Art and the plasticity of its forms

[GrahamBy]

Why is a woman who has enough money to gorge herself on food, begging in the street?

Because bad food is very cheap, and very profitable. For at least 40 years obesity in western nations has been inversely associated with wealth.

Creating a life in which one doesn't need psychological crutches such as tobacco or over-eating is far more complicated... and if you think i'm exaggerating the psychological complexity, just look at that line of emotionally crippled men watching Strumpf signing the universal gag order on abortion information. So many $billions, so little compassion, so much need to prop up their egos by imposing their moral choices on millions of women they'll never meet.

[GrahamBy]

PS if we want to get all literal about subtractive vs additive, I guess wood-blocks are off the art-list?

[Rob C]

Rob,

I'm not aware of any medical condition which causes a person to become obese despite there being a shortage of food. There are no doubt medical and genetic conditions which have the effect of distorting a person's appetite so that they constantly feel hungry and cannot stop eating, provided the food is available, but the key point is, the food has to be available in order for a person to become overweight.

An overweight woman begging on the street would not gain much sympathy if she appears to be overfed, which is why I suspect the young child was thrust into her arms.

Elephantiasis looks quite different to obesity. It's more of a distorted swelling that occurs in one or more parts of the body, rather than a uniform distribution of excess fat.

Of course, I don't know for certain what her circumstances are and whether or not she really is under the control of some gangster organization. I'm just making a reasonable guess in the light of what I've read about the homeless situation in Thailand.

I know what elephantiasis looks like, and that it`s usually seen of the legs; I did not suggest that the woman in question suffered from it, nor from leprosy. It, elephantiasis, looks far more like acute cellulitis than ordinary fat from gorging.

Rob

[Ray]

I know what elephantiasis looks like, and that it`s usually seen of the legs; I did not suggest that the woman in question suffered from it, nor from leprosy. It, elephantiasis, looks far more like acute cellulitis than ordinary fat from gorging.

Rob

So what was your point? 

[Rob C]

So what was your point? 

I wasn't making a point, Ray, I was asking a question about the validity of your understanding of the plight of the plump lady in the photograph. Everything else came from that position. Not her's of course, mine. (Though in reality, I realise that I sit as slumped in my uncomfortable typist chair as she appears to do on the ground.)

;-)

Rob

[Telecaster]

…that line of emotionally crippled men…

At the periphery of my life I've encountered more such folk than I've cared to. (In fact shortly I'll be having dinner with one of my points-of-contact with the bizarro world they live in.) It's always been a sad & depressing experience. These are not emotionally or psychologically healthy humans. More money doesn't assuage the fear in fear-driven people for long. Denigrating everyone they feel threatened by doesn't make weak people feel less weak for long. Thus the need to accumulate ever more $$ and behave ever more vindictively. Trying to stave off the inner black hole.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

I think it's the need for public recognition driven by the understanding that they get that by pandering to blocks of voters, whether religious groups, unions, the unemployed, the coloured, the white or even the red-neck.

In the end, I don't think they remember even to care what they are seen to be standing for or against, just as long as they get power.

Sad and dangerous, and not people I'd ever want to have to spend time around.

Yuck!

Rob C

[marton]

Have you ever made even a basic still life, especially a still life?


Have you ever worked with a model, stood in front of a blank Colorama roll with her and thought (especially if a really untalented model has been forced upon you): what the hell do we do here? No, of course you haven't; given the challenge, I doubt you'd even know there's a difference between inspired and passive models.

But in your world, that will be seen as an ad hominem, will it not? Too bad; think of caps and whether they fit. We all know that the blinkers already do.

(Why do I get the feeling you could actually be another poster who used to send in a constant flow of obscure quotations but, apart from once, nary a photograph?)

Best wishes,

Rob C

Seriously, you're missing nearly all my points entirely. I don't know why it's so difficult for everyone here. Perhaps I simply haven't explained my one very simple point clearly enough - not that I'm going to try any more. And, to the contrary, I've posted more than maybe six or so photos in the short time I've been a member here. I still consider myself to be a photographer, and quite honestly, if one doesn't give any thought to their practice and its underlying principals, then it's a case of an unexamined life. There is a connection between philosophy and photography which is an area I particularly enjoy exploring, and will continue to do so. Please enjoy your photography, and try not to get too rattled by a little stone in your shoe. 

