Does anything take on meaning if you look at it long enough?

Does the Mona Lisa inherently have more "meaning" because it is art or does the rock in my garden have the same amount of meaning but one has to look harder to see it?

If an adult had never been exposed to the Mona Lisa and was sat down before 1) the Mona Lisa and 2) My Rock both hanging in a gallery, would the viewer then - having no preconceived notions that the 'Lisa is a famous artwork or that the rock is not - have similar reactions to both?

My coattailing question: is art <i>trained?</i>

and... (philosophical)

Why don't we as people spend more time looking for meaning in things where we normally wouldn't look?

whew

Rick

Hi Walter,

The few responces to the "Does a photo need to say something?" thread left me confused and perplexed.

Based on the responces either most art I like isn't, or I'm just not seeing any special inherent meaning except I like it. Obviousely, saracasticly speaking, Klee and Polack can't be artists. Munch must be because a lot of his painting are dark? Picasso, who btw, was a sevant draftsman, said he chose his style because it sells. So he's not an artist. The renesance painters only have meaning to those who are deeply religious. So it's only art to those people.

On the other hand, I suppose all art has meaning to someone. I see a painting I like. Therefore, it has meaning to me; I like it! I may just like it on face value. Thus, the meaning of it isn't any sort of deep emotion. I just enjoy looking at it. Just like I never seem to get board of sitting on a rock in the foothills watching the sunset. In this sense anything can be art and have meaning. Albeit, just you enjoy looking at it.

For some reason a lot of photographers seem to think that images must be dark or wierd or something off the wall before its art and has meaning. Which I don't get. Just like I don't get the phenomena of voyeurism in photography. Put two identical photos up, one of plain jane and the other of Pamela Anderson. The person who took the pamela shot is the better photographer.

I'm not sure I'm answering your questions. However, I do believe people have preconcieved notions of what art is.

Dear Rick,

You really come up with some really tricky ones don't you :p ? In my humble opinion, it seems that art is in the eye of the beholder, and if a majority agrees that something is art, then it is. Not that I agree with this. Or the definition that if it gets into a museum, it is art. This doesn't mesh with my feeling at all. So that leaves us with a sticky wicket. How is art defined, and by whom?

I shall now rant about one of the worst excesses I see as semi-art, Thomas Kinkade. Yes, I think his paintings represent a hollow art. An art used to arouse feelings of warmth, and humanity, but tempered with an isipid blandness. This leads to one of the first things I like about "good" art. It is not insipid. It not only expresses warmth, but a whole range of emotions, love, hate, sorrow, majesty, dirtiness, etc. WIthout hate, there cannot be love, and without evil, there cannot be good. A simple coexistence, the sacred and the profane.

Nature is perhaps the best expression for art in the world. It holds both elements in it. Death and life, peace and violence, I could go on. You do not have one without the other. I still have not attemted to explain what art is, and I shall not attempt to do so. I can ramble on about what art isn't. Unmade beds are not art, pornogrophy is not art, etc. I just can't explain what art is. A window to the soul? An imperfect creativity derived from a perfect divine creativity?

Dzerzhinski

I shall now rant about one of the worst excesses I see as semi-art, Thomas Kinkade. Yes, I think his paintings represent a hollow art. An art used to arouse feelings of warmth, and humanity, but tempered with an isipid blandness.

Isn't it just ICKY?!

Ugh! But he's so prolific too. It's all over. Calendars, Christmas cards, cookie tins, you name it...

Megan

Hi Walter,
Based on the responces either most art I like isn't, or I'm just not seeing any special inherent meaning except I like it. Obviousely, saracasticly speaking, Klee and Polack can't be artists. Munch must be because a lot of his painting are dark?

Yes, I have to say that the idea that something is or isn't art only if one considers it such is a little confusing. I don't agree with that philosophy, and, at the same time, I don't agree that something IS art becuse the so-called Art Establishment says it's art. I think defining art is a little in between these two extremes and hard to put one's finger on!

I've never really liked Pollack's work at all, but I certainly have a healthy respect for it as it was really revolutionary in the art world. (I understood your point :) )So, while I don't like it, I do consider it art. (I'm making things more complicated, I know!) There are some cutting edge contemporary artists out there that sell their work for $$$$ and the art world insists they are brilliant, yet I don't agree, and I think it's crap, and I don't respect them as artists.

I personally don't think photographs have to have a deeper mening to be works of art. They can just be beautiful photos. But defining it beyond that - I'm at a loss! One can take a snapshot of peeling paint for insurance purposes, and that's all it is. Utilitarian. Then you can look at a Siskind photograph of peeling paint and stand there enraptured by its simplicity, beauty, and poetry. I can't spell the difference out beyond that, though. Does it make sense? Am I making sense?

:)

Megan

Lots of very insightful stuff here guys. The question "What is Art" will most likely be discussed/argued ad infinitum. That's what makes it so interesting.

