Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: David Sutton on December 23, 2013, 03:03:52 pm
-
The approach of Christmas. They say you can hear the dismal cash-register lullaby from afar on a moonless night when the chill winds from the fens stalk the living.
Hmm, this time of year puts me in a strange mood. Here's another thing that does it: the question "What is art?". It shows its face immediately after the question "is this art?" (often referring to some new fashion).
Talk about this in a forum and see how soon someone posts "define art". Make no mistake, this is an attempt to shut down the discussion. I used to reply "don't be such a lazy fellow, look it up yourself". Now I just write: define "define". Though I think these criminals miss the fact that I am really asking them to POQ. Never mind, art is a spirit that lives in the heart and touches everything that its possessor does, whether it is carving a sculpture or making dinner. Some have it and some don't, and the two will probably never understand each other. Which is as it should be, else the world loses its balance.
Perhaps this is one underlying reason for the futility of questioning whether something is art. Why would I raise such a question when the real consideration should be "is this good art?" This has more meaning for me. Alas sometimes we need go no further than look at the artist's statement to arrive at the answer "no, it isn't”. Artist's statements are often the first step on the road to perdition and need to be treated circumspectly. Some have made me want to place a Welsh mass choir outside the gallery singing "Stand on your head and fall through your arse" to the tune of "Toréador, en garde" from Carmen. Excuse the vulgarity but the medical version "Stand on your cranium and fall through your gluteus maximus" lacks the Anglo Saxon bluntness.
Sometimes I get past that “front door” to find the work leaves me fairly cold but I admire it as art in a sort of abstract way. I know that sounds odd but it can't be helped. The work of Oscar Rejlander or Andreas Gursky comes to mind.
And sometimes I enter an exhibition and fall speechless to the floor.
When we begin to photograph there are so many technical hurdles to cross we often forget to enjoy the process and just work with what we have, mastering that. The real issues we will face will have nothing to do with whether we have learned all about blend modes. A colour managed workflow, Photoshop, Lightroom and the like are just useful tools but if treated as ends in themselves make us complacent. They become the enemy of our art. In the end we have throw our bodies at our work and find our own solutions. Sometimes when I see a post “my prints are coming out too dark” I want to reply “WELL STOP IT!”
When you learn to decipher something of the artist through their work, all sorts of doors open. A painter shows his character with the placement and intensity of each brushstroke. Likewise, listening to a solo musician, each stroke of the fingers clearly bypasses their reputation to reveal their true character. Every brush stroke, every note, speaks of the person who created it. Some works have been difficult and achieved through pain and suffering. Then that's what they really are about and when looking or listening to them we apprehend that and flee the room.
When the struggle we have with turning our inner vision into an outer reality becomes a joyous one it too shows. People respond.
I've tended to focus on landscapes because I find them so hard. Weird, I know. In the end when we photograph or paint landscapes we can't escape being who we are and our notions of the thing we are looking at. And it shows the moment we press the shutter or make our first sketch. Look at the role of landscape images in the formation of national identity or the process of political legitimation. This is the meaning behind "we are the landscape"
For me the hardest thing is working out what an image is about. A common mistake people make is thinking the object photographed is the subject of the work. Take this photograph of Corfe castle.
(http://davidsutton.co.nz/externalposts/artpost1-1.jpg)
I was standing on the hillside nearby talking to another photographer. He was on leave from serving in Afghanistan, and roaming the mountains alone with a camera for two weeks was his way of regaining his sanity. He explained how the castle was besieged from the valley floor, just outside of canon range. "The peril of taking a entrenched position" I commented. "Tell me about it!" he said. I shall never forget that look in his eyes as he replied. That's what this image is about. Taking an entrenched position. Complacency.
Now I still do landscape but sometimes it takes a different form. Here is a landscape from a few weeks ago, and the subject is still about complacency.
(http://davidsutton.co.nz/externalposts/artpost2-1.jpg)
Knowing it was made in a city flattened by an earthquake should make it easy to decipher.
I realise that over the last year I have become happy with my use of Photoshop, and my intuition has warned me about complacency. Now I understand that selling all my Canon gear and my shift to Fuji has been about making myself uncomfortable enough to attempt new things and pushing myself to make what I have work. That's probably behind my taking 100 year old film cameras to the Antarctic on the centenary of Amundsen reaching the pole. It's behind my terror of never producing a work that polarises its onlookers. How cool to make an image that so divides its viewers that its supporters and opponents take to each other with cudgels in front of it. I'd rather fall on my face than live a life of safety. The creation of beauty is not the same as beautiful subject matter! Think of Turner's “The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons”, or Munch's “The Scream of Nature”. Oh to make some images that have force. Let there be some blood on the floor in front of our work.
