LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
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
Reply With Quote
! 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. 
Originally Posted by Dzerzhinski46
. 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. 
