| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2004 07:25:31 PM · #201 |
people..what are you typing fast!
Suddenly it dawned to me (yeah right..suddenly..)
I had an arty education (pardon my English) and I "learned" art the harsh way. Teachers constantly putting me down, making me ridiculous and me trying to survive in the middle of it. It was a really hard time and I DID learn a lot: I stumbled through the colours reading Johannes Itten, I analysed the work of the Masters, I created, created and destroyed hundreds of sketches before the right one came up. But when I finally graduated I got patted on the shoulder for always being ME, always being real and authentic (being the existentialist here, I admit ;) ) but I don't think that was because of the harshness of the teachers, but because of my own character (people who know me will tell you I'll always do my own thing no matter what).
In my current education (I'm graduating next year as a clinical psychologist) I've learned what makes a great teacher: he/she can MOTIVATE pupils. Motivation is some kind of keyword, because it is truly necessary for people (we are a stubborn kind of race and we almost never will do something against our will) to do and learn things voluntary out of our own free will. Motivating is very hard and every person needs another kind of motivation to be motivated.
So, in other words, it is really narrow minded to say it is useless to sugarcoat things, because some people need things sugercoated in order to be motivated to change, motivated to learn. Some people need the harsh way to get motivated (the motivational kick in the butt) and other people need other motivational strategies. This view is mirrored in the posts here, some people found the comments from the TS usefull, some of us got really pissed. It just shows that we're all different (thank God!!) and there is no standard way of commenting. Please respect the way other people want to be treated in order to learn..how hard is that? Try to be in other people's shoes for a change?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 07:32:05 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Alecia:
...i think we would do well to remember that art is soooooo subjective... |
This appears to be a frequently voiced but rarely questioned statement.
I wonder how advantageous it is to so easily dismiss any possibility of art having any universal properties, any communicable reality, not to mention tangible and measurable elements.
One of the origins of the store of known visual art are drawings found in caves in the South of France (just to give an example). I'm quite certain that anyone would be hard-pressed to find anything subjective about them. What we should do well to remember instead, IMO, is what aspects and properties of art are there for anyone to perceive and enjoy, not the (sch)-isms that prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is. |
well now, i'm probably getting into trouble by debating you zeus ;)--but im not sure i know what you mean. do you mean that the cave art denotes the realism and is viewed as the voice of that particular culture therefore is anti or unsubjective? yes we know that these drawings varied by region (like our languages) and we assume now that it was their voice representing their realities. or perhaps the animism was more spiritual in nature. at one point anthropologists thought the cave drawings were attributed to a more sophisticated society that used the drawings to create myths--thus here they were indeed subjective as their meanings were based on the interpreter's viewpoint.
regardless, i dont mean so much the physical art, as the viewer interpreting it. i would imagine that certainly individual viewers could perhaps independently draw the same conclusions from the physical art of the cave drawings, yet they will all also probably have completely different views/opinions on their interpretations of it and how it visually affects them. which is where i was going with the 'art is subjective' comment. because yes, art generally does have 'universal properties, communicable reality, and certainly tangible and measurable elements'. it has, like the cave art, symbolic function. but it still is going to affect us, as individuals, differently.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 07:42:55 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Fotowereld:
So, in other words, it is really narrow minded to say it is useless to sugarcoat things, because some people need things sugercoated in order to be motivated to change, motivated to learn. Some people need the harsh way to get motivated (the motivational kick in the butt) and other people need other motivational strategies. This view is mirrored in the posts here, some people found the comments from the TS usefull, some of us got really pissed. It just shows that we're all different (thank God!!) and there is no standard way of commenting. Please respect the way other people want to be treated in order to learn..how hard is that? Try to be in other people's shoes for a change? |
This is in large part why I posted earlier that anonymous commenting without dialog is at best very inefficent, but mostly futile for meaningful communication of ideas. You need to understand what kind of comments someone responds to, to really meaningfully discuss an image with them. Some of that is their emotional needs (as you described) and the other large part is their level of technical education in the craft.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 07:47:22 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is in large part why I posted earlier that anonymous commenting without dialog is at best very inefficent, but mostly futile for meaningful communication of ideas. You need to understand what kind of comments someone responds to, to really meaningfully discuss an image with them. Some of that is their emotional needs (as you described) and the other large part is their level of technical education in the craft. |
Its still safe to assume that certain contexts are best avoided.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:11:43 PM · #205 |
Like the use of the term 'poop' in the original post :-)
I can't believe people are still getting so upset over this kind of opinion-post! |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:13:44 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by Philos31:
Well I say again, his comment on my photo was constructive, here it is with a lot of *** otherwise it will reveil my picture:
Too many *******, and, too many ***** for this challenge. You would have been better off just having *******, or, just ******** in color.
