Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14   Go Down

Author Topic: from the front page: adam krawesky  (Read 4324 times)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #180 on: January 09, 2019, 09:52:13 am »

Sounds a lot like a discussion in philosophy 101.

And it was in a smoky pub.
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1976
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #181 on: January 09, 2019, 09:54:57 am »

Painting without an idea... Is a wrist in search for an idea. Can be a daunting journey for the artist. Many never get there.

Peter

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2871
    • Pictures
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #182 on: January 09, 2019, 10:12:39 am »

Painting without an idea... Is a wrist in search for an idea. Can be a daunting journey for the artist. Many never get there.

Peter

Of course, because for a lot of people, no matter how deep they search, emptiness is all they find. If they do manage to hear the faint sound of an echo in the wishingwell, it probably isn't the echo of their own voice.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2871
    • Pictures
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #183 on: January 09, 2019, 10:14:34 am »


The summum in cerebral art is the description of a piece of art in text without making it.

......

Is there a forum for that somewhere? I'd be famous in no time...
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13642
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #184 on: January 09, 2019, 10:14:42 am »

Of course, because for a lot of people, no matter how deep they search, emptiness is all they find. If they do manage to hear the faint sound of an echo in the wishingwell, it probably isn't the echo of their own voice.

Oh, Lord  ;D

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 780
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #185 on: January 09, 2019, 10:22:00 am »


The justification for that equality could come from several places, I dare say, but at any rate you can remark that a photograph can produce results in the viewer just as well as a painting does.

I don't believe that all viewers are equivalent. Go to the Louvre and check the viewers of the Mona Lisa  :P :P

You give me a glass of very good wine and one of the best wine and I probably can't distinguish
You give me a glass of bad wine and I can
Give them to a connoisseur and he can always (or says he can :-)  )
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #186 on: January 09, 2019, 10:27:38 am »

I even don’t know what a gadfly is, I had to Google.

In your last sentence you say exactly what I said before . You can’t compare apples with lemons.

Why should I not be sincere? Do you think I would put time in this if I didn’t find it a usefull discussion?

Sorry Ivo, it can be difficult to tell sometimes.

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #187 on: January 09, 2019, 10:32:10 am »

People who claim photography isn't art, or is a lesser art, are generally (I find) doing a poor job of separating the conceptual side of art from the execution of art.

Executing a photograph is easy. Despite claims to the contrary, there isn't really a "making" step necessary to call into being a photograph. Yes, you can do all the work you like on it afterwards, or beforehand, but that's not the part that makes it a photograph.

Executing a painting or sculpture or a novel is considerably more demanding, you actually do "make" something, with a long and involved series of mechanical steps, each with your brain pretty well engaged, over a period of time.

But that doesn't mean the conceptual part isn't just as difficult and just as valuable. I have argued in the past that photography is essentially an act of "selection" and not of "creation" as such, but that selection should be treated as an equal to creation.

The justification for that equality could come from several places, I dare say, but at any rate you can remark that a photograph can produce results in the viewer just as well as a painting does.

You are mistaken, Andrew. First off, saying 'selection' is equal to 'creation' completely disregards the effort in creating. Yes, I understand your context is within photography, which leads to the second point. There are multiple choices, options and decisions that go into making the initial exposure. Lens choice, perspective, depth of field, shutter speed, quality of light, all of which are considered in a composition. Thirdly, pointing a lens at a subject, scene, action, depends wholly on how the photographer is interpreting or feeling what he/she sees. The infinite subject matter that has been included in photographs clearly illustrates that anything, and as such, nothing is 'selected' but the vision of the photographer. What is the difference between a green pepper and a Big Wheels? Nothing, only the vision of each photographer is different.

Pedantically, it could be argued that vision ‘selects’ but considering the ubiquity of stuff in even one photographer’s images, that is a specious idea. As near as I can tell, Lee Friendlander is guided by everything and nothing, just what's inside him.

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 560
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #188 on: January 09, 2019, 10:54:38 am »

First off, saying 'selection' is equal to 'creation' completely disregards the effort in creating.

Yes. This is deliberate, not an error. It is consistent with the last 100 years or so of contemporary thinking in Art, that effort required to make a thing plays no role in the artistic value of the thing. You are welcome to disagree with this, of course. But it is nonetheless a widely held opinion among people whose job it is to decide these things, and a great deal of widely respected art required little to no effort on the part of the artist.

There are multiple choices, options and decisions that go into making the initial exposure. Lens choice, perspective, depth of field, shutter speed, quality of light, all of which are considered in a composition. Thirdly, pointing a lens at a subject, scene, action, depends wholly on how the photographer is interpreting or feeling what he/she sees. The infinite subject matter that has been included in photographs clearly illustrates that anything, and as such, nothing is 'selected' but the vision of the photographer. What is the difference between a green pepper and a Big Wheels? Nothing, only the vision of each photographer is different.

Pedantically, it could be argued that vision ‘selects’ but considering the ubiquity of stuff in even one photographer’s images, that is a specious idea. As near as I can tell, Lee Friendlander is guided by everything and nothing, just what's inside him.

