| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/15/2010 10:18:00 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
This is especially true of much contemporary art; it really requires some prior knowledge to understand and appreciate. |
But what kind of prior knowledge?
I know why I like Da Vinci and Rembrandt. I know why I like Vermeer, and Degas.....I know I don't much care for Van Gogh or Picasso, but I love Dali. Same with Winslow Homer......I know why I like those artists. Their work speaks to me and I don't need an art history degree for that to work.
So to a certain extent, what I feel I need to know in order to appreciate the intent, if I don't see what the artist/photog was trying to convey, is some prior knowledge from him/her.
I have always wondered about training & education for certain things because all too often I've seen those same skills turn around and be the biggest detriment to free thinking.
Only thing I'm sure of is if I have to think about it, I end up confused. I just need to learn more how to be, I guess.....
ETA: I know that it's been said that the work stands on its own, but I have a little trouble buying that there isn't a form of expression from the artist......otherwise, why bother at all?
ETA 2: This just makes my head hurt trying to figure it out. I'm just going to go continue to shoot what I want, the way I want to, edit the image 'til it fits the one in my head, and offer it up. If people like it, cool, if not, well.....that's cool, too.
Message edited by author 2010-03-15 22:23:04.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2010 10:21:15 PM · #102 |
| Jeb-That man handed you pure gold. Simple straight and unassuming. Put it in your pocket and run with it. |
|
|
|
03/15/2010 10:25:10 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Jeb-That man handed you pure gold. Simple straight and unassuming. Put it in your pocket and run with it. |
This just makes my head hurt trying to figure it out. I'm just going to go continue to shoot what I want, the way I want to, edit the image 'til it fits the one in my head, and offer it up. If people like it, cool, if not, well.....that's cool, too.
8>)
|
|
|
|
03/15/2010 10:32:39 PM · #104 |
You should also read the comments under his image "Aging". I'm sorry I had no idea who this guy was until rollover last night.
Speaking of Picasso and..."my kid could do that"
Message edited by author 2010-03-15 22:48:59. |
|
|
|
03/15/2010 10:56:29 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I know why I like Da Vinci and Rembrandt. I know why I like Vermeer, and Degas... |
But, out of curiosity, are you aware that on the Old Masters there's an entire layer of iconography, of symbology, imposed upon them beyond the purely aesthetic? That any educated person of that time would know how to "read" that iconography and "decode" the image, that each image is saying some very specific things if you can do this?
And that by studying art history one can come to understand the layering on these images, and understanding the layering utterly deepens our appreciation of them?
That's what Wheeledd is getting at vis a vis modern art; it DOES help to know what it is, to know the language it's speaking, to be able to "decode" it and place it an experiential context...
R. |
|
|
|
03/15/2010 11:21:04 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by wheeledd:
This is especially true of much contemporary art; it really requires some prior knowledge to understand and appreciate. |
But what kind of prior knowledge? |
Let me give an example. A few years ago I saw a photograph titled "Nude descending a staircase" by Gerhard Richter at the Cincinnati Art Museum. It was a large print, maybe 6x4 feet, showing a fuzzy "snapshot" image of a naked woman coming down a stairway. I "got it" immediately. I understood the reference to Marcel Duchamp's cubist painting of the same name. The cubists were saying that the artists' visions were a transformed version of reality, perhaps a deeper version of reality. Richter was saying that photography also produces a transformed version of reality. It was my prior knowledge of Duchamp that enabled me to interpret Richter's work this way.
But I was wrong; Richter was saying something much deeper. I learned that the photograph was NOT a fuzzy snapshot, it was a high-resolution image taken with a view camera. And the object in front of the camera was not a naked woman, it was a PAINTING. The painting was done by Richter based on an actual snapshot he took years earlier of his wife coming down the stairs in their home.
The deeper meaning of this work is about undermining the assumptions we make about photography. He is saying that in photography the relationship between image and reality is problematic. This is a theme of post-modern art and if you don't know anything about post-modernism, you certainly will not fully appreciate this work.
~~Dan |
|
|
|
03/15/2010 11:35:22 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, out of curiosity, are you aware that on the Old Masters there's an entire layer of iconography, of symbology, imposed upon them beyond the purely aesthetic? That any educated person of that time would know how to "read" that iconography and "decode" the image, that each image is saying some very specific things if you can do this?