[Rob C]

Seriously, you're missing nearly all my points entirely. I don't know why it's so difficult for everyone here. Perhaps I simply haven't explained my one very simple point clearly enough - not that I'm going to try any more. And, to the contrary, I've posted more than maybe six or so photos in the short time I've been a member here. I still consider myself to be a photographer, and quite honestly, if one doesn't give any thought to their practice and its underlying principals, then it's a case of an unexamined life. There is a connection between philosophy and photography which is an area I particularly enjoy exploring, and will continue to do so. Please enjoy your photography, and try not to get too rattled by a little stone in your shoe.

"1.   Seriously, you're missing nearly all my points entirely. I don't know why it's so difficult for everyone here. Perhaps I simply haven't explained my one very simple point clearly enough - not that I'm going to try any more. And, to the contrary, I've posted more than maybe six or so photos in the short time I've been a member here.

2.   I still consider myself to be a photographer, and quite honestly, if one doesn't give any thought to their practice and its underlying principals, then it's a case of an unexamined life. There is a connection between philosophy and photography which is an area I particularly enjoy exploring, and will continue to do so.

3.    Please enjoy your photography, and try not to get too rattled by a little stone in your shoe." ........................... marton.

....................................................


1.    On the contrary, your point has been very clearly made, time and time again; the problem you face is obvious enough to nearly all but yourself: few here accept its validity.

I apologise; your images have just not remained imbedded in my mind; mea culpa.

2.    If this observation is addressed to me, personally, and not intended as a broader statement, then I have to say that it's an amazing one. How you imagine anyone can spend an entire working lifetime in professional photography without having considered its implications, one's own motivations, aspirations and the value or otherwise, both economic and in the wider sense, of one's life and work, then your imagination is indeed somewhat strange.

The art of photography is not an occupation where definitive, valid values can be measured through academia (though opinions, of course, flow from there like rivers). Titles and pieces of delicately-worked certificates, however, are bound, obliged to come from the cosy world of artistic academia - it's why it exists and is funded. I am fully aware of your fascination with the PhD concept, but in the context of this thread I think such titles to be meaningless for the simple reason that, with photography, you are dealing with ideas and values that are, by their nature, pretty much undefinable, unquantifiable and certainly beyond the scope of worthwhile analysis with the exception of this: do they, the images, serve or not serve their purpose? Unless, of course, you plan a life in an art gallery or auction house, or even, perhaps, writing artists' statements for them. I'm sure that perpetuating the concept of theoretical expertise in some eductional, artistic establishment somewhere could also be fun. But be my guest, do continue to explore the vacuum you have chosen for yourself; you will at least be able to avoid having to come up with any firm conclusions of your own at the end of your journey!

3.   Thank you, I shall resolve to try to continue to enjoy my photography. As for stones in my shoe - well, lets just keep a sense of proportion here and think in terms of a grain of sand.

;-)

Rob C

[marton]

"1.   Seriously, you're missing nearly all my points entirely. I don't know why it's so difficult for everyone here. Perhaps I simply haven't explained my one very simple point clearly enough - not that I'm going to try any more. And, to the contrary, I've posted more than maybe six or so photos in the short time I've been a member here.

2.   I still consider myself to be a photographer, and quite honestly, if one doesn't give any thought to their practice and its underlying principals, then it's a case of an unexamined life. There is a connection between philosophy and photography which is an area I particularly enjoy exploring, and will continue to do so.

3.    Please enjoy your photography, and try not to get too rattled by a little stone in your shoe." ........................... marton.

....................................................


1.    On the contrary, your point has been very clearly made, time and time again; the problem you face is obvious enough to nearly all but yourself: few here accept its validity.

I apologise; your images have just not remained imbedded in my mind; mea culpa.