Enough with the pretty pictures! Burn your bridges! Live in terror! You only have one life to live. Go out and chew the scenery.
D
-
David,
I trudge my way daily to Lu-La, scroll through the sub-forum listings of new posts and 'Mark As Read' the vast majority of the posts without ever opening them. Every day, I ask myself, 'Why bother?' Dross and egotistical rantings by wannabes and neverwheres bore the tits off me. In earlier days of forum life I used to express my indignity that what used to get shoved into a shoe box under the bed is now paraded globally in a cavalcade of tedium which I actually find insulting — a capricious exploitation of whatever remnants of 'do unto others ....' might still lurk within.
This post of yours, for me, is the gold at the end of the rainbow. This post is the rare gem that justifies an entire year of optimism.'
Thank you for this timely restoration of my faith that there are some out there with a wonderful contribution to offer.
Seasonal blessings,
Walter
-
Bless you Walter. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
-
David, aren't you in danger of buying into, and then perpetuating the very "artists' statements" that you originally shrank from in justifiable terror?
It's one thing someone actually articulating a reason for the making of his shot, and something far else for an uninformed (not meaning dumb) viewer to be able to reach similar conclusions about the nature of the image. We are all brilliant when we already hold the keys. And don't forget: when some authors become famous, they actually change the locks!
Swapping camera systems in order to rekindle enthusiasm is no new trick: but I usually do it more cheaply by buying another lens. Maybe the greatest such change I undertook was my venture into digital: at a stroke, there was no need to think about film and E6 costs any more, and the ending of Kodachrome meant the route of first and last resort had been closed too. Where no financial waste is measurable, there remain no real reasons to prevent experimentation, and wasted time is also of little import when it all gets wasted anyway.
;-)
Rob C
-
... and wasted time is also of little import when it all gets wasted anyway.
;-)Rob C
gulp
-
gulp
Cheer up!
And Merry Xmas!
http://youtu.be/iFN_Iu_PD-g
Rob C
-
David,
I trudge my way daily to Lu-La, scroll through the sub-forum listings of new posts and 'Mark As Read' the vast majority of the posts without ever opening them. Every day, I ask myself, 'Why bother?' Dross and egotistical rantings by wannabes and neverwheres bore the tits off me. In earlier days of forum life I used to express my indignity that what used to get shoved into a shoe box under the bed is now paraded globally in a cavalcade of tedium which I actually find insulting — a capricious exploitation of whatever remnants of 'do unto others ....' might still lurk within.
This post of yours, for me, is the gold at the end of the rainbow. This post is the rare gem that justifies an entire year of optimism.'
Thank you for this timely restoration of my faith that there are some out there with a wonderful contribution to offer.
Seasonal blessings,
Walter
Well said, Walter. And, incredibly well said....Mr. Sutton.
-
It's all BS guys. You don't need to justify a damn thing...just keep on shooting. You want reasons, excuses and justification...read Susan Sontag. All others keep pressing the button!
You want to know what art is?
Throw a 4 x 6 of one of your pix on the sidewalk. If someone picks it up and puts it in their pocket it is art.
OP, here is a xmas present for you.
http://pocketportfolio.tumblr.com/
Print one up, as dark as you like. Show your pictures and spread your art wherever you go!
Good luck!
-
It's all BS guys. You don't need to justify a damn thing...just keep on shooting. You want reasons, excuses and justification...read Susan Sontag. All others keep pressing the button!
Read the 'essay' once somewhere; funny how non-photographers are eventually accepted as seers in the matter of snapping and snappers. Wish I knew if it came pre- or post-Annie. Frankly that's a fib: I don't really care at all, one way or the other.
I suppose, though, that it explains the phenomenon of photographic curatorship.
Rob C
-
Rob, the wonderful thing about artists' statements is that they show unequivocally whether the artist is capable of thought and therefore expression. They can save us a lot of time which we can then waste on something that won't annoy us. Today I've been wasting my time sitting with friends in the middle of nowhere cooking poached eggs on a camp stove, serving them with wild sorrel and discussing how to photograph the shadows in the mountains. Quite satisfactory.
Thanks to all for looking and commenting.