I agree..... ICKY on the Kinkade stuff Megan. Just for curiosity I went to a site that has everything from calendars to music boxes with Kinkade images....37pages, 605 items full! Sheesh. Excess? Most definitely!

There is a question unspoken in all this that needs examination I believe, that is in some form about what is often called "Pop" art. That is, popular art. Is an artistic work valid if it is popular?

Think about the works (classic Pop) of Peter Max, LeRoy Neiman, Warhol of course, and yes Pollack. Pollack suddenly became popular and thus was widely heralded and perhaps destroyed as result. They all are popular and mostly commercial. And some of their works are indeed art.

I believe that art can be popular and valid. The body of work of an artist may not all be very good. In fact some of the best work of an artist may be unknown for years or forever.

Jackson Pollacks great works (what are there, about 20?) were produced in a brief period, require a lot of time to process, and defy comparison. The add something to the conversation.

Another artist who grows on you is Rodrigue and his Blue Dogs. This artist on the other hand has lots of works and they've evolved over a long period. They remain unmistakable.

A final thought or two more related to photography. Helmut Newton (though commercially very successful) added to the conversation. It doesn't matter whether in his case you like the work or not, he put elements in his photography we didn't have previously. Newton gave us voyeuristic lust, if you will. But it was elegant and spartan.

Leni Riefenstahl in her later years turned to still photography as an outlet. Regardless of your opinion of her politics and collaboration, she produced an impressive body of work both in Africa and Underwater. Her command of color in her later years is sometimes astounding.

I believe we shouldn't confuse a style with a statement, and we shouldn't confuse subjects with substance. Popularity in art may be like truth, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because I can sell something, doesn't speak in of itself to its artistic value, it merely speak to its commercial worth.

Happy Holidays - C

I'm a proponent of the "if it's art to you..." camp. It seems to me the only way to level the playing field if everyone's "art" is given a chance. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there better than what I saw of Kinkade. What if some of that better art never made outside the studio because it was "too" edgey and not immediately liked? How many great artists have we lost because of this?

Creativity is fragile. I think the slightest blow could render an artist comatose effectively, ending her or his career. Which is why I am gentle in the Critique. Who knows what this photographer is going to become? I do my best to encourage them so that I don't trample the tender flower that would later rip up the sidewalk :)

Okay, so I have to admit:
I had to go Google every name that was mentioned in this thread. I found Kinkade... not my cup of tea, but I would consider it "art." It certainly envokes a reaction :)

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked :D

If someone would like to link to an image by anyone discussed and start a discussion on WHY they like it or don't, I think that would be exemplary. I don't mean photography (for now) I mean any of the artist mentioned or otherwise. I want to know <i>why</i> it's icky, or repulsive, or wonderful. Then let's extrapolate that discussion to photography.

Just my thoughts,
Rick

Art... Meaning... and Liking.

I - personally - can like something without it having "meaning."

I can think something is art without it having "meaning."

I can think something has "meaning" without liking it.

I can think something is "art" without liking it.

I like landscapes plenty but they don't have "meaning" or rarely are they "art." Certain paintings certainly have meaning but I don't care for them at all. So it goes, the completely subjective experience of art... er... creations put on display for viewing :) Some like it, some think it's art, others see meaning. That's what makes the world go round! If we all agreed on stuff, how boring would it be! I think the disagreements <i>create</i> art because it encourages us to get out and do better :)

I think art is supposed to be subjective. I'd say let's leave it at that. If we're not going to define what art "is" for us in this forum, I think the only choice is to name it outwardly as "subjective" so everybody feels welcome, and there's no air of elitism or snobbery. If people post their art, and it sucks, then so be it. That's what we'll have to go through in order to get the really good stuff :)

I don't know if this board was meant to <i>post</i> art for critique association and feedback, or just to talk about art as a concept in discussions. Any of the moderators care to clear that up for me? I tend to think it's the latter.

Thanks,
Rick

I just thought of something:

For whom here is art cerebral? For whom here is art emotive?

I must say to me it is emotive. Which is to say, I respond to it with feeling, not with thoughts. I think that's one of the problems I have with art - I feel "unequiped" to discuss it properly. So I get intimidated. I don't know how to critique it or compare its style to other artists. Sometimes I can't even articulate <i>why</i> I like it, but I do!

But <i>feelings.</i> Ha! I'm good at that! I'll tell you exactly how it makes me feel!

That's just me. How about you all?

Rick

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked :D



Pollock, POLLock POLLOCK! Jackson Pollock.

I'm sorry I didn't proof my post!

- C

Kinkade isn't much different than many top photographers. I believe that many of the "top" photographers are best at selling themselves as opposed to making great work. Isn't Kinkade doing the same thing? BTW, if he produced less would we like him more? IOW, are we against him because of his commercialism? I wouldn't hang his work in my house, but it's not that bad. There's plenty worse!

