Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: "disgust with the camera"  (Read 10142 times)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
"disgust with the camera"
« on: June 26, 2014, 03:48:32 pm »

Quote
"Can these paintings properly be designated works of art? Does art imply beauty in some manner? Is it not necessary that there be beauty either of form or of thought expressed in masterly fashion? … The only element of beauty that could possibly be involved must be supplied by the spectator's own mental images, as conjured by the title of the -- the work, and not, by means, in the production itself. … The efforts of the 'sensationalists' may be interesting and ingenious, but are these artists not mistaken as to the real significance of their works?"

"Sensationalism in Art" New-York tribune., March 11, 1913

Quote
"American art … is getting too pallid, nerveless, coldly correct, photographic. … Better the most remote and mysterious symbolism than a cameralike fidelity to appearances."

"Cubist art a protest against narrow conservatism." Harriet Monroe. Chicago Daily Tribune, April 6, 1913.

Quote
"…the Readymade can be seen as a sort of irony, or an attempt at showing the futility of trying to define art … I didn't even make it myself; as we know, art means to make, to hand make, to make by hand. It's a hand made product of man, and there instead of making, I take it ready made, even though it was made in a factory. But it is not made by hand, so it's a form of denying the possibility of defining art."
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 05:16:07 am »

IMHO many people, even among art critics of the last century, equates beauty and value (which is as childish as thinking that beauty is good and ugly is bad).

Is often said the "Good photos are like good jokes. If you have to explain it, it just isn’t that good.", but think it would be extremly difficult to understand "a good joke" if it's based on a cultural background very different from yours.

This means, imho, that art is much more a product of interaction between the work of art and the viewer, rather than something intrinsic in the work of art itself.

In 1915 painted his "Black Square", which is, well... a black square painted on a canvas.
And it remains a black square on a canvas until you read that that painting was hanged in a upper corner of the room, a place traditionally reserved (in russian homes) to Jesus's icon.
With this information the painting acquires (in the viewer mind) a much greater meaming.

In conclusion, art is like a dialogue: if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 04:16:26 pm »

…if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.

What if the only person who understands what is said is the artist?

Quote
Art, and being called an artist, are social terms.You don't create art by deciding that's what you are going to do today, and you don't become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one. In my eyes, nothing I do is art. For me, it's expression. It becomes art when other people call it so. In the moment that "art" happens for the viewer of my work, I am an artist.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 07:28:04 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2014, 07:55:48 am »

What if the only person who understands what is said is the artist?

That's an interesting question.
I think that, in that case, art would exists only in the artist's mind.

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

DF1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2014, 03:56:25 pm »

Conceptual art, like jokes, only finds currency as commentary on the cultural and intellectual milieu that spawned it. A painting of a black square that was hung in a particular corner of a room may have had a metaphorical poignancy in 1915, when it was painted, but today the best it can hope for is to be regarded as a historical curiosity, because the "concept" on which it depends no longer carries much weight.

On the other hand, we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling or Matisse's haystacks or Brancusi's sculptures, because the genius of such art lies in the execution of the work itself, which requires no explanation in order to move us.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 04:09:34 pm by DF1 »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2014, 06:39:17 pm »

...
On the other hand, we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling or Matisse's haystacks or Brancusi's sculptures, because the genius of such art lies in the execution of the work itself, which requires no explanation in order to move us.

While I agree that "we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art", imho I think that we probably have problem to fully appreciate vintage works of art exactly because we lack the cultural backgroud those works of art where created in and based on and, therefore, we cannot understand the meaning of the symbols in the painting/sculpure/art/etc.etc.





Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12744
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2014, 07:42:42 pm »

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2014, 09:31:47 pm »

I think that, in that case, art would exists only in the artist's mind.