2.    If this observation is addressed to me, personally, and not intended as a broader statement, then I have to say that it's an amazing one. How you imagine anyone can spend an entire working lifetime in professional photography without having considered its implications, one's own motivations, aspirations and the value or otherwise, both economic and in the wider sense, of one's life and work, then your imagination is indeed somewhat strange.

The art of photography is not an occupation where definitive, valid values can be measured through academia (though opinions, of course, flow from there like rivers). Titles and pieces of delicately-worked certificates, however, are bound, obliged to come from the cosy world of artistic academia - it's why it exists and is funded. I am fully aware of your fascination with the PhD concept, but in the context of this thread I think such titles to be meaningless for the simple reason that, with photography, you are dealing with ideas and values that are, by their nature, pretty much undefinable, unquantifiable and certainly beyond the scope of worthwhile analysis with the exception of this: do they, the images, serve or not serve their purpose? Unless, of course, you plan a life in an art gallery or auction house, or even, perhaps, writing artists' statements for them. I'm sure that perpetuating the concept of theoretical expertise in some eductional, artistic establishment somewhere could also be fun. But be my guest, do continue to explore the vacuum you have chosen for yourself; you will at least be able to avoid having to come up with any firm conclusions of your own at the end of your journey!

3.   Thank you, I shall resolve to try to continue to enjoy my photography. As for stones in my shoe - well, lets just keep a sense of proportion here and think in terms of a grain of sand.

;-)

Rob C

Whether or not people accept the validity or not is of no importance, because it is an undeniable fact. Photographer creates nothing. Everything a photographer does is entirely contingent upon pre-existing conditions. What he/she does with it after the fact is not at all what I've been talking about. But whatever. 

Re the bolded - Excellent, let us celebrate with the adding of chocolate to milk.   

[GrahamBy]

Photographer creates nothing. Everything a photographer does is entirely contingent upon pre-existing conditions.

Marton, you really are a silly boy. If a painter works from a live model, is s/he not also creating something contingent upon the model? Oh but it's different of course, he's using paint! On canvas! And choosing the colours and... that has no relation to arranging a model, determining the lighting, the framing, the colour balance...

[marton]

Marton, you really are a silly boy. If a painter works from a live model, is s/he not also creating something contingent upon the model? Oh but it's different of course, he's using paint! On canvas! And choosing the colours and... that has no relation to arranging a model, determining the lighting, the framing, the colour balance...

I've been respectful throughout this 'discussion', and haven't resorted to name calling or used derogatory terms because doing so invalidates any point you may have. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I dismissed you by calling you a silly old man, and if I did, you'd probably, depending on how senile or not you are, see how it invalidates the point. In this case, a half baked one and not very well thought out.   

[Rob C]

Whether or not people accept the validity or not is of no importance, because it is an undeniable fact. Photographer creates nothing. Everything a photographer does is entirely contingent upon pre-existing conditions. What he/she does with it after the fact is not at all what I've been talking about. But whatever. 

Re the bolded - Excellent, let us celebrate with the adding of chocolate to milk.

Clearly, this appears to be a conviction that only you seem to hold - apart from those rare people whose learned and other-worldly opinions you hold so sacrosanct, of course. I wonder how photographically productive any of them might be.

But hey, we've tried to enlighten you to no avail; do keep true to your blinkered views, secure in the understanding that nobody else really cares tuppence: the only person who is likely to be short-changed by your beliefs is you. What a shame, what a waste of so much potential.

Rob C

[Telecaster]

My prior example of making a tableau—from scratch, using a camera's viewfinder or screen as a frame—and then photographing (rather than drawing, painting, sculpting, etc.) it puts the lie to this silliness. Or perhaps you think only the tableau itself is a creative work. Or maybe you think the whole enterprise is vacuous. If so that's okay…just don't be annoyed if/when other folks fail to take you seriously.

-Dave-

[JNB_Rare]

I apologize because I do not have the source for this quote. The person who forwarded it to me doesn't know. He saved it on his hard drive some years ago when it made the rounds at his camera club, in Atlanta, Georgia. It sounds a bit like the Desiderata of photography, but there you go.