I don't understand your point here. Are you arguing that photography is an act of "creation" rather than "selection" or what? This is simply a litany of things everyone knows to be true about photography without, as far as I can tell, any statement of a thesis or logical progression.

I realize that you have made a little hobby out of disagreeing with me, and I do appreciate that you've put a little more effort into this one than your usual airy handwave of dismissal, but I confess that I am unable to make much out of it.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2983
    • Flicker photos
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #189 on: January 09, 2019, 11:26:45 am »

I've walked around great museums and seen great pieces of work.  After seeing a few of them as I walk, I walk faster and spend about as much time on most of them as I would on a photo - just a few seconds.  If the art moves me, I spend more time looking.  If not, I brush right past it.  Same as with photos.  Art tingles our aesthetic ganglia.  But one piece of anything wears thin.  Frankly, if you want to compare art types, you spend a heck of a lot more time listening to one song by one artist than looking at any piece of art or photo you've ever seen.  Of course music, dance, movie, books, etc are linear, like a video, not like a photo which is singular.  Unless you have to write a critique on a photo or painting, who spends more than a few seconds looking, regardless how great the art is?

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #190 on: January 09, 2019, 11:34:48 am »

Is there a forum for that somewhere? I'd be famous in no time...

There are museums full of it.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #191 on: January 09, 2019, 11:38:19 am »

Sorry Ivo, it can be difficult to tell sometimes.

That is because some deserve to have a Gadfly on the back.
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 560
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #192 on: January 09, 2019, 11:47:44 am »

Unless you have to write a critique on a photo or painting, who spends more than a few seconds looking, regardless how great the art is?

I do.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 11:52:02 am by amolitor »
Logged

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 780
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #193 on: January 09, 2019, 11:56:40 am »

  Unless you have to write a critique on a photo or painting, who spends more than a few seconds looking, regardless how great the art is?

Well I do that. If I go to the Prado, I go for one or two paintings.
I can not digest more in one session.
For looking for seconds I better buy a well printed book.
Maybe you're missing something. I don't believe that anyone can experience great art just by passing by.
Every stroke is there for some reason, IMHO
Logged

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 780
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #194 on: January 09, 2019, 12:02:43 pm »

That is because some deserve to have a Gadfly on the back.

Gadflies don't live long  ;D
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 939
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #195 on: January 09, 2019, 12:04:02 pm »

I do.

Yes. So do I. A great pleasure in life.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #196 on: January 09, 2019, 12:08:24 pm »

Yes. So do I. A great pleasure in life.

A museum without decent chair in the middle of the room is avoidable.

The longest time I spent looking at a painting was at an exhibit of Anselm Kiefer. I can sit for hours in front of some of his work.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 12:14:44 pm by Ivophoto »
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 723
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #197 on: January 09, 2019, 12:09:34 pm »

Unless you have to write a critique on a photo or painting, who spends more than a few seconds looking, regardless how great the art is?
Have you not noticed a person standing in front of a painting as you walk by?

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #198 on: January 09, 2019, 12:21:03 pm »

Yes. This is deliberate, not an error. It is consistent with the last 100 years or so of contemporary thinking in Art, that effort required to make a thing plays no role in the artistic value of the thing. You are welcome to disagree with this, of course. But it is nonetheless a widely held opinion among people whose job it is to decide these things, and a great deal of widely respected art required little to no effort on the part of the artist.

I don't understand your point here. Are you arguing that photography is an act of "creation" rather than "selection" or what? This is simply a litany of things everyone knows to be true about photography without, as far as I can tell, any statement of a thesis or logical progression.

I realize that you have made a little hobby out of disagreeing with me, and I do appreciate that you've put a little more effort into this one than your usual airy handwave of dismissal, but I confess that I am unable to make much out of it.

Yes, there is a difference between the craft, technique, or the manual effort in building art, and its artistic or aesthetic value. I've heard lovely music played by self taught fiddlers, and by Itzhak Perlman (who has said that missing practice for a few days diminishes his playing. Go figure.)

Yep, the initial exposure of a photograph is an act of creation, whether using a Hasselblad or a cell phone. Very much like painting, writing, sculpture, etc. Whether shallow or interesting.

'Selection' means nothing.

EDIT: Or 'select' means, 'select.'

 :P


« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 12:37:02 pm by OmerV »
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 560
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #199 on: January 09, 2019, 01:37:30 pm »

Yep, the initial exposure of a photograph is an act of creation, whether using a Hasselblad or a cell phone. Very much like painting, writing, sculpture, etc. Whether shallow or interesting.

As someone who has applied pigment to flat surfaces, placed words in quantity on to paper, and shaped materials into objects, I have to say that I find very little similarity between those activities and the gentle press of a button. But, perhaps you mean something more abstract, more general.

The fact remains that there is a widely held idea that photography is qualitatively different from the painting, sculpture, writing, dance, musical composition, and so on. I am not alone in holding this, and many many millions of words have been written on the subject which you are free to peruse. I understand it in a particular way which seems to a) be consistent with contemporary ideas surrounding Art and b) resonate with many people.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 14   Go Up