I have no problems with pop art, or pop anything. There is some strange tendancy that if something is popular or commercial it can't be true art. That's such a crazy notion.

I'd rather look at a landscapes than most street photography. Landscapes are emotive and cerebral for me. I also tend to like preconcieved visions over luck of the draw. But that's me.

Newton? He did nothing new. Let's face it, pornagraphy was around and done before the day the first image capture was made. IMO, he brough soft porn mainstream. Or at least he was the first person reckognized by the so called artists or critics of the time for this "type" of work. Again, he probably sold himself better than the others. These others were probably labeled perverts.

As far as intent vs commercial value, just remember Pollock's (hopefully I got it right this time) toilet seat... Converseley, just because it's made for commercial value doesn't mean it's not art. Agian, just my opinion.

Okay, so I have to admit:
I had to go Google every name that was mentioned in this thread. I found Kinkade... not my cup of tea, but I would consider it "art." It certainly envokes a reaction :)

I had a hard time figuring out who "pollack" was. My google search brought up several, a few of which I liked :D
Here's a good place to go to see some typical images from a lot of artists.
http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm (No Kinkade listed :D )

Guess I was hungry. I think I made salmon that night.

Megan

I think art is supposed to be subjective. I'd say let's leave it at that. If we're not going to define what art "is" for us in this forum, I think the only choice is to name it outwardly as "subjective" so everybody feels welcome, and there's no air of elitism or snobbery. If people post their art, and it sucks, then so be it. That's what we'll have to go through in order to get the really good stuff :)


Ugh. I agree art is subjective, but I also believe that there is a hierarchy.... and it's hard for me to explain. And I truly don't believe that I'm beling elitist or snobbish, however, since it offends people's sensibilities, I suppose some of my opinions would tend to make people label me as an elitist and a snob. However, I don't mean to put people's efforts down at all, rather, to elevate talent and genius to where it should be. I think in current American society, being PC is taken too far, and the playing field is levelled to the point of producing utter mediocrity. Brilliance is not strived for or rewarded, and I find that frustrating. But I'm heaidng towards an ill-typed rant, so I'll stop here. We welcome all art, beginner and all.


I don't know if this board was meant to <i>post</i> art for critique association and feedback, or just to talk about art as a concept in discussions. Any of the moderators care to clear that up for me? I tend to think it's the latter.


It's both. It's sort of ambigious, actually, because we wanted to leave a bit up in the air so the participants could sort of define what was going to go on here as well. We can don our black berets and sit around a Paris cafe, discussing theory for hours, or throw our work up not for a critique, like in critique forum, but to discuss it as art.

Megan

Ugh. I agree art is subjective, but I also believe that there is a hierarchy.... and it's hard for me to explain. And I truly don't believe that I'm beling elitist or snobbish, however, since it offends people's sensibilities, I suppose some of my opinions would tend to make people label me as an elitist and a snob. However, I don't mean to put people's efforts down at all, rather, to elevate talent and genius to where it should be. I think in current American society, being PC is taken too far, and the playing field is levelled to the point of producing utter mediocrity. Brilliance is not strived for or rewarded, and I find that frustrating. But I'm heaidng towards an ill-typed rant, so I'll stop here. We welcome all art, beginner and all.
Megan

I'd rather be reading your ill typed rant :D Seriously!

While I agree with you, the problem is what is genious in the artistic realm? What's genious, or ingenious, to you may not be for me. I suppose this is the question that bothers me :confused:

Some people praised pollock. I remember watching a film on him. He was, IMO, splattering paint on the canvas. Don't a lot of 2 year olds do that? Did he or didn't he urinate on one? What a stroke of genious!

I think it was Renoir who was thrown out of art school because he lacked the technical skills required. Look what he did. At least if you like his work.

Now take street photography vs. landscapes vs. voyeouristic photography, etc.. Very little street photography does anything for me. Most of it I see as "cute." However, I'm not taking away from it. It's just not my bag. I don't see anything more special about someone skipping across a puddle than I do the half dome. Still, I can tell a well composed well done street photo from junk. Just like a snap shot of a landscape verses a well composed and timed one.

If I posted a picture of a young man and women next to each other with his hand on her breast most here will think I'm a... (btw, I was a little harsher in my wording in my previous post than intended)! Definately not a genious. Who would have ever thought of that?

Similarly, when I post something different I'm often told how to make it "right." I notice this in my photo club. The judges always assume the lowest level of competency. Therefore, you didn't mean to add that motion blur; it's a mistake! Low score...

OK, I'm rambling on, being a little sarcastic and all....

Mike

Megan,

I don't know how you could do it,

but could you give us an excample of how people "discuss art." I am not being viscious, just very ignorant actually. I have never so much as taken a formal art class in my life, I have no appreciation for it, no idea how it's traditionally viewed or responded to. I'd like to see someone post something up here (at this point, I think <i>any</i> art would do) and see how one "properly" responds to it. If the moderators could set an example, I think I'd better know how to preceed in the future.

