Young Love, Sweet Love

[Patricia Sheley]

"At the end of the day it isn't about how you do it. It is the end product that counts." (Quote Stamper)

Machiavelli, turns out, informs more than discomforts with humanity. Who knew? While I find this particular stance of "observer/recorder" discomfiting,as a mother, grandmother and child advocate, certainly has triggered consideration of societal "norms" and self justified permissions~
p.

[GrahamBy]

its the image that counts, not how we classify it.

Plus one.

[RSL]

Sorry you're offended, Chris. We probably need another lunch at Beef 'o' Brady's. This time I'll buy the beer.

But I stand by what I said. I'm not going to get into an extended argument about what street photography is and what it isn't. To find out what it is you need to look and look and look at the pictures of people like HCB -- especially his early work where he was doing straight street rather than photojournalism. You can't quite wrap words around this stuff. It's like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography. "I know it when I see it," adding that he couldn't give it a precise definition. And, as Stamper points out, classification doesn't matter. It's the image that  counts.

One thing you'll find in the work of the masters of street: there's very little voyeurism. You almost never come across a picture that says, simply, "See the kind of crap this person or these people are doing." For instance, I can't think of a single "hee hee hee" picture by Elliott Erwitt. On the other hand, he did plenty of really funny stuff that was street at its best. There are plenty of "hee hee hee" shots around by people who think they're doing street, but don't really know what it is. There are books by these people. A classic one  is The World Atlas of Street Photography by Jackie Higgins, who besides coming up with an over-the-top, self-congratulatory title, evidently thinks a picture of a street is street photography.

And George, I'm sorry to hear you don't like street. To me it's photography's main raison d'être. When you get away from the relationships between people and other people and their artifacts you're better off putting away the camera and taking up brush and canvas.

And Chris, from a technical point of view the picture is fine.

[N80]

But I stand by what I said. I'm not going to get into an extended argument about what street photography is and what it isn't. To find out what it is you need to look and look and look at the pictures of people like HCB --

Maybe I'm not taking this the right way. But I would never say to someone that they need to know Ansel Adams through and through in order to define what landscape photography is. I think anyone aspiring to landscape photography should study Adam's work but I would not suggest that his work defines it even though I am a great fan of it.

And for the record, I like HCB's work. And I do appreciate street photography. But at the end of the day it is not what I'm drawn to. Simply a matter of preference and my preference holds no weight in regard to the 'legitimacy' of any genre.

And George, I'm sorry to hear you don't like street.

Don't be sorry. I find other genre's to be quite fulfilling both as one who appreciates and participates in photography.

To me it's photography's main raison d'être. When you get away from the relationships between people and other people and their artifacts you're better off putting away the camera and taking up brush and canvas.

I'm assuming this is meant to be intentionally provocative and would indeed be great fun to discuss.  And, it is qualified by "To me..."

But it is also interesting how you described 'street' photography: "relationships between people and other people and their artifacts"

That is pretty dang broad a description there and conflicts with your much narrower criteria above. Portrait photography would qualify here. There is always a relationship between the portrait subject and the photographer. And then there are the artifacts. I'm fond of industrial landscape photography. The machinery and architecture implicitly show aspects about how people relate. But I suspect you did not intend these two genres to fall within your criteria and I would certainly not call a portrait of a person or an old mill 'street' photography.

As for all other forms needing to be abandoned for the brush and canvas, well, provocative as it may be surely cannot be seriously defended. But again, a wonderful starter for a good conversation.

[Rob C]

Sorry you're offended, Chris. We probably need another lunch at Beef 'o' Brady's. This time I'll buy the beer.

But I stand by what I said. I'm not going to get into an extended argument about what street photography is and what it isn't. To find out what it is you need to look and look and look at the pictures of people like HCB -- especially his early work where he was doing straight street rather than photojournalism. You can't quite wrap words around this stuff. It's like Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography. "I know it when I see it," adding that he couldn't give it a precise definition. And, as Stamper points out, classification doesn't matter. It's the image that  counts.