I am a photographer. I make photographs. I do not take them, shoot them, capture them or snap them.

I do what I do to see the world differently and to show others what I see and feel. And yes, it really did look like that when seen through my eyes, mind and heart.

The tools of my craft are a camera and lens but the tools of my art are my passion and vision, film or digital. It’s not how we make our photographs that matters, but that we make them.

The gear I have is good enough. My camera doesn’t need to be made recently for me to photograph the present moment. The brand of my camera is irrelevant to the pursuit of beauty and authenticity in my work.

Megapixels are no way to measure a photograph. I want deeper photographs, honest photographs that are alive, not merely really big or really sharp.

I hope the legacy I create with my work will be judged not by how many photographs I made in this lifetime, but what those few magic frames do in the hearts and minds of others.

Comparing myself to others, or them to me, is a waste of my creative efforts and makes it harder to see the light, chase the wonder, and do my work. There is too much to see and create to waste these too-few moments. Art is not a competition, but a gift.

I believe photographs can change the world because they have done so for me. I believe photography opens my eyes to a deeper life, one that recognizes moments and lives them deeper for being present in them.

To be an amateur means to be a lover; professional or not, I want to do this for the rest of my life as an amateur.

[marton]

My prior example of making a tableau—from scratch, using a camera's viewfinder or screen as a frame—and then photographing (rather than drawing, painting, sculpting, etc.) it puts the lie to this silliness. Or perhaps you think only the tableau itself is a creative work. Or maybe you think the whole enterprise is vacuous. If so that's okay…just don't be annoyed if/when other folks fail to take you seriously.

-Dave-

Yes yes, boohoo poor me. Please. Take me seriously? As if I gave a shit. I'm just surprised by how opaque my point seems to be and the lack of philosophical engagement. But - Never mind. I have no intention of engaging in it further, as it's pointless from here to do so. All I'm going to get in response is a bunch of old photographers defending their life's activity.   

And - Maybe you're right, maybe I do think the whole enterprise is vacuous, I'll have to think about it. 

[32BT]

I was an art student back in the 70’s (yes, I know Marton, another old man..) I was taught that the definition of art is that art it is the product of an artist.

That is it.

Art is not defined by aesthetics or degrees of difficultly, retail value or rarity.

Right...

and a photo is the product of a photographer. Then someone mounts the photo on a wall because they like it, and it subsequently will be known as utilitarian art.

The questions then are these:
1) when is a photographer considered an artist?
2) when does a photo exceed the qualification of utilitarian art?

"art is the product of an artist" is a good way to stop thinking about art, and more generally, to stop thinking at all. 

[GrahamBy]

"art is the product of an artist" is a good way to stop thinking about art, and more generally, to stop thinking at all.

When after 100 years of effort, there is no coherent response, it's time to ask if the question has an answer. One might then decide to go and think about something more useful.

Or maybe our vanity prevents us from seeing the real answer:
"Art" is a label attached arbitrarily to essentially value-free goods to enable them to be exchanged against money.

[GrahamBy]

Lets say, I have a wedding album containing 50 photographs. I like one so I take it out of the album, mount it and put it on the wall. By your definition it is now a work of art. Correct?

ergo the remaining 49 pics in the album are not art. 

Please explain "ergo". I can't see how declaring one element of a set as art implies that the other elements are not art.

Then, please obtain a dictionary and look up "loose" and "lose".

[32BT]

Oscar, I have been thinking about your example/definition. Is this a good example of what you are saying?

(Leaving aside that I think utilitarian art means something that has a practical use like, say, a vase a lamp or a chair.)

I intended the use of "utilitarian" as "decorative". It served as an example that for "decorative" art it probably is a personal and individual assessment, but that what is usually considered true art, has a larger significance (beyond the individual). 

So, even when stating the obvious that "art is a product of the artist", however succinct it may seem, it will still leave us with the hard questions as mentioned above. Especially so, when you add that art is not about aesthetics or degrees of difficulty.