Small order, huh?

:)

Yeah, art is weird that way - who decides what is art? Who is the hierarchy? I'm with you in that I don't always agree that what is presented to me as art is art. Some work these days makes me feel cheated, like they are trying to pull one over on the viewer - that the "artist" is more "con" than "artist" - and then of course, you're looked down on if you don't "get" it. I admit, it took me awhile to "get" Pollock. The only way I can "get" Pollock is in reference to what was going on at the time in art. He took abstract expressionism beyond the abstract to pain splatters and drips. It was a breakthrough for him and art at the time. But yeah - I still see paint splatters.

It's interesting what you said about not liking most street photography. It's interesting to think about street photography for a moment - I think the street scene is almost purely a photographic genre. Sure, there are paintings depecting street scenes. But a "decisive moment," if you will, on the street? Captured forever? That's photography at it's lowest and highest! I'm not saying I love it all - some of it is a little too one-liner-ish for me. But some is brilliant - I've always loved Winogrand. Our own Gerry Widen is a classic street photographer. When I came to NY to go to college for photography - man, was I in heaven! My work back then was all street photography.

As for your photo club and motion blur - well... I can't speak for them. But some people just don't get beyond technique. I was poring over the ads for juried shows to enter, and there was a photo club somewhere in middle America with calls for entries. I got excited - until I read the categories - one of which was "Bridges." The others were rather specific, screamed of formula. I decided that what they were looking for were the most banal and ubiquitous of calendar shots, they weren't looking for anything new or experimental, that they knew what they liked and they wanted more of the same. Some people just don't think outside of the box. Maybe you can shake them up a little bit - tell them, well, I wanted that motion blur to be there, I did that on purpose - so with that in mind, what do you think of it now? You might just stump them. (Look of horror - Why would he want motion blur?) That's gotta be fustrating, though. Critique should certainly include discussion other than technical aspects. And once in awhile, a photograph should just be what it is without any improvement whatsoever, motion blur and all.

Anyway, I don't know what genius truly is in the artistic realm :p It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, I guess. And sometimes I need to be told and convinced, as well.

Megan

For whom here is art cerebral? For whom here is art emotive?
... I think that's one of the problems I have with art - I feel "unequiped" to discuss it properly. So I get intimidated. I don't know how to critique it or compare its style to other artists. Sometimes I can't even articulate <i>why</i> I like it...
Rick

Sorry you feel that way. I'll do a better job of posting links when referencing other artists. I had my minor in art history. If ya'll were discussing economics, my eyes would glaze over, and I'd feel like an idiot! Please don't be intimidated though. The "equipment" is just information...

That said, I think it's both for me. I like discussing it (as one who has studied massage therapy would possibly discuss new techniques and new revelations from the practice? ;) ) as much as I like experiencing it. Has art ever overwhelmed you with emotion? Which emotion? And why? :)

Megan

I believe we shouldn't confuse a style with a statement, and we shouldn't confuse subjects with substance. Popularity in art may be like truth, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't important. Just because I can sell something, doesn't speak in of itself to its artistic value, it merely speak to its commercial worth.


Completely brilliant!!! YES!!!!!

Megan

It's interesting what you said about not liking most street photography. It's interesting to think about street photography for a moment - I think the street scene is almost purely a photographic genre. Sure, there are paintings depecting street scenes. But a "decisive moment," if you will, on the street? Captured forever? That's photography at it's lowest and highest! I'm not saying I love it all - some of it is a little too one-liner-ish for me. But some is brilliant - I've always loved Winogrand. Our own Gerry Widen is a classic street photographer. When I came to NY to go to college for photography - man, was I in heaven! My work back then was all street photography.Megan

Hi Megan,

I overstated that a tad. I was trying to drive home a point against a couple of comments that landscapes aren't art. Someone who catches that decisive moment on the street in a picture doesn't have any more _meaning_ to me than someone who catches that decisive moment with a landscape. Why should there be? Both people are in the right place at the right time and knew what to do. I appreciate them both. It just so happens that I like landscapes better! Plus, I often see street shots as something that goes in the family album.

Hmmm, maybe I'm onto something! My wife does creative memory (and complains she can't crop my images like her friends crop their's from their vacation - because I usually frame well). Anyway, people are usually impressed with the albums. They have brought me work (or offers to do work).

I also enjoy(ed?) Hess's street work. It was definately his strength.

As for your photo club and motion blur - well... I can't speak for them. But some people just don't get beyond technique.Megan

I used blur because it was simple. But you saw my point :) I pretty much gave up on the contest side of the club. Our club has very well known photographer. Founders and teachers at schools (including NY), advertising, Nat. Geog. photographers, etc. I live in the state with the most photographers per capita.