-
Rob, the wonderful thing about artists' statements is that they show unequivocally whether the artist is capable of thought and therefore expression. They can save us a lot of time which we can then waste on something that won't annoy us. Today I've been wasting my time sitting with friends in the middle of nowhere cooking poached eggs on a camp stove, serving them with wild sorrel and discussing how to photograph the shadows in the mountains. Quite satisfactory.
Thanks to all for looking and commenting.
I could quite enjoy wasting some of my own time with your group cooking in the wilds!
I think I have the best, and certainly the most honest artist's statement of them all. And to think that I actually wrote it all by myself!
;-)
Merry Christmas, David.
Rob C
-
. . . funny how non-photographers are eventually accepted as seers in the matter of snapping and snappers.
Easy, Rob. You might hurt Isaac's feelings.
-
the wonderful thing about artists' statements is that they show unequivocally whether the artist is capable of thought and therefore expression.
Funny, I only look at an artist's work. That is how i judge whether the artist is capable of thought and expression. At that point if I like the work I will read their statement...
Peter
-
Here's another thing that does it: the question "What is art?". It shows its face immediately after the question "is this art?" (often referring to some new fashion).
Talk about this in a forum and see how soon someone posts "define art". Make no mistake, this is an attempt to shut down the discussion. I used to reply "don't be such a lazy fellow, look it up yourself".
Someone might respond with "define art" simply to understand what you mean and avoid misunderstanding. Aren't you the "lazy fellow" for not bothering to point to a definition that makes sense to you?
Art is a self-expressive form of social action, a type of communication (paraphrased from The Artist's Reality: Philosophies of Art (http://books.google.com/books?id=YE1rbTSeGt8C&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Artist's%20Reality%3A%20Philosophies%20of%20Art&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22Art%20is%20such%20an%20action.%22&f=false)).
-
. . .Aren't you the "lazy fellow" for not bothering to point to a definition that makes sense to you?
Sorry Isaac, but there IS no definition of art that "makes sense." It's all subjective. One man's definition is another man's gibberish.
Try posting some of your pictures. Pictures always make more sense than half-assed definitions.
-
...Aren't you the "lazy fellow" for not bothering to point to a definition that makes sense to you?
Sorry Isaac, but there IS no definition of art that "makes sense." It's all subjective. One man's definition is another man's gibberish.
Try posting some of your pictures. Pictures always make more sense than half-assed definitions.
We can all see that what I wrote - "makes sense to you" - fully acknowledged it would be David Sutton's definition, that would be the point of asking him what he meant.
Try thinking.
-
This site is getting more depressing by the day.
Rob C
-
Sorry Isaac, but there IS no definition of art that "makes sense." It's all subjective. One man's definition is another man's gibberish.
Try posting some of your pictures. Pictures always make more sense than half-assed definitions.
Russ,
The definition of art has to make sense because it's a word in the language. If it doesn't make sense, why use the word? The fact that opinions are subjective doesn't change the need for a basic defintion.
For example, what is 'hot' regarding the weather? Experiences of comfort and discomfort will vary depending on the individuals' constitution and what they are accustomed to. An Eskimo visiting a relative in England might find it bloody hot, whereas another person who is used to the climate in Singapore would find the same weather in England uncomfortably cold. However, there should be no disagreement about the actual temperature.
I'll propose a broad definition of art, because I always try to make sense when I write or speak. ;)
A work of art is the creation of any object for non-utilitarian purpose, that has resulted from the application of human skill.
By non-utilitarian, I mean, without regard to utility. By utility, I mean the quality of practical usefulness and serviceability.
I'm sure someone can find exceptions that our outside of such a definition. ;)
-
So since it has a utilitarian purpose architecture isn't art?
-
I think Ray is referring to visual arts where there is mainly an aesthetic value. Of course there are Performing Arts (ie dancing, singing, music) and functional arts like architecture or let's say a knife that is beautifully carved. I think there has to be an asethetic value though in it to make it art.
-
Sorry, Alan. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the definition of art. Every such discussion I've ever seen turns out in the end to be asinine. It's like trying to prove the existence of God. Our ability to think, discuss, and "prove" is always constrained by space and time, limitations to comprehension that simply won't let us get the job done. In the end, of course, to prove the existence of God all you have to do is look around you. And it's somewhat the same thing with the definition of art. All you have to do is look around you. Everything is art or nothing is art. As you just pointed out, all you can do is compartmentalize and constrain your definitions, and what you end up with is called "nonsense."
