually the receiver and not the giver that decides whether they like the criticism or not (or whether they judge it good or bad).

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #54 on:** November 24, 2006, 06:00:24 am »

Quote

Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point is that to deny that insight into the art when viewed by another person would be to deny an insight into your own soul. If you want to express yourself in a medium of art then to deny others reaction to that expression would be fooling yourself would it not?

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #55 on:** November 24, 2006, 10:39:46 am »

Quote

My point is that to deny that insight into the art when viewed by another person would be to deny an insight into your own soul. If you want to express yourself in a medium of art then to deny others reaction to that expression would be fooling yourself would it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes and no, depending on the purpose. There are artists who create things for the sake of creating them, experimenting with form, light, matter and composition in order to make discoveries about what "works" (in their view) and what doesn't. When these experiments reach a point that starts to seek acceptance amongst its peers and in broader society, of course it needs to emerge from the self-contained world of its creator - and face criticism!

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #56 on:** November 24, 2006, 11:39:33 am »

Quote

Friend or Enemy is a monika that you put on the other person - rarely something they decide themselves. Same with criticism...it is usually the receiver and not the giver that decides whether they like the criticism or not (or whether they judge it good or bad).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We're getting way off topic, but I see it as a two-way street. I agree it is usually the offended who assigns the term. However, it is also usually the case that ones "enemy" has done something to deserve that moniker to begin with; they decided to be an enemy instead of a friend when they performed the negative action. Action equal reaction, a two-way street.

Pete did address black & white versus gray areas in his article and I think this is pertinent and may steer it back on point here: It is difficult sometimes to walk a fine line when one is balancing being in business and making money with being a good friend. Some people see anybody who is not a good friend as an enemy (black or white) while others see them simply as a friend but not a "close" friend (gray). The gray zone can expand for one and turn black for the other and an enemy is perceived by one side whether or not it was truly the case. Unfortunately, the cylce usually progresses in that the black "enemy" now takes additional negative action which pushes the gray "so-so friend" into his/her black zone, leaving both as enemies.

Another quote I like is, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I think this is where one can find the resolve to rise above petty differences and realize that enemies (or critics and artists) do learn from one-another and can become even stronger friends having gone through the experience of "sharpening" each other... One can hope anyway

Cheers,

Ray · « **Reply #57 on:** November 24, 2006, 01:02:35 pm »

Reading this thread and Pete Myer's article, I'm reminded of a Somerset Maugham short story about a young man who wanted to be a classical pianist, against the wishes of his father. They came to an agreement whereby the son would take a year off to practise the piano to his heart's content, after which time he would be judged by a successful pianist of the day as to whether or not he had any talent. If the verdict was he didn't have 'real' talent, then it was agreed he would give up music and take up some soul-destroying position in his father's business.

When the day came for him to play his best pieces before the 'judge', an accomplshed and successful middle aged female classical pianist, his efforts were ridiculed. The verdict was clear. No talent.

The play ended wth the poor bloke committing suicide.

Perhaps the moral here is, the first requirement of any artistic talent is the talent and confidence to withstand criticism.

Author Topic: From the Big House to the Outhouse (Read 28943 times)

Boghb

Boghb

Boghb