The best advice I got was from one of these people though. I showed her some pictures, then she asked to see the rest from the roll and told me to get someone to help me edit my photos. I was favoring the ones that took the most work. I was hanging by a cliff by one hand, blood running down my fingers... This one must be best! Now I know what I like. I still ask people's opinions but usually in choosing between a couple of images for use.

Still, I do something different with a portrait and get comments how to make mall lighitng! It's like this is engraved in our heads. My mom can't figure out why you wouldn't do just that. For me, if all I did was simple setups and work the person to get a nice percieved image all I'd be doing is commerce. I would go out of my mind! Again, it has a place but it's not my bag.

Anyway, I don't know what genius truly is in the artistic realm :p It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things, I guess. And sometimes I need to be told and convinced, as well. Megan

BTW, I do appreciate what pollack did historically. I just see it as splattered paint!

I've been going back and reading several of the postings in this forum (Photography As Art) and one thread (partially inspired by Megan) that keeps recurring is the language used to discuss the topic.

Some writers want a quick (or so it seems) definition of "What is Art", some want to know how to discuss, critique, or just talk about art, and some want everything to be evaluated as potentially worthy of the moniker.

There's a long history of discussion of all of these topics and I like to refer to it (I think I posted something somewhere on this?) as a Conversation. That's not a particularly original
phrase but it leads to where I hope I'm going with this. This particular thread has evolved to include the emotive v cereberal (how about 'intellectual' to make it REALLY high-brow- join in virtual laughter here. . .) discussion. While I have a moment or two, I'd offer a couple of thoughts on that part of this Conversation.

When we write about Photography as Art we are entering into the old conversation started a long time ago. We have to respect but also can use what those before have already done or written. So we quote them or point out certain pieces of art or imagery and say "There, thats what I mean". Then the burden of proof usually falls the other way for someone else to respond and add to the discussion or say What The? (insert active verb or expression of choice here) . The comments from various people about Kinkade have already generated a consensus on one topic. That's an example of the Conversation.

This can be also be illustrated on the emotive level by discussion regarding pornography and narrowly or not offensive or obscene content, that for many the kind of mater generates a very strong emotional reaction, for many disgust. That is a valid response. Some wouldn't agree. The flip side to this for many are something calming and soothing and even perhaps inspirational like sunsets and sunrises. They will generate this warm fuzzy connected feeling that for many is almost like a hug. If you have vacationed in the Tropics (or as I have been lucky enough to live there for anytime) at Sunset some people wander out from homes businesses hotels and take a minute and watch the Sunset. The imagery of such will often produce the same response.

The cerebral (we are beret wearing intellectuals sipping espresso and chomping biscotti) part of this is taking an inventory of the good and bad points of a work. The scoring that Mike(darkman) refers to is an intellectual and objective critique. If you are going to work in Commercial Design and have to interface with a team to bring something to the market it can be extraordinarily important. If the Pantone selections must be perfect, the clarity and detail of a product must be exact, and no shadows or blown highlights are allowed then that's one thing. But as an element in art, by itself, it probably means little. Sometime the artist breaks specfic "rules" for a very good reason, emotive or cerebral.

The phone's ringing again, I'll finish and lauch off on another element I see in all this later.

- C

Dear Rick and Others,

Good grief! I go away for two weeks and this happens! Even with such a loaded and cumbersome (no disrespect, on the contrary, admiration) topic, you managed to get people's thought processes going.

Rick, I do not think it would be productive to start a discussion about Thomas Kinkade, especially with me. I loathe the man's paintings, and you would probably only get polemic on my part :D ! However, I shall attempt to elaborate a little. Whenever I view Kinkade's art, I always get the impression that his paintings are emotionally and spiritually limp. His paintings are like carnival masks, the feeling is only as deep as the mask itself. It lacks spirit and vitality. The paintings are warm and fuzzy, but lack substance. HIs work is a thousand miles wide (all embracing) but is only an inch deep. There is no interest in leting the veiwer explore the painting themselves, Kinkade wishes to make his viewers have a certain emotional response, not interact with the painting.

Here I come to shaky ground that shall probably be soon shot out from under me :D . The artist must allow the viewer to explore the painting (or what ever art form it is, photograph even) on their own, and draw their own conclusions. Otherwise the artist is manipulating his/her audience to a certain end. This then is not art, it is prpoganda. Alright, fire away! I probably just violated some people's views of art and artists, and I apologize. I call it how I see it. Perhaps we could get a Conversation going and hammer this out better. Thanks for letting me pontificate a while.

Dzerzhinski

... then she asked to see the rest from the roll and told me to get someone to help me edit my photos. I was favoring the ones that took the most work. I was hanging by a cliff by one hand, blood running down my fingers... This one must be best!

Oh, I know that feeling. It's hard to take a step back and look at your work objectively. You work so hard for a certain photo, and since you had so much invested in it (hanging on a cliff, did you really, or were you being facetious?! if so, you're hardcore!) that darn it all, I'm going to show it, even if it stinks! I know what that's like.... sometimes you have to step back and let it go.

