Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Rob C on November 26, 2017, 05:32:06 am
-
Amazing, in all of the senses.
Now there is photographic talent and determination!
Rob C
P.S.
With reference to the current arguments about photography and art: would folks be happy to label this work The Art of Applied Photography?
-
Amazing, in all of the senses.
Now there is photographic talent and determination!
Rob C
P.S.
With reference to the current arguments about photography and art: would folks be happy to label this work The Art of Applied Photography?
I'd have no interest in labelling this work: I don't like pigeonholing peoples work.
Of course, I have opinion about the work, but I'll follow the advice my father gave me as a child and won't say anything at all.
-
Well, I prefer to say that I appreciate something when I do, and when I don't then it depends on whether I think it matters to me or not.
Silence being golden? Ask the lambs.
This must be Sunday.
;-)
Rob
-
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/ (http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/)
This I adore.
-
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/ (http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/)
This I adore.
I wonder why?
It was a phase he went through, a gimmick; even the spelling is as doubtful as my own, and I wouldn't claim that ever made me an artist, not that you're claiming it for him, of course.
https://www.google.es/search?client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&dcr=0&source=hp&ei=5b4aWq_wDcPwUufHj8gH&sjs=1&q=man+without+conviction+lyrics&oq=man+wiyhout+conviction&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.1.0i13k1l2j0i13i5i30k1l3.3022.11001.0.12305.23.22.0.1.1.0.386.2763.9j12j0j1.22.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.23.2783.3..0j5j41j0i10k1j0i13i46k1j46i13k1.0.2H_OooTQeX8
I like the lines in the first verse.
;-)
Rob
-
Ah, Boy George...
;-)
-
http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/ (http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/105374/david-hockney-pearblossom-hwy-11-18th-april-1986-2-british-1986/)
This I adore.
Good choice. I too like this. I've tried collage and other photo manipulation techniques but have not been successful. Another photographer whose work I like is John Pfahl. His "Altered Landscapes" have a kind of wry, playful humor.
http://johnpfahl.com/pages/newalteredmenubottonmenu.html
-
Good choice. I too like this. I've tried collage and other photo manipulation techniques but have not been successful. Another photographer whose work I like is John Pfahl. His "Altered Landscapes" have a kind of wry, playful humor.
http://johnpfahl.com/pages/newalteredmenubottonmenu.html
Another painter using photographic images and processes whose work I adore. Richard Hamilton, The Father of Pop Art.
http://www.tate.org.uk/search?type=artwork&aid=1244 (http://www.tate.org.uk/search?type=artwork&aid=1244)
-
Beautiful artwork! The picture with the woman riding the black stallion is spectacular.
Much more pleasing and infinitely more creative than those millions of creamy dreamy water images made with ND filters.
-
Beautiful artwork! The picture with the woman riding the black stallion is spectacular.
Much more pleasing and infinitely more creative than those millions of creamy dreamy water images made with ND filters.
+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.
That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.
Rob
-
Oil paint isn't art but can be used to create art. Same goes for watercolours, acrylics, charcoal, blood, semen, horse shit and photographic processes. Whether a work is art or not isn't dependent on the medium.
Gosh, I'm now a Full Member ;D
-
+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.
That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.
Rob
Yes, i like that idea.
-
Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.
What is it about photographers and art?
-
Oil paint isn't art but can be used to create art. Same goes for watercolours, acrylics, charcoal, blood, semen, horse shit and photographic processes. Whether a work is art or not isn't dependent on the medium.
Gosh, I'm now a Full Member ;D
Felicidades on serving your time! You now go onto the adult wage system and scale. See what you and I ultimately managed to evade?
On the greater part of your post, yes, quite right: it's an artist that creates, not any medium. Whew, took us a while to get that one together together!
:-)
Rob
-
Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.
What is it about photographers and art?
Maybe only the stars get to do much interpersonal plumbing?
Rob
-
Had many a conversation with artists, rarely about materials and never about the definition of art. It's usually about who's shagging who and other general debauchery.
What is it about photographers and art?
Like musicians then... although they can get quite obsessesd about their instruments, and even a Phase One Triphasic is pretty cheap compared to a good violin.