-
So since it has a utilitarian purpose architecture isn't art?
To the extent that architecture has a utilitarian purpose, that is to shelter and home people, or to provide a venue for various activities such as work and entertainment and so on, it is not art. However, if one were to add decorative features to a building in order to make it pleasing to the eye, and/or design a more interesting shape than the average, rectangular-box skyscraper, then that would be art. However, such features make the building more expensive but usually don't make the building more functional.
An example would be the Sydney Opera House. The design was very artistic, but construction costs were ridiculously high because the design was so difficult to implement. As an auditorium, the acoustics are nothing special.
There are countless examples of artifacts that have a utilitarian function and an added decoration which gives them an artistic dimension which doesn't increase their usefulness.
-
. . .all you can do is compartmentalize and constrain your definitions, and what you end up with is called "nonsense."
-
... and what you end up with is called "nonsense."
What you end up with may indeed be "nonsense"; others may end up with a better understanding.
-
Pictures, Isaac. This forum is about pictures. Photographs. Have you ever made any?
-
Pictures, Isaac. This forum is about pictures. Photographs. Have you ever made any?
I think it's appropriate to repeat verbatim one of the things David Sutton wrote when he began this topic -- "Make no mistake, this is an attempt to shut down the discussion."
Apparently you don't wish to discuss this topic. Apparently you don't wish anyone else to discuss this topic. No one made you King.
This forum is "The Coffee Corner" -- "A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."
-
. . .all you can do is compartmentalize and constrain your definitions, and what you end up with is called "nonsense."
Russ,
I must admit that I find it strange you find my definition of art nonsense. It seems perfectly clear to me. I'm trying to think of exceptions that would fall outside of my definition, but I'm having difficulty.
Appearance counts for a lot. Most of the consumer items we buy have a primary functional purpose, which is not artistic, and a decorative adornment, shape, design or style which falls into the category of art.
Such art can exist in its own right, as for example a wood carving, a painting or a photograph. Or that art work can be a part of a utilitarian artifact.
A carpenter can make a chair which is perfectly functional, durable and inexpensive. A cabinet maker with an artistic flair can make a chair with interesting carvings for the legs and a decorative pattern on the cushions. Such a chair would be considered a work of art, but it is is no more functional for being a work of art. In fact it might be less functional, although it would certainly cost more. Art does not come free.
The same usually applies to the houses we live in, the cars we drive and the clothes we wear. If they are purely functional without adornment (art), they are considered to be boring.
-
Shame about the petty nit picking and re-grinding of age-old axes that it caused. But I truly enjoyed reading the original post. Thank you very much for penning it.
-
'Twas ever thus, SunnyUK,
Sad, but true.
-
I'll propose a broad definition of art...
We can do better than that by opening a dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/art_1?q=art), and we can develop a richer understanding when we consider more than a one line definition.
-
But I truly enjoyed reading the original post. Thank you very much for penning it.
Thank you SunnyUK!
I've been off in the wilds of NZ with my camera making art. I don't know if it will be good art, but we can all dream a little and that does no harm.
On the other hand it has been such fun.
-
Thank you SunnyUK!
I've been off in the wilds of NZ with my camera making art. I don't know if it will be good art, but we can all dream a little and that does no harm.
On the other hand it has been such fun.
C'mon Dave, you know the fun bit was the campfire cooking!
;-)
Rob C
-
Caught me out Rob :)
Campfire cooking and sleeping under the stars (with the aid of a sturdy mosquito net)
-
We can do better than that by opening a dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/art_1?q=art), and we can develop a richer understanding when we consider more than a one line definition.
Isaac,
I was trying to start off with a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances, regardless of differences of opinions, likes and taste, and regardless of the various types and styles of art.
For example, let's consider the definitions in your dictionary to which you provided a link above. They all refer to man-made objects of some sort that are beautiful or express ideas or feeling, such as images, music, sculptures, paintings, drawings, acting, dancing etc.
Is there likely to be any contributor to this forum who is not aware that the above are, or can be, forms of art? Is it likely that anyone is not aware that art is supposed to be beautiful in some respect or expressive of some sort of feeling or idea?
The problems arise when attempting to categorize specific examples of the above-mentioned objects as art. Some folks might legitimately claim that photographs are not art because the camera does most of the work and merely records the patterns of light passing through the lens.
Others might claim that Andy Warhol's paintings of cans of beans and cans of soup, are not art because they are too commonplace and representational, like a photograph. Yet others will claim that certain abstract paintings consisting of paint thrown at, or onto a canvas, are not art.