::sigh::

megan

This then is not art, it is prpoganda. Alright, fire away! I probably just violated some people's views of art and artists, and I apologize. I call it how I see it. Perhaps we could get a Conversation going and hammer this out better. Thanks for letting me pontificate a while.

Not at all offended! I think the posts have been very well-stated and interesting.

It's interesting what you said about Kinkade - miles wide but only an inch deep. It's something I've been thinking about with my work lately. I'm sort of in a panic, to the point where I'm almost afraid to even start to work. I've just been questioning whether or not I'm just creating fluff, or is it really deeper than that. And I've also been thinking of going back and getting my master's.... to sort of get beyond that. I feel like I'm ready. But that will take $$.

Anyway, I'm going on a tangent! I hope to keep this Conversation going - This thread is a good one.

Megan

Dear megan and others,

I also am enjoying the way this conversation is going. Very constructive and edifying, to me at least :) . By way of continuing the Converstion, I just posted an article on my blog (The Window of My Lens). It deals with what a photograph says to the observer (if it says anything at all), and by exstension, what any piece of artwork says. I hope the article stimulates some discussion and thought. :D

http://rosemarinuswine.blogspot.com/

Dzerzhinski

Interesting thoughts on snapshots. Snapshots seem like and artless, frantic attempt to record a moment, sans artistry, to preserve for future reminsciing. 01 or so years ago, I would troll the local flea market in Park Slope, Brooklyn, where there was a combination of the typical flea market fare plus odd local scavengers selling used and trash-picked oddities. One always had a box of old photos, and I would rummage through it and buy a few once in awhile. I have a collection of all these old photos, discarded snapshots, moments on the beach, smiling and posing in front of a house, etc etc, taht are completely abstracted from their memories, and useless. I took odd pleasure in storing these snapshots - artless and old, but a collection of cast offs nonetheless. Someday I will do something with them.

And yes, I went on a tangent!

Thanks for sharing your blog.

Megan

Ah, you hooked me.

"Has art ever overwhelmed you with emotion? Which emotion? And why? :)"

It happens on occasion that an art piece - and that includes stuff that you guys post! - will overwhelm me with emotion. Which ones? I don't know - I'd almost call it a physiological reaction - I get the "tingles." Sometimes it's awe. Sometimes it's grief. Or sadness. Longing, missing, excitement... okay, all of them, basically :) I would like to come across something that elicits a strong emotion in me so I could show it here and see what everyone else feels - I think there's something essentially human in wanting to share our feelings with others. I know that when I feel a certain way about a song or other piece of art I always hope everyone else feels the same way about it too. I like that "sharing of feeling." It validates me.

On the ceberal side - :D yes, I could get very carried away talking about muscle strokes and anatomy but I could get just as carried away going "ummmm... right there.... ooohhhhhh" and be completely out of my mind. So it is for art and photography for me.

I guess in asking for whom is it mental and for whom is it emotional I was hoping to find out if there is anyone here who responds to art in one way or the other, not inclusively like most of us do.

Tell ya what: here's a picture of mine I took that elicited a strong emotional response in me when I first viewed it. I stuck it in critique and it drew a heavy response indicating it had a similar effect on others. I ask you all: What is your response? Do you have a mental reaction (like "too harsh highlights.") Do you respond emotionally to this image? ("it feels sad to me') How do you all respond?

There's not a right or wrong, just a measure.

Thanks.

Ah, you hooked me.

"Has art ever overwhelmed you with emotion? Which emotion? And why? :)"

It happens on occasion that an art piece - and that includes stuff that you guys post! - will overwhelm me with emotion. Which ones? I don't know - I'd almost call it a physiological reaction - I get the "tingles." Sometimes it's awe. Sometimes it's grief. Or sadness. Longing, missing, excitement... okay, all of them, basically :) I would like to come across something that elicits a strong emotion in me so I could show it here and see what everyone else feels - I think there's something essentially human in wanting to share our feelings with others. I know that when I feel a certain way about a song or other piece of art I always hope everyone else feels the same way about it too. I like that "sharing of feeling." It validates me.

On the ceberal side - :D yes, I could get very carried away talking about muscle strokes and anatomy but I could get just as carried away going "ummmm... right there.... ooohhhhhh" and be completely out of my mind. So it is for art and photography for me.

I guess in asking for whom is it mental and for whom is it emotional I was hoping to find out if there is anyone here who responds to art in one way or the other, not inclusively like most of us do.

Tell ya what: here's a picture of mine I took that elicited a strong emotional response in me when I first viewed it. I stuck it in critique and it drew a heavy response indicating it had a similar effect on others. I ask you all: What is your response? Do you have a mental reaction (like "too harsh highlights.") Do you respond emotionally to this image? ("it feels sad to me') How do you all respond?

There's not a right or wrong, just a measure.

Thanks.