These come together in one story about a violinist in a Swiss chamber orchestra, who didn't really like working in that group. However his instrument was a loan from the bank who sponsored the ensemble and the touring schedule allowed him to carry on his affair with a violist at a safe distance from his wife.
-
Years ago a wise old man told me to ignore the 80/20 rule it needed to be much more like 90/10 or even less. Especially about "Art" and even more so about new or innovative attempts at art. So if we apply that to James Porto's work and what he says about it we are left with a few rather interesting images and a few words worth thinking about. And that is about par for many discussions about "Art" by many people ... about the same as the comments here perhaps ?? - including my own, of course!!
-
The thing is, we have almost inevitably ended up writing about an abstract when the fact of the matter is that James Porto has shown us some very clever commercial photography, which is not more than I think he offered, but more than most of us have skill, resources or patience to do, I would imagine.
Good for him for being the superlative, and successful craftsman he is.
Rob C
-
+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.
That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.
Rob
The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...
Dave ;)
-
The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...
Dave ;)
Apparently pornography is the #1 search engine subject.
;-)
-
The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...
Dave ;)
So, if somebody whacks you on the nose, thus engaging you, He/she is an artist?
:-)
Rob
-
Apparently pornography is the #1 search engine subject.
;-)
Well am I am sure some people will class it as art, such as some of the work by Robert Mapplethorpe (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.lrb.co.uk%2Fassets%2Fedillus%2Fkope01_3813_01.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lrb.co.uk%2Fv38%2Fn13%2Fkevin-kopelson%2Fbeauty-plus-terror&docid=X-aaxOJufQVbSM&tbnid=v0OEx0z4596RoM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwidppn729_XAhWoLcAKHVNVAJwQMwiIASg_MD8..i&w=520&h=400&bih=586&biw=1280&q=robert%20mapplethorpe&ved=0ahUKEwidppn729_XAhWoLcAKHVNVAJwQMwiIASg_MD8&iact=mrc&uact=8), who's works certainly sells at eye wateringly high 'artistic' prices and perhaps even more so since some of it was classed as pornography :o
So, if somebody whacks you on the nose, thus engaging you, He/she is an artist?
:-)
Rob
Come on Rob, you are teasing me here and we all know what I mean, that if you are able to create something that people find engaging, then that is art and can be classed as such. But if you are unable to create something that people find engaging and no matter how good you think it is, then it isn't art.
I was just trying to use as few words as possible to say that :)
Dave
-
+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.
That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.
Rob
After chewing on it for a couple of days, the more i think about it, the more i like it. The true artist provides a certain consistent sensitivity in his/her art, call it style if you will, and it takes a certain sensitivity on the part of the audience to be receptive to that style. You could call the latter part engagement, but i don't much like the passive approach to engagement as is mentioned in the previous posts. The engagement of audience is not necessarily an indication of "successful" artistic expression. Otherwise we'd have serious problems with the next mobile phone generation, and that is why it's still useful to have filters in the form of curators. They can help society to preselect the art expressions for which it at least pays off to spend effort on its appreciation.
-
Well am I am sure some people will class it as art, such as some of the work by Robert Mapplethorpe (https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.lrb.co.uk%2Fassets%2Fedillus%2Fkope01_3813_01.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lrb.co.uk%2Fv38%2Fn13%2Fkevin-kopelson%2Fbeauty-plus-terror&docid=X-aaxOJufQVbSM&tbnid=v0OEx0z4596RoM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwidppn729_XAhWoLcAKHVNVAJwQMwiIASg_MD8..i&w=520&h=400&bih=586&biw=1280&q=robert%20mapplethorpe&ved=0ahUKEwidppn729_XAhWoLcAKHVNVAJwQMwiIASg_MD8&iact=mrc&uact=8), who's works certainly sells at eye wateringly high 'artistic' prices and perhaps even more so since some of it was classed as pornography :o
Come on Rob, you are teasing me here and we all know what I mean, that if you are able to create something that people find engaging, then that is art and can be classed as such. But if you are unable to create something that people find engaging and no matter how good you think it is, then it isn't art.
I was just trying to use as few words as possible to say that :)
Dave
Of course, Dave, and my wife often teased me, too! That was quite pleasant, if different.
(Blinks; not quite sure himself of what the hell he means to communicate there.)
Rob