One thing you'll find in the work of the masters of street: there's very little voyeurism. You almost never come across a picture that says, simply, "See the kind of crap this person or these people are doing." For instance, I can't think of a single "hee hee hee" picture by Elliott Erwitt. On the other hand, he did plenty of really funny stuff that was street at its best. There are plenty of "hee hee hee" shots around by people who think they're doing street, but don't really know what it is. There are books by these people. A classic one  is The World Atlas of Street Photography by Jackie Higgins, who besides coming up with an over-the-top, self-congratulatory title, evidently thinks a picture of a street is street photography.

And George, I'm sorry to hear you don't like street. To me it's photography's main raison d'être. When you get away from the relationships between people and other people and their artifacts you're better off putting away the camera and taking up brush and canvas.

And Chris, from a technical point of view the picture is fine.

That says it all for me. It's people that count, and that can be commercial, hobby, whatever it takes or you can reach. People are alive and part of what each of us is; the rest is just habitat. We are the interesting bits.

Rob

[RSL]

Right on, as usual, Rob.

And George, a relationship between portrait photographer and subject isn't part of the photograph. It's like something I wrote long ago about poetry and "Piss Christ." http://www.russ-lewis.com/Poetry/Preface.html. Once the image is complete the creator of the image is out of the picture (to coin a phrase), and the results is the result is the result.

And yes, I almost always intend to be provocative. It's what leads to discussion, which, in turn, leads to enlightenment. I agree that my definition of street was too broad. Unfortunately, as I said, words can't quite wrap around what we're trying to discuss. There's nothing wrong with a picture of someone standing alone. Seamus recently did an informal portrait that's a splendid piece of work. But it's not street, and I'm sure he'd agree. Machinery standing alone can be interesting, but it's a long way from street. It's usually reportage, though Charles Sheeler could turn it into art.

In street photography I always come back to ambiguity. Though I don't think a picture absolutely has to have ambiguity to be street, I do think a picture has to have ambiguity to be really good street. There has to be a story there. But that's true of the pictures in your newspaper. What takes a picture over the edge into good street is when there's a hint -- maybe even more than a hint -- but you have to provide "closure."

No, other forms don't need to be abandoned for brush and canvas, but other forms almost always fall short if they're in competition with someone who really knows what he's doing with brush and canvas. Problem is, with a camera you're constrained by the subject. When you're painting you're only constrained by what's in your head.

[Chris Calohan]

I am rarely offended though I occasionally do get miffed - sniff, sniff. I think what you've said as to ambiguity does take this shot out of the context of HCB Street by whatever or whoever coined the definition. I shall endeavor to grow closer to a more indefinite approach and less toward street journalism.

Thank you and everyone for your comments, suggestions and for helping me to define this odd genre called, "street."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

New category: Sand photography (or Beach photography, if you prefer.)

In its category, it's perfectly acceptable.

[N80]

And George, a relationship between portrait photographer and subject isn't part of the photograph.

I couldn't disagree more. Just because the photographer is unseen does not diminish evidence of the relationship. Besides, there is no rule that street photography contain more than one person right?

Once the image is complete the creator of the image is out of the picture (to coin a phrase), and the results is the result is the result.

Okay, I was wrong. I can disagree more and do so here. To me one of the defining aspects of what good art is, is the perfectly presented intent of the artist whether it be obvious, obscure or even cryptic. This is not to say that people will see every image the same way, but the high mark of art is beauty and intent in perfect harmony. And where intent is perceived the artist remains present.

And yes, I almost always intend to be provocative. It's what leads to discussion, which, in turn, leads to enlightenment.

And it is a pleasure.

I agree that my definition of street was too broad. Unfortunately, as I said, words can't quite wrap around what we're trying to discuss.

I disagree here too. I think words can do the job. Not saying words are limitless...nothing is...but the right person can usually get the job done. But those are special people just like all good artists.

In street photography I always come back to ambiguity.

You will probably not be surprised that I probably value ambiguity a good bit less than you seem to. I don't dislike it, but it has to be used precisely and in very small doses in my opinion. I think your use of the word 'hint' is what I'm getting at.

