Questions about art:

[Dzerzhinski46]

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.

http://rosemarinuswine.blogspot.com/

Dzerzhinski

[megan]

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

[walterick]

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 - 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.

[mdmc]

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 - 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

[darkman]

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

[Dzerzhinski46]

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

[darkman]

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

[megan]

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

[darkman]

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.

[megan]

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

[darkman]

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

[Dzerzhinski46]

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