No audience is required for self-expression; but I think it does make sense to accept that -- "Art, and being called an artist, are social terms" and "It becomes art when other people call it so."
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2014, 09:34:00 pm »

…we probably have problem to fully appreciate vintage works of art…

We don't appreciate them in the same way: our appreciation is anachronistic.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2773
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2014, 02:53:01 pm »

Quote
Art, and being called an artist, are social terms.You don't create art by deciding that's what you are going to do today, and you don't become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one. In my eyes, nothing I do is art. For me, it's expression. It becomes art when other people call it so. In the moment that "art" happens for the viewer of my work, I am an artist.

Vincent has it correct, except for one thing... it depends on who "the other people" are. If John and Jean Smith call it art, is it? Shouldn't it need to e called art by a collector t make it real art?
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2014, 07:19:54 pm »

If John and Jean Smith call it art, is it? Shouldn't it need to e called art by a collector t make it real art?

That speech savors mildly of disappointment :-)

Vincent has it better than "become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one", but that still doesn't make whatever is meant by art a one-size-fits-all kind-of-thing.
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2014, 08:47:45 pm »



Don't know. does not matter to me. If I like it, want to keep it, like to look at it once in awhile and maybe hang it up...it is art to me. Whether it is art of design, art of creativity or art of reporting.
Logged

mal mcilwraith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
    • malmac photography
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2014, 08:04:02 pm »

From where I sit and consider these sort of questions I am weighing up the difference between an example of "human expression " and the experience of the person/people who interact with the manifestation of this expression (dance, music, photography etc).

My preference is for the experienced response rather than the expert accredited "this is art" categorisation.

The question I am yet to feel completely clear about, is how to define that experience to my own satisfaction.

I am quite happy for others to see this question how they will - for after all that is how they experience life, ideas and the expression of their fellow beings.

And to add a bit of colour, after all it is a photo forum - yes a picture.

Mal

Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2014, 02:21:15 pm »

IMHO many people, even among art critics of the last century, equates beauty and value (which is as childish as thinking that beauty is good and ugly is bad).

Is often said the "Good photos are like good jokes. If you have to explain it, it just isn’t that good.", but think it would be extremly difficult to understand "a good joke" if it's based on a cultural background very different from yours.

This means, imho, that art is much more a product of interaction between the work of art and the viewer, rather than something intrinsic in the work of art itself.

In 1915 painted his "Black Square", which is, well... a black square painted on a canvas.
And it remains a black square on a canvas until you read that that painting was hanged in a upper corner of the room, a place traditionally reserved (in russian homes) to Jesus's icon.
With this information the painting acquires (in the viewer mind) a much greater meaming.

In conclusion, art is like a dialogue: if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.


Sometimes you need some backstory, esp for doc work.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2014, 07:51:18 am »

Sometimes you need some backstory, esp for doc work.

Well, I would go as far as to say that you always need a backstory to fully appreciate something.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7847
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2014, 04:10:27 am »

Don't know. does not matter to me.

Congratulations! That's the best quotation from one of Isaac's posts that I've yet seen.

Jeremy
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2014, 09:11:22 am »

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Jitterbug or foxtrot?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4086
    • Flicker photos
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2014, 11:32:22 pm »

Quote
Isaac

Quote

"Can these paintings properly be designated works of art? Does art imply beauty in some manner? Is it not necessary that there be beauty either of form or of thought expressed in masterly fashion? … The only element of beauty that could possibly be involved must be supplied by the spectator's own mental images, as conjured by the title of the -- the work, and not, by means, in the production itself. … The efforts of the 'sensationalists' may be interesting and ingenious, but are these artists not mistaken as to the real significance of their works?"

"Sensationalism in Art" New-York tribune., March 11, 1913


What was interesting about the Tribune's letters to the editor were they seemed to be written by people who knew how to write sentences back then that were learned, something we lost in modern times.  Second that the letter writers are all dead and their letters were captured in perpetuity just like a photograph captures an image that creates art if the viewers so deem it.

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2014, 08:25:13 am »

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Isaac: Please Google this question (above) then post the answers here, complete with links.
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1025
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: "disgust with the camera"
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2014, 09:16:49 am »

Isaac: Please Google this question (above) then post the answers here, complete with links.

Shame - because it seems to be an interesting conversation so far - let's keep it that way.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up