Creating Meaningful Photographs

[Rob C]

So I cannot create a beautiful lie? A police photograph of the remains of a head of someone shot throughout the forehead is beautiful?

Keats did not know what he was talking about. Nice sentiments, but rather meaningless.

You're right; in the end, almost all stances or beliefs turn out to be flawed, and the words of poets might be beautiful, but none the more truthful or accurate because of it.

Rob C

[Ray]

So I cannot create a beautiful lie?

Keats is attmepting to define real beauty as opposed to fake beauty. I presume what you mean by a beautiful lie is a lie which is hidden by a facade of beauty. Perhaps you could give me an example, if this is not what you mean.

I suppose Keats would argue, if one thinks a lie can be beautiful, then perhaps one is using the wrong term. Perhaps it's not a lie but an act of compassion, for example.

A police photograph of the remains of a head of someone shot throughout the forehead is beautiful?

Gosh! You are confused. The truth that Keats is referring to is not the facility of the camera to accurately capture whatever scene it's pointed at. If this were the case, one could use Keats' quote in order to claim that all photographs are beautiful without exception because the camera never lies. Now that would be silly, don't you think?

Rather, Keats is referring to the beauty or truth that may be implicit within the context and meaning of the whole scene depicted. A simple, unadorned photo of the head of a man who has been shot is unlikely to be considered beautiful because it is implicit of a whole lot of lies, deceit and skulduggery that has probably taken place in order for the shooting to occur, and that's not beautiful.

However, if the bullet-ridden head were just one element in a larger scene depicting other events, such as a grieving widow, or someone doing penance because it's apparent that the shooting was an accident (use your imagination here), then the scene as a whole could be considered beautiful because of the truth it expresses.

In case you haven't got this yet, I'll give you another example. During the lifetime of Jesus Christ it was common practice for the Romans to punish criminals by nailing them to a cross where they slowly died over a number of days. I would not consider that to be a beautiful sight. Yet in many Christian churches throughout the world, their are depictions of such a man, nailed to a cross and in the process of dying.

Such depictions, whether paintings or sculptures, are considered by many to be beautiful. How so? Well, Alain Briot gives us a hint in his article when he writes:

We cannot depend only on what the subject brings us. We have to bring something to the subject in equal proportions to what it brings us. When you cannot rely on the impact of the subject alone, you have to bring more to the subject. This is the case with subjects that are less dramatic, more quiet, less impressive. In these instances how you approach the subject becomes more important than what the subject actually offers.

I'm going one step further (or maybe a few steps) and claiming that all viewers of all works of art, whether paintings, sculptures or photographs, bring to the subject their own personal experiences, knowledge, understanding and biases, from which they judge the merit of the work of art.

A Christian sees beauty in the image of a man slowly dying whilst nailed to a wooden cross, presumably because of the symbolic meaning of resurrection and His great act of taking on the suffering of mankind, whereas an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would view such an image as merely an act of barbarity. But let's not get sidetracked into religious issues here. I'm talking about art and using this analogy in the hope that it's sufficiently graphic.

Keats did not know what he was talking about. Nice sentiments, but rather meaningless.

Well, I hope I have been able to introduce to you some additional meaning. If you still don't understand, I could go over it again with different analogies, and expand upon the theme. 

[theguywitha645d]

Keats is attmepting to define real beauty as opposed to fake beauty. I presume what you mean by a beautiful lie is a lie which is hidden by a facade of beauty. Perhaps you could give me an example, if this is not what you mean.

I suppose Keats would argue, if one thinks a lie can be beautiful, then perhaps one is using the wrong term. Perhaps it's not a lie but an act of compassion, for example.

That sounds like a cop out to me. I don't think Keats is trying to define anything. He is simply saying this is what he believes, whether right or wrong, and he does not care what anyone else thinks about his statement.

Gosh! You are confused. The truth that Keats is referring to is not the facility of the camera to accurately capture whatever scene it's pointed at. If this were the case, one could use Keats' quote in order to claim that all photographs are beautiful without exception because the camera never lies. Now that would be silly, don't you think?

Oh, I am confused. The photograph would show the truth of an event and that result. There is nothing beautiful about result of violence. Either Keat's idea stands as he states it or it is a false statement as it requires enough qualifications until what remains is simply what can fit his definition.

Rather, Keats is referring to the beauty or truth that may be implicit within the context and meaning of the whole scene depicted. A simple, unadorned photo of the head of a man who has been shot is unlikely to be considered beautiful because it is implicit of a whole lot of lies, deceit and skulduggery that has probably taken place in order for the shooting to occur, and that's not beautiful.

The photograph would be a complete scene--the result of an impact trauma. So, I guess what you are saying is random acts that have no contaxt nor meaning cannot be beautiful nor true? Dribbling paint on a canvas for example?