And that by studying art history one can come to understand the layering on these images, and understanding the layering utterly deepens our appreciation of them?
That's what Wheeledd is getting at vis a vis modern art; it DOES help to know what it is, to know the language it's speaking, to be able to "decode" it and place it an experiential context...
R. |
Exactly! Robert knew what I was saying before I said it.
It is always nice when a work of art can be appreciated for its aesthetic qualities without any deep knowledge of the meaning in context. But I think that much contemporary art is NOT appreciated by those who do not understand the context in which the work is done.
And even though I think I understand the context, I'm baffled by the success of Richard Prince.
~~Dan
|
|
|
|
03/15/2010 11:41:38 PM · #108 |
Perhaps it maybe helpful to recommend two books here. 'Ways Of Seeing' by John Berger and 'On Photography' by Susan Sontag
I haven't read either for years but i certainly think it's time for a re-read for me. Very cheap off Amazon. Perhaps a non photographic reading group side challenge with Ways Of Seeing? That would be great!
E.T.A. What i mean by that of course is not a side challenge. Just a reading group thread.
Message edited by author 2010-03-15 23:45:35. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:29:17 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
This is especially true of much contemporary art; it really requires some prior knowledge to understand and appreciate. |
Hehe. This thread is starting to remind me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine doesn't understand the cartoon printed in the New Yorker:
Elaine: Well we're hoping that if perhaps that the catalog is a little funnier ,people
won't be so quick to return the clothes ha ha....For example.. I..I really do....Well I love this one
Elaine shows him the cartoon
Mr. Elinoff: Oh! yeah... That's a rather clever jab at inter office politics don't you think.
Elaine: Ahan, Ahan....yeah...Euh but, Why is it that the, that the animals enjoy reading the email?
Mr. Elinoff: Well Miss Benes . Cartoons are like gossamer and one doesn't dissect gossamer. heh..hemm..
Elaine; Well you don't have to dissect if you can just tell me. Why this is suppose to be funny?
Mr. Elinoff: Ha! It's merely a commentary on contemporary mores. (slides the magazine to her)
Elaine: But, what is the comment. (she slides the magazine back to him)
Mr. Elinoff: It's a slice of life.
Elaine: No it isn't.
Mr. Elinoff: Pun?
Elaine: I don,t think so.
Mr Elinoff: Vorshtein?
Elaine: That's not a word.....You have no idea what this means do you?
Mr Elinoff: No.
Elaine: Then why did you print it.
Mr. Elinoff: I liked the kitty.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:35:14 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
E.T.A. What i mean by that of course is not a side challenge. Just a reading group thread. |
seriously, the last thing we need is people critiquing others on how they read!
"i like the way you held the book, but i couldn't help but notice your lips move when you read, perhaps thats how you wanted to present your reading style but i find it distracting IMHO"
Message edited by author 2010-03-16 00:35:31. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:43:18 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here are some questions that go through my mind when I think about this genre of work... |
Oh my...I'm exhausted reading this thread now...::daintly sips tea::...perhaps it's time for something stronger...;-) |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:44:54 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
E.T.A. What i mean by that of course is not a side challenge. Just a reading group thread. |
seriously, the last thing we need is people critiquing others on how they read!
"i like the way you held the book, but i couldn't help but notice your lips move when you read, perhaps thats how you wanted to present your reading style but i find it distracting IMHO" |
Tut! That is not seriously at all!! Why couldn't you critique my, if you look at it more deeply, very funny and topical Batman & Joker satire up thread! |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:46:17 AM · #113 |
| Out of my league here. I'm just not that deep. If you get any deep meaningful insights from one of my entries, You have probably created that insight yourself. Except for my TV in the trash can shot. That had meaning, but it was also pretty blunt. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 12:57:04 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Tut! That is not seriously at all!! Why couldn't you critique my, if you look at it more deeply, very funny and topical Batman & Joker satire up thread! |
<==== keep my username in mind at all times |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 01:19:36 AM · #115 |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 01:39:18 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
I was so jazzed to get a PM from Bear_Music this morning--really turned my day around. |
Yeah -- I ended up in the bottom five% in the popular voting, and in Bear's top-15 ... pretty much what I would expect (and hope for) in this situation. :-)
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Would there be any interest in starting a thread where we could talk about where we came from with our entries? I know I'd certainly be interested in hearing what went through others' minds while putting something together for this challenge. |
I have notes already placed in the additional info area on my entry, which may speak to this. If you have any questions, ask them in a comment on the image thread and I'll try to answer there -- that's what that thread's for. Be sure to check out the alternate versions posted in the Outtakes Thread, and the additional pictures linked from those pages, for further perspective/elaboration on why I submitted the image I did the way I did ...