I think that that helped, so it's not all bad... |
He left me "exactly" the same comment, assuming you fill in my appropriate *****'s. Clearly Glacierwolf has one idea, and one idea only about how selective desaturation should work. In my strong opinion on my photo, I think he's just plain wrong. I'd be happy to show him some versions with his recommended changes, to see if he can defend them aesthetically, but I doubt it. As jmsetzler said earlier in this thread, goons like this will forever be inhibited by their close-mindedness.
Oh well.
-Will
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:20:09 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Visual appeal is always subjective no matter what. Visual appeal is also one of the primary aspects of any form of visual art. |
I cannot take issue with your statement. I agree, actually. But to make a blanket statement like the one I quoted in the original post, is quite a different matter.
Art is art. A chair is a chair.
Yes, we sit on chairs. And yes there are some who stand on them.
In the end, it's still a chair.
When the subject of a photo is a chair, the photographer may choose to place the object in an unfamiliar environment to remove the usual connotations and to stress the chairness of chairs.
Subjectivity would not enter into the equation.
Visual appeal may come as an attribute to art. Art, however, is art. Whether it appeals to you or me, is a matter of appreciation.
Black and white photographs appeal to me, and I know, they appeal to you. X prefers colour. I like grain in some kinds of black and whites. Others fault these images for being noisy. So much for visual appeal.
It's subjective allright, but of what use is it to label it so?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:22:18 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It's subjective allright, but of what use is it to label it so? |
Often it seems to be used to avoid discussion or to ignore someone's opinion. Well - its all just subjective, there is no such thing as good or bad. It all just is.
I find that hard to swallow personally.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:28:27 PM · #209 |
> Alecia
If you don't mind, I want to refer to Gordon's response. His reading was similar to mine:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It's subjective allright, but of what use is it to label it so? |
Often it seems to be used to avoid discussion or to ignore someone's opinion. Well - its all just subjective, there is no such thing as good or bad. It all just is.. |
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:34:59 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It's subjective allright, but of what use is it to label it so? |
Often it seems to be used to avoid discussion or to ignore someone's opinion. Well - its all just subjective, there is no such thing as good or bad. It all just is.
I find that hard to swallow personally. |
we're back in the vicious circle again...
Might I comment that 'subjective' doesn't mean that it is not discussable/ worth discussing?? Subjective merely means that everyone sees it in a different manner and that you can try to explain why you see it differently than the next man and try to convince him (or just try to explain..that can be goal in itself).
People who hide behind the word 'subjective' and not accepting other opinions are having troubles facing reality or facing other people per se I guess...paradoxically though that is: accepting things are subjective and then at the same time being afraid to hear other people's opinions!!
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:49:36 PM · #211 |
"What we should do well to remember instead, IMO, is what aspects and properties of art are there for anyone to perceive and enjoy, not the (sch)-isms that prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is."
To simply easily label art subjective, tends to lead us away from an interest in it, instead of leading us towards a grasp, understanding or deeper interest.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 08:57:56 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> Alecia
If you don't mind, I want to refer to Gordon's response. His reading was similar to mine:
|
although it's a pretty cynical thing to say, i'm sure it does get used to avoid discussion and/or ignore another's opinion. in my original post, however, i used it vaguely to just say to people--hey, it's not worth getting upset over because yes, even though it was just his opinion--the fact remains that it was just his opinion and his alone. just because he sees a piece of work as bad doesn't mean it is in fact bad--and we should remember that. i imagine that picasso wouldn't mind at all that i don't care for his style, because it is only my opinion. this is not to say i have not studied him and can appreciate his effort if not his vision, but it merely doesn't appeal to me visually. i'll listen to other people's opinion on my work all day long, but if they tell me that something that i did intentionally is wrong, i just know that they are seeing it subjectively thru their eyes. they aren't wrong in their opinions, they are only seeing it through their own perception of what they like and don't like. and this is all i meant by my original and offending blanket statement. :) |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:04:01 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Glacierwolf:
I gave out lots of 1's in the Desaturation Challenge. And for every one of the them I give a comment. Now people are all honked off about the honest apprasial of their dismal submission of poor photographic skills ........