No, other forms don't need to be abandoned for brush and canvas, but other forms almost always fall short if they're in competition with someone who really knows what he's doing with brush and canvas. Problem is, with a camera you're constrained by the subject.

And why would street photography be immune from this constraint?

When you're painting you're only constrained by what's in your head.

True. But that can lead to Pollack and other pointless drivel. And it is quite possible to present abstraction in photography which though still limited by subject matter is not significantly more limited than the physical constraints imposed by the medium like canvas and paint.

Wonderful talking with you about this. I am enlightened. Don't misinterpret lack of replies with disinterest but I'm off to my cabin in the woods with no internet and then off to the race track with no time for internet....though I may have time for a few motorsports shots when I'm not in the car.............maybe some paddock shots will approach the context of street photography.

[RSL]

Well, we obviously disagree on many points, George, and on several of them we'll just have to disagree. But I'll have to respond to some of this.

I just checked my web logs for today and I can see you didn't click on the web link I gave you. So with reference to the relationship between an artist and his art let me quote myself from the preface to my poetry collection:

"During a debate in the mid nineties I remember being informed that Piss Christ, a taxpayer-subsidized photograph of a crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine fobbed off on the public as a 'work of art,' would become understandable, even agreeable if only I could take into account the emotional state and intent of the 'artist' at the time he produced the 'work.' To which I replied that the effectiveness of a work of art has no more to do with the artist’s intent and state of mind than the effectiveness of a human has to do with the umbilical cord that sustained him before birth. The result is the result is the result. If it hasn’t a life of its own then it’s dead and ought to be buried. And I suspect Piss Christ had begun to smell even before it was born."

I'll say it again. The "intent of the artist" has absolutely nothing to do with what's in the art. Oh, the intent of the artist is what creates and shapes the work, but once the work is "born" the artist and his "intent" are out of the picture.

The reason street is immune from the rule I laid down about the difference between photography and painting is that though a painter can do wonderful work in the same vein as the street photographer (Degas's "La Absinthe" for example) the immediacy of the image as a reflection of reality is lost.

And as far as Pollack is concerned, if you've read the stuff I've written on here you'll know I agree with  you one-hundred percent. What comes out of a painter's (or in this case, a dripper's) head depends on the head, and it's quite possible to have rattles on canvas from a rattling head. Unfortunately, wealthy buyers seem not to understand the difference.

I agree, George. This kind of discussion is a pleasure -- unlike some of the political "discussions" on LuLa. I, too, become enlightened from this kind of thing.

[N80]

"During a debate in the mid nineties I remember being informed that Piss Christ, a taxpayer-subsidized photograph of a crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine fobbed off on the public as a 'work of art,' would become understandable, even agreeable if only I could take into account the emotional state and intent of the 'artist' at the time he produced the 'work.'

I agree that this is a weak justification for that piece of art, which I well remember. But that is because it was a poorly executed work of 'art', not because artistic intent is irrelevant.

To which I replied that the effectiveness of a work of art has no more to do with the artist’s intent and state of mind than the effectiveness of a human has to do with the umbilical cord that sustained him before birth. The result is the result is the result.

I understand your point but that's not really an apt analogy. It is too complex. A child can be conceived and born with no intent at all. A child can be conceived, born, raised, shaped, nurtured and developed with varying levels and effectiveness of intent.

If it hasn’t a life of its own then it’s dead and ought to be buried.

Completely agree. But there is no rule that says artistic intent renders a work of art any less alive or that the intent dies at conception. In my opinion, if intent is rendered irrelevant that is just one among many characteristics of a lesser work.  And I think that is the heart of our disagreement.

I'll say it again. The "intent of the artist" has absolutely nothing to do with what's in the art. Oh, the intent of the artist is what creates and shapes the work, but once the work is "born" the artist and his "intent" are out of the picture.

And I will say again that this is a sign of a lesser work. And it is clear that we will not change one another's mind on this approach to art. And I will admit that my view is informed more by literature and music than visual art, but I would never hold visual arts to a lesser standard than music and literature.

