Questions about art:

[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

[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