Taking your reference to the Ut photograph first: that's not a picture that is governed by any form of aesthetics or regulatory parameters; that's simply a picture of a terrified, suffering child. It's the perfect example of the fabled "f8 and be there". The photographer will surely admit to no input beyond being on the spot and having the presence of mind to do his job. It's not about creativity in any language or use of an aesthetic grammar by which to express. It's a pure recording of a moment within a chain of them, of shock and disgust, and as such, removed from artistry. It doesn't share space with "Piss Christ" which, on the other hand, is intentional, also shocking and because intentional, hateful.
Perhaps removed from artistry, but at least we can agree that it has "universal appeal" (where appeal doesn't necessarily refer to beauty).
Piss Christ may be less universal, since it requires one to be at least somewhat educated and broadminded about (other people's) religion to understand. But maybe that is the point: "appeal" may require one to engage the mind.
How do you figure the latter as shocking and hateful?
As far as the image is concerned
without prejudice, it has exactly that certain representation of "Christ = the light" that its religious proponents like to believe. Further taking into account the emersion, one can both relate to the idea of commercialised symbolism, as well as perhaps a more or less universal struggle that most religious people go through at some point in their lives.
Playboy photographer. I don't know if you mean Playboy as in literally or metaphorically speaking. Either way, I share his sentiment. As I've said here often, I bought Playboy for years. I used to feel perfectly happy to have it lying around the house for the kids to look at if they chose to do so; I can't remember them ever thinking about it. However, came the sad time that Playboy felt under pressure from Penthouse and the scumbag press, and they began to go vulgar just to retain market share. I stopped buying, both for the sake of my developėng childen and because it wasn't where I wanted to feel myself drifting either, especially as I was photographing women for a living. There is a chasm between beauty and charm and its opposite: vulgarity and pornography.
You write: "I'm like: what?" I have to write: I'm so sorry you don't understand there's a difference.
As to deafness: are you then suggesting we really do live in a world where anything goes, and are you advocating that we should?
Rob
Yes, i meant "Playboy the magazine" photographer.
No, I wouldn't suggest anything goes, in fact, especially where artistry is concerned we need to (be forced to) engage our mind, but shock doesn't help at all in that regard. It turns people away from the message, instead of enticing them in to a new way of thinking. It is the equivalent of Ad Hominem name-calling and cursing in language, instead of weaving a story that actually makes you wonder and think.
But then, the level of shock is different for all people, I will readily agree with that. Nudity being one obvious example (although in the Netherlands we're not quickly offended). The point though is this: you go to a museum exactly because it allows you to engage the mind. You can't just dismiss a piece of art on the basis of gut-feeling alone.
I know you're an advocate of gut-feeling, and I can understand how you can judge beauty, composition, and balance e.a. using gut-feeling alone, especially if it has become second-nature to a (former) professional photographer (or artist). But clearly, just as with language, we are also obligated to use our mind as we try to convey and articulate a message as sender, or perceive and understand a message as receiver.
Seeing an image and recognising its evocative aesthetic, is sometimes hard. Recognising (or even creating) an evocative aesthetic in real life and being able to capture it, is equally hard, apart from the skill factor. The skill factor just is the difference between "understanding a new language" and "producing a new language". Understanding people in a new language usually comes sooner than being able to converse with people in a new language, but we are certainly able to explicate what we want to convey in our native language. In fact, we are probably using our native language sooner for messaging, than for understanding. And yes, that is because our gut-feeling tells us about our own understanding, but that is, at least initially, only for very self-centered intuition.
Hence, being stuck in the "I shoot only to please myself" is just a self-centered initial stage to grow to a more engaging interactive maturity.