But here is something to think about. Your view is constrained compared to mine. You have removed the significance of intent. In my view you have both. There is no constraint. The artist has something to say, he says it well (which usually means with subtlety and nuance and in a way that is immune to time and relativism) AND the work is broadened by what the viewer brings to it. In my view, the work is not diminished by sophistry but it is elevated by the informed viewer. Its intent is never lost. The great paintings bear this out. Can you look at a Goya and NOT see what he was trying to tell you? You certainly can't read Faulkner or Flannery O'Conner and miss their intent. If you have, you might as well be reading the back of a cereal box and assigning it whatever meaning you wish.


The reason street is immune from the rule I laid down about the difference between photography and painting is that though a painter can do wonderful work in the same vein as the street photographer (Degas's "La Absinthe" for example) the immediacy of the image as a reflection of reality is lost.

And as far as Pollack is concerned, if you've read the stuff I've written on here you'll know I agree with  you one-hundred percent. What comes out of a painter's (or in this case, a dripper's) head depends on the head, and it's quite possible to have rattles on canvas from a rattling head. Unfortunately, wealthy buyers seem not to understand the difference.

I agree, George. This kind of discussion is a pleasure -- unlike some of the political "discussions" on LuLa. I, too, become enlightened from this kind of thing.
[/quote]

[Otto Phocus]

New category: Sand photography (or Beach photography, if you prefer.)

In its category, it's perfectly acceptable.

Sand photography?   A little too gritty for me.   

[RSL]

But here is something to think about. Your view is constrained compared to mine. You have removed the significance of intent. In my view you have both. There is no constraint. The artist has something to say, he says it well (which usually means with subtlety and nuance and in a way that is immune to time and relativism) AND the work is broadened by what the viewer brings to it. In my view, the work is not diminished by sophistry but it is elevated by the informed viewer. Its intent is never lost. The great paintings bear this out. Can you look at a Goya and NOT see what he was trying to tell you? You certainly can't read Faulkner or Flannery O'Conner and miss their intent. If you have, you might as well be reading the back of a cereal box and assigning it whatever meaning you wish.

First, I'd say that there's very little immune to time and relativism. Twenty some years ago I wrote an essay for a discussion group that deals with that point among others: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/acrisisofsoul.html.

As far as intent is concerned, suppose the artist intends to sculpt a horse but the result looks like a cow. At that point his intent is meaningless. On the other hand the cow may be a very good cow, and if the artist is smart, he'll tell the world he intended to sculpt a cow. What I'm saying, again, is: the result is the result is the result, and once the result is there the artist's intent is out of the picture.

I'd go further with what the viewer brings to the work. Once the artist has spoken he's either made his case or he hasn't, and whether or not he has depends almost entirely on the viewer. The effectiveness of any work of art will vary from viewer to viewer, or in the case of music listener to listener. It all depends on your background. And yes, I think you can read Faulkner or look at a Goya and miss the point. The situation's probably clearer in music. Somebody who's background is rock probably is going to miss the point of Wagner or Chopin or Rachmaninoff. The reader who buys magazines at the grocery story checkout probably is going to put down Faulkner after the first paragraph and move on to cereal boxes.

[N80]

First, I'd say that there's very little immune to time and relativism.

Again, I disagree. I'm not claiming that there is no effect, but neither time nor relativism can alter truly good art. That is yet another measure of what is good. Is it timeless? There is much good art that remains so.

As far as intent is concerned, suppose the artist intends to sculpt a horse but the result looks like a cow.

Then he is a poor artist and has produced poor art. You can claim that someone might find 'goodness' in what they see as a cow. That's valid. But I could write you a perfectly rational argument on the merits of the cross in the jar of urine too. And you'd be forced, by your logic to accept that as equally valid.

At that point his intent is meaningless.

No, the meaning is that he did not have the talent, skill or vision to artfully express his intent.

On the other hand the cow may be a very good cow, and if the artist is smart, he'll tell the world he intended to sculpt a cow.