.........so, how would you like the bad news that your picture either didn't meet the challenge requiremnts, had no imagination, was a terrible composition, and showed a total lack of creativity? Which is what a 1 really is.
Is a simple 1 ok or do you prefer the words?
--------------------------------------------
O well, what was I thinking ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:10:12 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Alecia:
...i think we would do well to remember that art is soooooo subjective... |
This appears to be a frequently voiced but rarely questioned statement.
I wonder how advantageous it is to so easily dismiss any possibility of art having any universal properties, any communicable reality, not to mention tangible and measurable elements.
One of the origins of the store of known visual art are drawings found in caves in the South of France (just to give an example). I'm quite certain that anyone would be hard-pressed to find anything subjective about them. What we should do well to remember instead, IMO, is what aspects and properties of art are there for anyone to perceive and enjoy, not the (sch)-isms that prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is. |
*************************
Is what you're talking about, Zeuszen, the grammar of visual art?
ie, the color, tones, forms, shapes, lines, patterns, textures, etc.? I see those as the universal properties and communicable means.
Wouldn't those be the structural elements of a piece of visual art as opposed to the visual content? The how it's said versus the what is said? |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:24:44 PM · #215 |
| Although an art work may be subjective, I think the point of discussing it is to discern just what the artist is saying and evaluating just how effective the artist is in expressing what he/she wants to say. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:41:39 PM · #216 |
I left you some of my honest thoughts on your work, Glacier. I was one of those who learned to tone it down a bit to have any effect with my readers. For you, I forgot all those lessons about toning down.
*laughing*
Oh, when you are ready to give up photography, I'll take your equipment off your hands. You clearly have no use for it. Well, use maybe. Talent........
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:46:53 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Glacierwolf:
I am ticked pink |
Tickled Pink?
Hmmmm
Did you desaturate the rest of the colors?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:48:41 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Alecia:
...i think we would do well to remember that art is soooooo subjective... |
This appears to be a frequently voiced but rarely questioned statement.
I wonder how advantageous it is to so easily dismiss any possibility of art having any universal properties, any communicable reality, not to mention tangible and measurable elements.
One of the origins of the store of known visual art are drawings found in caves in the South of France (just to give an example). I'm quite certain that anyone would be hard-pressed to find anything subjective about them. What we should do well to remember instead, IMO, is what aspects and properties of art are there for anyone to perceive and enjoy, not the (sch)-isms that prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is. |
This is true--art can be subjective to a point---but if one studies a broad spectrum of enduring art whether it be literary, visual, performing, primitive, or crafts, one can generally find a universal theme. Something that strikes a familiar chord within the viewer. Even when a new movement comes along, a survey of the events that were taking place during the artists developement and maturity will generally reveal the very non-subjective relevence of that art to its place in history. An example at random is the powerful work of German WWI artist Otto Dix or poets Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, or Siegfried Sassoon. Even comparing the poetry of Brooke who died in the first year of the war to that of Owen who died seven days before Armistice, or Sassoon who lived to the respectable age of 81 will show how a deeply personal reaction to a unviversal experience can shape art into something that may become deeply personal to an outside observer.
edited for clarityWhoops! In comparing Brooke's poetry to that of Owen's and Sassoon's, I neglected to make my point that Brooke's poetry, retained a certain romanticism about the war, that Owen and Sassoon eventually rejected in favor of starkly realistic descriptions of the horrors they had witnessed and darkly comic gibes at older civilians and those in power who they felt perpetuated the war for their own gain.