What I am attempting in my one-line definition is to describe a quality which all art possesses. That art should be beautiful is not necessarily a defining quality because beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.
We could elaborate on your dictionary definition along the lines, "The making of objects that are considered to be beautiful in the eyes of at least one person, but such a definition might then include all objects that have ever been made. It's quite possible that at least one person could examine a screw in a hardware shop, hold it up to the light and declare, "That's really beautiful. What a marvelous piece of art."
The quality which I find to be common in all art is it's non-utilitarian purpose, at least in the modern meaning of the word. Centuries ago, before mechanisation and industrialisation, art was often just a synonym for skill. The hand-weaving of garments was considered an art.
In our modern era I see a movement away from such practical concerns, regarding what is considered to be art. The finest form of art is often considered to be music. Why should that be the case? Is that merely a matter of taste? For example, "I enjoy music more than I enjoy paintings, therefore music is a finer or higher form of art than painting, in my opinion", or is there some other defining quality about music that might give reason for it to be considered the highest form of art?
The 19th century English essayist and art critic, Walter Pater, wrote, "All art constantly aspires to the condition of music". What did he mean by that?
I would say that the key to understanding what he meant is provided by my definition of art as something which has a non-utilitarian purpose. There is nothing more non-utilitarian than music. It is pure abstraction, purged of all the literal meaning that usually exists in other forms of art, such as photography, poetry, narrative, painting and architecture etc.
I rest my case. ;D
-
Hmm. This one should be rather simple. If it sells for more money than it's worth as an object, it's art. No need for complicamacated considerations.
-
Hmm. This one should be rather simple. If it sells for more money than it's worth as an object, it's art. No need for complicamacated considerations.
And if it doesn't sell for more money than it's worth as an object, as in a down-and-out painter flogging his work for no more than the cost of the paint, canvas and framing, or an art shop having a big clearance sale because they are going out of business, then the works are not art. Right?
If I buy bananas in a shop for $1 per kg, then later the same day see the same type of bananas in another shop priced at $3 per kg, I can assume that the more expensive bananas are works of art. Right? ;)
I think you'll find that the actual worth of any object, whether considered to be art or not, is a matter of highly variable, personal opinion.
-
Hmm. This one should be rather simple. If it sells for more money than it's worth as an object, it's art. No need for complicamacated considerations.
Have to agree with Ray.
There are a lot of dubious definitions of art out there - this one must rank as the worst I have come across.
I just don't think that there can be a universal definition of art to which everyone can agree to.
I can certainly say that there are apparent object de art that sell for six and seven figure sums that I would not accept as a giveaway.
Perhaps that makes me a cultural philistine.
Isn't it art if someone (anyone) thinks it is art?
Tony Jay
-
I just don't think that there can be a universal definition of art to which everyone can agree to.
There doesn't need to be, it's completely ordinary usage to have multiple definitions for a word which are negotiated according to context.
Occasionally there's even a need to be equivocal about death (http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/dec/10/life-death-therapeutic-hypothermia-anna-bagenholm).
-
In the eye of the beholder.
-
In the eye of the beholder.
Death?
-
I was trying to start off with a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances, regardless of differences of opinions, likes and taste, and regardless of the various types and styles of art.
Doing that completely ignores how language works; so however much it may amuse you to wander off on a tangent, it's far from the point.
-
For me the hardest thing is working out what an image is about.
Do you mean an image you are in the process of making, or do you mean an image someone else has made?
A common mistake people make is thinking the object photographed is the subject of the work.
Often people are correct to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work --
"About half the portraits were close-up, shallow-focus images that riveted one's attention to the eyes and facial features of the various subjects. The rest were pictures like this one: full-length pictures against a black background that simply described their subject as faithfully as possible from an objective distance, drinking in every detail while isolating the whole." (page 85 (http://books.google.com/books?id=q5hxY7zjC7kC))
Take this photograph of Corfe castle. ... He explained how the castle was besieged from the valley floor, just outside of canon range. ... That's what this image is about. Taking an entrenched position. Complacency.
Do you feel the image expresses complacency in some way, or is it just a notion that crossed your mind while chatting?
I would not have guessed from your anecdote that one of the garrison treacherously allowed enemy troops to enter and capture the castle, and that the walls were destroyed after the castle was captured (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356393860845/).
-
Do you mean an image you are in the process of making, or do you mean an image someone else has made?