This is problematic in several ways. First, if intent is meaningless the artist has no reason to tell what his intent was. Second, it is dishonest. And in reality, even in this fanciful example, no matter how cow-like the work is, that dishonesty will be apparent. And this is another marker of inferior art.

What I'm saying, again, is: the result is the result is the result, and once the result is there the artist's intent is out of the picture.

You keep saying that but you have not shown why it is true. There are ton's of examples of how it is not true. Particularly in literature but as much so in photography as well. You can choose to ignore intent, but that does not mean it isn't there or that it does not matter. And it is similar to the examples you cite below in regard to someone missing the point of Faulkner or Goya. That viewer or reader has made a mistake.

Once the artist has spoken he's either made his case or he hasn't

No, no , no. You cannot have it both ways. You say intent is meaningless. Any attempt at making a 'point' is artistic intent. By your view the artist cannot make his case since his intent is, by your reckoning, irrelevant.

and whether or not he has [made his case] depends almost entirely on the viewer. The effectiveness of any work of art will vary from viewer to viewer

Yes. Art without the viewer, listener, reader is in a vacuum and is not art. But this does not absolve the viewer from making incorrect or unsupportable assessments of the art. There is a burden on the artist AND the viewer to get things right. If I read Faulkner and find that his theme is the pattern of global plate tectonics then I have got it wrong. That is largely my point.

It all depends on your background.

Yes. But that approach all devolves into mere opinion. And we all know the value of mere opinion.

And yes, I think you can read Faulkner or look at a Goya and miss the point.

Thank you. Again, that is what I'm trying to say. Without intent there is no point.

Somebody who's background is rock probably is going to miss the point of Wagner or Chopin or Rachmaninoff. The reader who buys magazines at the grocery story checkout probably is going to put down Faulkner after the first paragraph and move on to cereal boxes.

Correct. They are getting it wrong. If intent does not matter you cannot say this. If every opinion from every varied background carries the same weigh and legitimacy then all of them are valid. Thus, my expose extolling the glories of a jar of pee with a cross in it or social commentary of Pollack's inebriated half psychotic dribbles is just as valid as the cereal box reader dismissing Faulkner as "too hard to read".

(I'm sure we're boring the OP and others to death. Maybe there is a better place for this discussion?)

[RSL]

Again, I disagree. I'm not claiming that there is no effect, but neither time nor relativism can alter truly good art. That is yet another measure of what is good. Is it timeless? There is much good art that remains so.

I can see you didn't check the reference I gave you. That reference dealt with poetry and changes in language, but the same thing's true of visual art. The significance of the symbolism in visual art from many generations ago is forgotten, and without that, much if not all of the meaning is lost. In the reference we saw that the significance of the word, "tree" in the thirteenth century has been completely forgotten, and the result is a loss of meaning. To a lesser extent the same thing's true of human experience. Elliott's cab-horses and gas lamps in his preludes at least can be understood by people nowadays, but the experience simply isn't there and much of the meaning is lost.

[Rob C]

I can see you didn't check the reference I gave you. That reference dealt with poetry and changes in language, but the same thing's true of visual art. The significance of the symbolism in visual art from many generations ago is forgotten, and without that, much if not all of the meaning is lost. In the reference we saw that the significance of the word, "tree" in the thirteenth century has been completely forgotten, and the result is a loss of meaning. To a lesser extent the same thing's true of human experience. Elliott's cab-horses and gas lamps in his preludes at least can be understood by people nowadays, but the experience simply isn't there and much of the meaning is lost.

I remember - I think! - men going up ladders and turning on gas street lights; it seems to be at the end of WW2. I also remember 60s smog and getting home in the car by following tramlines; when you knew their route they were perfect guides when five feet marked the limits of your vision.

Rob

[drmike]

I remember a pea souper fog in Windsor 20 miles from London where I bumped into someone who I simply couldn't see it was so thick. People forget what it was like and I just can't communicate how bad it could be to my grown up kids. To be fair it would have been one of the last I expect.