I think this pict represents uncomplicated peacefull serenity. It evokes sweet sorrow because we simply don't have it. Even our leisure time is dictated by schedules and agendas. We still have times like these, but they're usually fleeting moments, such as having a conversation with someone and you're totaly honest, you're gaurd is completly down, or perhaps lying awake, contentedly watching you're mate sleep.
OK, I'm in over my head. I looked at you're gallery before, saw this photo liked it a lot, didn't know why , went back to it a few times and moved on.
I recognized it in this forum right away, and now I know at least a little why I like it.
While I have my shovel out, I'll dig myself in a little deeper.
Maybe it's all about intimacy.
I'll bet that waters cold!
Mark.
Oh yea, the answer is emotionally. Its also strong graphicaly

Tell ya what: here's a picture of mine I took that elicited a strong emotional response in me when I first viewed it. I stuck it in critique and it drew a heavy response indicating it had a similar effect on others. I ask you all: What is your response? Do you have a mental reaction (like "too harsh highlights.") Do you respond emotionally to this image? ("it feels sad to me') How do you all respond?

There's not a right or wrong, just a measure.

Thanks.

I'm not usually good with this mushy feely stuff. I looked at it a few times and am now ready to try and answer! For right or wrong.

When I key in on the person it appears very contemplative. He/She looks deep in thought. I don't see sad or happy. In this case I think the lighting works.

I do like the image :) However, I think it would work for me without the person too. That's me. I do know a lot of people need the person to make the connection. I personally like making the connection to the environment.

Taking it apart it has all the classic elements. The lead in line from the stream in the lower left. The element of tension created by the log crossing the stream against the flow of the rest of the image. The trees even tend to flow the same as the stream. It does seem to follow the golden mean. Even the placement of the person. The only down side would be some of the branches in the foreground coming out of the right side of the frame.

Now, coming back at you, or for anyone else to answer, it appears I like this images because of the classic design of elements. Aparently the people who figured out what is aesthetically pleasing to the eye were onto something. Is this the real reason I like the image?

Furthermore, Megan brought up she's worried about doing "fluff." Coming back at her, if this is fluff what's wrong with it? Geez, with all the junky images being produced what's wrong with producing fluff? If this is it. Are you only producing worthwhile art if you're on another plane and your work is being accepted? Or making images that drag some deep sad emotion out of me? I see enough sadness every day. Art, to me, is kind of an escapism from everyday life. If this means fluff. I'm all for it.

Also, going back to kinkade. Whether or not you like his stuff, if I consider the entire spectrum of art and people producing it, all of a sudden he's above average. Notwithstanding his marketing skills are great, there are plenty of people doing considereably worse and still making a living as an artist.

Mike

I guess in asking for whom is it mental and for whom is it emotional I was hoping to find out if there is anyone here who responds to art in one way or the other, not inclusively like most of us do.

Tell ya what: here's a picture of mine I took that elicited a strong emotional response in me when I first viewed it. I stuck it in critique and it drew a heavy response indicating it had a similar effect on others. I ask you all: What is your response? Do you have a mental reaction (like "too harsh highlights.") Do you respond emotionally to this image? ("it feels sad to me') How do you all respond?

There's not a right or wrong, just a measure.

Thanks.

Dear Rick,

I have been meaning to post a reply to your question for a while, but have not moved myself in that direction until now. Here it goes. I like the photograph for several reasons. First, it has a lovely composition, the lonely person on the log, the misty trees, and the flowing stream. All the elements combine to make a lovely picture. I also appreciate it for its technical aspects. The proper exposure, the nice contrast. What I am probably coming across as is some person trying to sit on both sides of the fence, technical (or cerebral if you will), and emotional. I think that for photos, it is possible to have both these things come together. With paintings or sculpture, one is less able to have this technical and emotional response. When I see a painting, I marvel at the artist's ability to convey the subject in both a realistic manner, and at the artist's ability to compose a beautiful picture from ordinary subject matter. Well, perhaps through my musing I have backed myself into a corner. Very well. But, back to the subject, art for me is both a technical and emotional craft. I takes technical knowlege to create proper perspective and proper form, and proper technical knowlege to exspose a photo properly. Thus art is technical. But on the other hand, art has a ethereal emotional aspect. The colors, shapes, and scenes evoke warm feelings, saddness, or what have you. Within the artist, you have two seemingly contray natures, science and emotion. The science gives form to the art, yet the emotion gives life to the form. Without artistic sense, the photo would be perfectly exsposed, but would lack in feeling and life. Without science (or technical skill), the artist can never give form to emotion and creativity. I hope this sheds some light on my position.

Dzerzhinski

I do like the image :) However, I think it would work for me without the person too. That's me. I do know a lot of people need the person to make the connection. I personally like making the connection to the environment.

....Art, to me, is kind of an escapism from everyday life....


Mike

Maybe the reason I like pictures better without people is I can put myself into the picture. IOW, if this picture didn't have the person, I can imaging me being there sitting on the log.