If it interests you enough you can start a regular thread -- I thought part of the whole point of this site was to exchange personal views/opinions on subjects photographic. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 02:55:13 AM · #117 |
Ah Brilliant! I feel good. I was hoping to at least be short-listed, but didn't expect a blue from the jurors.
Thank you.
During voting, I was way too impressed by some of the other entries and that includes some shots I know now were from some of the jurors. Well done you all. You have done a lot of work and it's appreciated. I hope there will be more challenges like this in the future. I enjoyed this challenge very much and loved many of the entries.
Cogratulations to  wheeledd, tehben and to all who produced the fine images.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
** Thanks bear for the email and pointing me here.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2010 07:06:20 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I know why I like Da Vinci and Rembrandt. I know why I like Vermeer, and Degas... |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, out of curiosity, are you aware that on the Old Masters there's an entire layer of iconography, of symbology, imposed upon them beyond the purely aesthetic? That any educated person of that time would know how to "read" that iconography and "decode" the image, that each image is saying some very specific things if you can do this? |
Yes......but does that mean I'm not entitled to, or worthy of the appreciation on the base level of the work? I guess I'll never understand the attitude that I'm too ignorant to appreciate art. Having been on that side of the fence all my life, and seeing how it comes at me makes me naturally resistant to wanting to be on the other side. I hope with all of my heart I never look at someone appreciating a piece of work and think that they're not qualified to enjoy it.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And that by studying art history one can come to understand the layering on these images, and understanding the layering utterly deepens our appreciation of them? |
If you say so.......but I don't necessarily feel that I should have to acquire a degree to appreciate everything in life. I'd rather LIVE life than study it. If I miss some deep-seated symbolism by living rather than studying, oh well, I guess I will remain ignorant.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's what Wheeledd is getting at vis a vis modern art; it DOES help to know what it is, to know the language it's speaking, to be able to "decode" it and place it an experiential context... |
I guess it would just make more sense to me to either be able to appreciate something for its visceral, and apparent beauty, than to try and figure out if there's some hidden message.
This has been an eye-opener. I never thought I'd run into this kind of thing with photography......but I guess that's just my lack of comprehension coming through again. I do see things much differently than I used to, and I do see how different styles can render a different perspective to ordinary things, but as soon as I run into that whole, "You just don't understand 'cause you don't know enough to appreciate what's being said here." I cease to have any interest. There are things in life that I've seen, done, and experienced, and I know more about them than the average person......but to me, that neither makes me any better, nor entitles me to obtain a richer experience simply by having been in the right place at the right time. I guess I weill always feel that art, at least as I see it, shouldn't need a guide or a translator. This whole discussion has pretty well convinced me that I'm happy to remain in my state of ignorant bliss. I was pretty sure before this that I wasn't an artist, now I know.
Sometimes......a cigar is just a cigar....
|
|
|
|
03/16/2010 08:17:13 AM · #119 |
Congrats to all the winners, the ones on the front page and the ones chosen by the jury. This challenge was so interesting and I feel something stirring in DPC. I like it!
Thank you so much to the jurors, I know you must have put a lot of time & thought into your choices and I think you did a fantastic job!! |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 08:25:27 AM · #120 |
oops...double post.
Message edited by author 2010-03-16 08:26:04. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 08:27:22 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I liked the kitty. |
Yeah....sometimes that's why I don't post much in here..I just like the kitty. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 09:16:14 AM · #122 |
| Out of curiosity, I compared the top 20 of the popular vote and the 20 from the judges. 6 entries made both lists. Not sure there is an real meaning to that, but I wanted to see how close the lists were. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 09:28:00 AM · #123 |
| erh maybe i miss it all where is the jury's list? |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 09:40:00 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by macobee:
erh maybe i miss it all where is the jury's list? |
Halfway down page 2 of this thread. |
|
|
|
03/16/2010 10:47:53 AM · #125 |
That's really nice! Genious! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 01:06:00 AM EDT.