[Chris Calohan]

I guess then, given all the rhetoric pro and con, it still comes down to a judgement call. Is it art or is it "something" else? Art has challenged the social mores of every generation since the first depiction of Adam and Eve as I would be quite surprised to think they donned fig leaves in an attempt to be modest..since they were born without sin, modesty would not be an issue to them, only to the viewers of that art. Artists over the years have fought censorship and as a result, art has evolved. Social mores today, at least in the US lean more toward protecting the rights of children from undue exposition or exploitation and I have no issue with that concern. However, I think there comes a post prepubescent age when avoiding exposition becomes the responsibility of the person, not guaranteed by an implied right to privacy.

[N80]

I can see you didn't check the reference I gave you.

Correct.

The significance of the symbolism in visual art from many generations ago is forgotten, and without that, much if not all of the meaning is lost.

That assumes that no effort is made to apprehend the meaning. I do not believe art can be appreciated beyond pop culture without effort. And it is rather absurd to suggest that 'much' meaning is lost in great art like the statue of David or the Pieta. Has some meaning been lost? Maybe. Much of it? Obviously not. He who has eyes, let him see.

Elliott's cab-horses and gas lamps in his preludes at least can be understood by people nowadays, but the experience simply isn't there and much of the meaning is lost.

This assumes that we can't understand things we have not experienced. If that is true art is useless.

But Elliott is an interesting example for you to use. Elliott's work may be the best example in poetry of authorial intent. His poetry is impossibly cryptic but he expects you to decipher it and know what he wanted you to know. Now, I don't particularly like Elliott's poetry. But I do like his literary criticism. In that regard he is akin to the New Critics (Cleanth Brooks, Robert Penn Warren) and the Agrarian Poets. Intent and the author's ability to express it is everything. So if Ezra Pound and Elliott carry any weight in the world of poetry (and they do of course), it will be difficult to use them as examples against the importance of intent and meaning. They are the poster children for artistic intent and its precise and skillful use that transcends time.

[RSL]

Hi George,

Since you didn't want to go to the source, here's the poem I used as reference for the loss of meaning since the thirteenth century:

Nou goth sonne under wode—
Me reweth, Marie, thi faire rode.
Nou goth sonne under tre—
Me reweth, Marie, thi sone and the

I'll admit that if you do some research and get a reasonable translation of that poem into more contemporary English you can "understand" the poem. But that's not the same thing as reading it and feeling the result it had in the thirteenth century.

As far as cab horses and gas lamps are concerned, there's a huge difference between "understanding" things we haven't experienced in our lives and responding to a work of art which, for its full effect, requires things embedded in our life experience. Understanding and experience are two very different things.

Let me use a simple and perhaps inadequate example: When I was in high school and wanted to make a phone call I'd pick up the phone, the operator would say "Number please," and I'd recite the number. If the line was open it would ring. If not, the operator would say, "The lion is busy," and I'd have to hang up and try later. Now, you can read about that in a novel and understand it, but unless you lived it you don't really get the full effect. The same thing's true of gas lamps and cab horses, but to an infinitely greater degree.

Yes, Eliot is cryptic, but I don't think for a minute that he wants you to "know" something. Like any real poet he wants you to feel something. He wants to give you an experience. What do you know from "Prufrock?" I can recite that poem from memory, and as I do that I don't learn anything, but I always experience something. Here's a line from the reference you passed up: " People often want poetry to 'mean' something that they can carry away with them as knowledge. But, as MacLeish says, what we know we know only in the poem." And yes, Eliot's criticism is excellent, but as far as I'm concerned his poetry is even better.

For this kind of discussion I tend to steer away from visual art because -- at least to me -- visual art hasn't the same power to give me what I'll call a transcendental experience that music or poetry has. As far as the Pieta is concerned, I don't know how much power it's lost. I'm very sure that to an atheist the Pieta is just a chunk of marble with some nice figures carved in it, and I'm quite sure that to a gay man the David means something different from what it means to me. I should confess that I've never been much taken by sculpture. I think most sculpture criticism has to do with technique rather than subject.

But this is becoming too long, so I'll stop here.