Thus, it provides the escapism. With somebody in it, they took my spot already!

Mike

Furthermore, Megan brought up she's worried about doing "fluff." Coming back at her, if this is fluff what's wrong with it? Geez, with all the junky images being produced what's wrong with producing fluff? If this is it. Are you only producing worthwhile art if you're on another plane and your work is being accepted? Or making images that drag some deep sad emotion out of me? I see enough sadness every day. Art, to me, is kind of an escapism from everyday life. If this means fluff. I'm all for it.

This is actually the concept that I wrestle with with my work. And I don't know how to answer, there isn't an easy black and white answer for me. I argue a similar point with a colleague at work (and within my brain and journal/sketchbook.) He's into the idea of pushing your work to the perverse extremes of your psyche, and I don't have a problem creating works that are just visually satisfying. But I also want my work to be fulfilling - and sometimes "just" making a pretty picture isn't fufilling me - and I need to reach deep and create work that pushes my limits visually, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. I don't want to get stuck, I want to challenge myself. I don't want to become a factory. I'm a graphics factory at work all day, and when I express myself through my personal work , I want to go deep and forward. It doesn't mean that it has to be sad, though. There is sad fluff. There is rapturous non-fluff. Does that make sense? I know it probably only confuses the issue more.

Megan

This is actually the concept that I wrestle with with my work. And I don't know how to answer, there isn't an easy black and white answer for me.

...I don't want to get stuck, I want to challenge myself. I don't want to become a factory. I'm a graphics factory at work all day, and when I express myself through my personal work , I want to go deep and forward...

Does that make sense? I know it probably only confuses the issue more.

Megan

I think it makes perfect sense. I'm always trying to push myself. Hopefully most people are. Maybe even Kinkade! His other work may not make it out of the studio. IOW, the stuff we see may be his bread and butter. Just like the wedding photographers, portrait photographers, product photographers, etc.

Maybe I'm not an artist by some people's view. I tend to like to push myself technically. Though, IMO, it takes as much creativity and imagination to do this than to do something veiwed as more arty. This is kind of my struggle now.

I was talking to someone the other day who has had covers of about every mag you can think of, many adds, and even has work in galleries (he tought/teaches at that NY photography/art school - can't remember the exact name!). His work is amazing to say the least He claims his work isn't arty. It's just that he has a wild imagination.

If he's right, which I debate, I fit more in his category.

he tought/teaches at that NY photography/art school - can't remember the exact name!

Hm - they are Legion in NY. ;)

There's Pratt, SVA, Parsons, ICP (which is all photography and digital media), NYU, NYIP, and probably several more I'm missing......

Do any of them ring any bells?

Megan

Hm - they are Legion in NY. ;)

There's Pratt, SVA, Parsons, ICP (which is all photography and digital media), NYU, NYIP, and probably several more I'm missing......

Do any of them ring any bells?

Megan

Yes, NYU and SVA.

Mike

This is actually the concept that I wrestle with with my work. And I don't know how to answer, there isn't an easy black and white answer for me. I argue a similar point with a colleague at work (and within my brain and journal/sketchbook.) He's into the idea of pushing your work to the perverse extremes of your psyche, and I don't have a problem creating works that are just visually satisfying. But I also want my work to be fulfilling - and sometimes "just" making a pretty picture isn't fufilling me - and I need to reach deep and create work that pushes my limits visually, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. I don't want to get stuck, I want to challenge myself. I don't want to become a factory. I'm a graphics factory at work all day, and when I express myself through my personal work , I want to go deep and forward. It doesn't mean that it has to be sad, though. There is sad fluff. There is rapturous non-fluff. Does that make sense? I know it probably only confuses the issue more.

Megan
Dear Megan,

You bring up an interesting subject: fluff. What is fluff? I think the definition is on a par with the definition of art, meaning there is none yet. I know that I agree totally with you when you say you want to make more than just fluff. But how will I know fluff? I know it when I see it, especially with my own stuff. Fluff seems to consist of shallowness, a lack of interest. I keep coming back to Kinkade's things as an example because I see them as shallow and uninteresting. But enough of Kinkade.

When a composition takes a unique perspective, or provides a glimpse of the intensely spiritual, it fulfills its purpose, it is not fluff. I find it difficult to make the mundane intensely interesting, or give the viewer a glimpse of eternity. Maybe I am not looking hard enough. I probably take less pictures because I am looking for the grand and beautiful, or provocative, and miss the grandeur of mundanity. Almost every time I look in the critique section of PR, I find something that I could have taken had I been looking. When I see your photos, I find it hard to beleive that you struggle to not produce fluff. But I guess we all have clay feet. I must humbly accept that I have far to go, and will someday produce images like yours. Be strong and of good courage, because we all struggle to see the latent image in all things, and it may be your turn next to capture it.

Dzerzhinski