Often people are correct to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work --
"About half the portraits were close-up, shallow-focus images that riveted one's attention to the eyes and facial features of the various subjects. The rest were pictures like this one: full-length pictures against a black background that simply described their subject as faithfully as possible from an objective distance, drinking in every detail while isolating the whole." (page 85 (http://books.google.com/books?id=q5hxY7zjC7kC))
Do you feel the image expresses complacency in some way, or is it just a notion that crossed your mind while chatting?
I would not have guessed from your anecdote that one of the garrison treacherously allowed enemy troops to enter and capture the castle, and that the walls were destroyed after the castle was captured (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356393860845/).
Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work. An image reveals a lot about its maker, music its composer, a reply to a post its author. Often unintended, but none the less real.
We reach a point in our work where we have to just put it out there. We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken. We are just the artists, what do we know?
No creative person I know can be bothered with questions on the nature of art, they are too busy asking themselves "is this any good?" Meaning, they are not looking for any form of objectivity. They have moved on and are long gone while others are still questioning their placement of commas.
Let me make it plainer. Make your own analysis and form your own opinions. Do the hard yards.
Then forget what others do or say and go make your own art. Make a start and have fun. Create something controversial enough to have critics, and then go head-butt them.
As to what I have written, I'm with Robert Frost on this one: “You want me to say it worse?”
-
Doing that completely ignores how language works; so however much it may amuse you to wander off on a tangent, it's far from the point.
Not true! It's exactly how language works. Every word I've used has a well-defined meaning, and anyone with a grasp of basic logic would understand what what I've written.
Dictionary definitions usually include a variety of meanings showing how the word has changed over the years, and how the meaning can be different according to context.
The fact that there appears to be so much confusion on the meaning of the word 'art' suggests that the usual dictionary definitions are inadequate. I've tried to remedy this situation by providing a modern meaning of the word that would include every 'claimed' work of art from the incomprehensible to the ridiculous, and from the sublime to the ordinary.
To the extent that a man-made object has a utilitarian purpose, it is not art. To the extent that a man-made object has no utilitarian purpose, it falls into the category of art.
Sometimes the two purposes are in conflict, as is the case with many styles of clothing, particularly women's shoes which are sometimes designed to appear like art, that is, expressive of elegance and beauty, but as a consequence have a diminished utilitarian function for the purpose of walking. Such shoes can pinch the toes, distort the feet over time, and can be very dangerous for running.
What's not clear?
-
Dictionary definitions usually include a variety of meanings showing how the word has changed over the years, and how the meaning can be different according to context.
Yes, words have different meanings according to context; not "a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances..."
-
Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work.
Repetition doesn't make it any truer, although I do see the attraction of that kind-of flat assertion -- Mostly photographers are wrong to think that the subject of their work is more than the object photographed.
-
Yes, words have different meanings according to context; not "a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances..."
Wrong. Because words often do have different meanings according to context, it does not follow that they cannot, or should not, also have a broad and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances.
An example would be the word 'temperature', as in the degree of hotness or coldness of an object or environment.
is there any object you can think of which doesn't have a temperature?
-
Repetition doesn't make it any truer.
But he didn't just repeat. He elucidated - '...We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken...'
It is surely hard to argue with that?
-
But he didn't just repeat. He elucidated - '...We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken...'
This "Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work" is from the perspective of someone looking at an image; but this "We reach a point in our work where we have to just put it out there. We think we know the subject matter..." is from the perspective of someone making an image.
When the maker of an image may be mistaken about the subject, then there's not much basis for telling someone looking at the image that the object photographed is not the subject.
Thinking-that complacency could-be-the-subject is distanced from complacency is-the-subject by everything that must follow from Make it so!
Such questions remind me that many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality; of course, many others are capable of response to an image without concern for the physical realities of the subject. Either the photograph speaks to a viewer or it does not. I cannot demand that anyone receive from the image just what I saw and felt, the image will contain qualities that may provide a basis for imaginative response by the viewer.
page 64, Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, Ansel Adams.
-
Wrong. Because words often do have different meanings according to context, it does not follow that they cannot, or should not, also have a broad and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances.
Because words ordinarily have different meanings according to context, we're all going to continue to use words that way. It's the way language actually works.
-
Because words ordinarily have different meanings according to context, we're all going to continue to use words that way. It's the way language actually works.
A word of advice, Isaac. Don't constrain yourself with ordinariness. Think outside the box.