However, if the bullet-ridden head were just one element in a larger scene depicting other events, such as a grieving widow, or someone doing penance because it's apparent that the shooting was an accident (use your imagination here), then the scene as a whole could be considered beautiful because of the truth it expresses.

"Could be"? Sounds like you are not sure. It also sounds like you need to justify the violence to make it beautiful.

In case you haven't got this yet, I'll give you another example. During the lifetime of Jesus Christ it was common practice for the Romans to punish criminals by nailing them to a cross where they slowly died over a number of days. I would not consider that to be a beautiful sight. Yet in many Christian churches throughout the world, their are depictions of such a man, nailed to a cross and in the process of dying.

Such depictions, whether paintings or sculptures, are considered by many to be beautiful. How so? Well, Alain Briot gives us a hint in his article when he writes:
I'm going one step further (or maybe a few steps) and claiming that all viewers of all works of art, whether paintings, sculptures or photographs, bring to the subject their own personal experiences, knowledge, understanding and biases, from which they judge the merit of the work of art.

A Christian sees beauty in the image of a man slowly dying whilst nailed to a wooden cross, presumably because of the symbolic meaning of resurrection and His great act of taking on the suffering of mankind, whereas an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would view such an image as merely an act of barbarity. But let's not get sidetracked into religious issues here. I'm talking about art and using this analogy in the hope that it's sufficiently graphic.


Well, I hope I have been able to introduce to you some additional meaning. If you still don't understand, I could go over it again with different analogies, and expand upon the theme. 

But it seems what you are saying is it all come down to your personal interpretation. Just as Keats made a personal statement about art that works for him. So a personal truth is beautiful personally, which is not saying very much.

[Ray]

Oh, I am confused. The photograph would show the truth of an event and that result. There is nothing beautiful about result of violence. Either Keat's idea stands as he states it or it is a false statement as it requires enough qualifications until what remains is simply what can fit his definition.

No. You are quite wrong. The image does not necessarily show the truth of the event, otherwise the job of the police invesatigation would be plain sailing. The image shows the result or consequences of an event, or series of events, which are probably very ugly and deceitful and unbeautiful in their nature.

The photograph would be a complete scene--the result of an impact trauma. So, I guess what you are saying is random acts that have no context nor meaning cannot be beautiful nor true? Dribbling paint on a canvas for example?

Not quite. Dribbling paint on a canvas can only be beautiful or true within a context of meaning that the viewer brings to the image. An example which springs to mind is Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles which was bought by the Australian Government a few decades ago and has since increased in value immensely.

For this painting to be beautiful, according to Keats, it has to be true. So, just as an exercise, let's enquire into what may be true and therefore beautiful in Pollock's Blue Poles. First, the random splashing of paint on a canvas would seem to be controlled more by the subconscious than the conscious. I think we could agree on that, yes?

So any truth or beauty in the Blue Poles painting is likely to be of a subconscious nature. Agreed?

Here one has to use one's imagination. Could it be, for example, that some of those random patterns in the Blue Pole painting recognisably resemble in some vague way, the network of neurons and synapses in the human brain? Does the image appeal at some 'undefined' subconscious level to certain very sensitive, but influential, art critics who have praised the painting and lifted it to the stratospheric heights of 'millions of dollars' value?

One can speculate forever on the true reasons for this painting's value, but truth should play an essential part.

Sounds like you are not sure. It also sounds like you need to justify the violence to make it beautiful.

Of course I'm not sure, in this example. It's hypothetical. And of course violence has to be justified to make it beautiful, as in the image of Jesus Christ on a cross.

But it seems what you are saying is it all come down to your personal interpretation. Just as Keats made a personal statement about art that works for him. So a personal truth is beautiful personally, which is not saying very much.

You seem very dismissive of personal opinion. As regards art, everything is a personal interpretaion. However, the significance of Keats' phrase

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

is in his equating truth with beauty. Beauty devoid of truth is shallow. The world of fashion is a good example of shallow beauty, a fake beauty, a lie which can appear beautiful.

Supposing Keats had written, "Beauty is a lie, a lie beauty", that's all ye know on earth and all ye need to know".

What sort of world would we be living in? Probably the same world we are now living in. Not many, it seems, have paid much attention to Keats. There exists in our world, unfortunately, a complete divorce between truth and beauty.

I prefer Keats'world, but I have the nous (hopefully) to understand that I'm probably surrounded by scoundrels, but in a general way. I'm not implying my immediate neighbours are scoundrels. 

[stamper]

Research has shown that any internet discussion will lose track of the original subject after an average of three responses..

Well this thread is clearly above average because the 7th post, which was mine, is definitely on track and directly related to the topic,

unquote

Ray it is above average because you keep bumping it?