Message edited by author 2004-06-22 21:53:59. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:50:10 PM · #219 |
Yeah, i got a "What were you thinking" too from Glacierwolf
.....it feels kinda degrading and an insult.....just because it may not appeal that person, doesn't mean something to another more....we all have our own dislikes and likes. However, it seems that with such comment it seems personal for some reason....I really don't think that's constructive criticism, which I can take...i did think that my comment he made was constructive up until WHAT WERE YOU THINKING was at the end....I'm I stupid, an idiot? Hardly....however, I think my entry is just one of many that really don't make it or doesn't shine as most, I feeI...dane i hate it myself.....How many photo's do we shoot until just one seems to shine??? Give me a break......funny, it seems that a few enjoy my photo with comments made.....Also, with "and with 36+ years working in B&W I know what makes a good non-color picture." He seems to be Mr. Photo and is the best....look, some of us here are just learning how to do things.....cut the WHAT WERE YOU THINKING....you will have more friends......Oh yeah, I do know how to selective desatruate....I have others that are great....just didn't want to submit any flowers, or even re-shoot something I have already shot personal (see my portfolio to see my chairs for sample) for a challenge why repeat something you have already shot...i have already done that been there with a photo...again, I guess I was tring something new and then see how it worked with others opinions, just opinions. but hey, WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING????????????????? I guess I was having to much fun and didn't realize how serious that we must be about going about to alter a photo.......I'm not getting paid for this, pure enjoyment....so Mr. Glacierwolf, if you were my boss and was paying me for this photo that I submitted, than go ahead and yell at me the words,"What were you thinking"....not is a learning atmoshere...Perhaps you need to come down to the main states for a while and be around people more....I think you have been out in the wilderness too long my friend. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:54:58 PM · #220 |
Sorry! Somehow a posted a whole page of quotes. Maybe I meant to make a comment? I didn't sleep last night and avoided napping so I can sleep tonight. This very long thread is just one wierd aspect of my sleep deprived day. :-D
Message edited by author 2004-06-22 22:14:37. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 09:57:45 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Glacierwolf:
spydr,
A picture is worth a thousand words. If you have to explain or defend your picture, it isn't much of one, is it? |
I'm so sick of this , Glacier you are some piece of work aren't you. You blast people about their photos, but yet your photos are at best average.
Now you can correct me any time you want (if you can) by showing me something you took with a little more creativity than a bear or some glowing sky and some ice, where is the creativity in those shots, they don't hold my interest very long. I'm not saying they are bad photos, they just donĂ¢€™t hold up to YOUR standards you want us to follow.
So lets see a thousand words and post a decent photo.
Yes I looked at your photosig profile and the one here at DPC.
James |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 10:07:28 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
"What we should do well to remember instead, IMO, is what aspects and properties of art are there for anyone to perceive and enjoy, not the (sch)-isms that prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is."
To simply easily label art subjective, tends to lead us away from an interest in it, instead of leading us towards a grasp, understanding or deeper interest. |
I think I grasp what you are getting at---in other words, it becomes too easy to dismiss something first-hand as 'not to my (subjective) taste'. I've read that a person can generally learn to like a food they initially found distasteful after trying it (with an open mind) seven times as the expression, "It's an aquired taste" aptly illustrates. |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 10:14:24 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by blemt:
That's what we need! DPC Idol! Hmmm, GW as Simon, Lauriblack as Paula, and who for Randy?
Clara |
Jacko!
|
|
|
|
06/22/2004 10:17:15 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by VisiBlanco:
Here's a comment he left for me:
"If a picture of * **** is boreing in color, what makes you think it looks better with most of the color missing?? I sure hope you do better in your other hobbies."
Now I really appreciate constructive criticism; however I thought his last remark was quite rude and unnecessary. |
simular to mine too as well others....."Poor picture to choose. Nothing for the viewer to identify with and realize what colors are missing. If a picture is boring in color - it doesn't get better when you remove some. What were you thinking??????" |
|
|
|
06/22/2004 10:26:08 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by dustin03:
simular to mine too as well others....."Poor picture to choose. Nothing for the viewer to identify with and realize what colors are missing. If a picture is boring in color - it doesn't get better when you remove some. What were you thinking??????" |
Dustin, I really like your work. I recall leaving a comment on your photo "She Dances" back when I first became active on this site. I don't know if I put it in my favorites but I've come across it a few times and I still like it. |
|
