If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 8/11/2012 12:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. And also the many inbetweeners. -- Peter |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. That doesn't quite read coherently. Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-) A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional investment, is certainly not art. Which viewer? What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Peter |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012081109411721123- OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Regards, Savageduck For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art; however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas. First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium and develop a certain style of his or her own. This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person. This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the activity. Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't experience much of an emotional response to the work itself. Take Care, Dudley |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said:
On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. That doesn't quite read coherently. Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-) A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional investment, is certainly not art. Which viewer? Any viewer. What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art". I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as art whether you like it or not. If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly establish an indifference to it. Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it closely, I have no doubt that it is art. ....but that is my opinion. Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY. http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 10:38:42 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2012081109411721123- OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. So for those who say they hate a particular style, or process, let's say HDR, or long exposure, by investing an emotion of hatred, they elevate any such work to be declared "art" whether they like it or not, even if the individual who produced that HDR image, or "silky" waterfall had no intention of declaring it "art". -- Regards, Savageduck For the most part, SD, I think you have a decent definition of Art; however, my view goes a bit farther in a couple of areas. First, in order to qualify as Art, I think we have to look back to earlier views of the subject and add that Art is produced by somebody who actively develops a certain skillset in an area: ie, doesn't just pick up a camera and point it at a subject in order to capture an image. The artist would try to learn as much as he or she can about the subject to master the medium and develop a certain style of his or her own. This is not to say that Art can only be produced by an Artist who has a post secondary degree or Art school certificate, merely that the Artist has devoted more time and energy learning how to produce a work in his or her field than would normally be exhibited by the average lay person. This would, for the most part, rule out casual participants in the activity. Second, I'd throw into the mix the idea that thought plays at least as big a part in the viewer's reaction as emotion, which is to say that a work that causes somebody to think more critically or inquisitively about the subject of the work should also qualify as Art, even if the viewer doesn't experience much of an emotional response to the work itself. Take Care, Dudley That all makes perfect sense to me, and underscores, and expands my opinion in this little discussion. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 8/11/2012 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said: On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. That doesn't quite read coherently. Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-) A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional investment, is certainly not art. Which viewer? Any viewer. What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art". I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as art whether you like it or not. If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly establish an indifference to it. Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby elevated to art? BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art. Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it closely, I have no doubt that it is art. ...but that is my opinion. Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY. http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k -- Peter |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:56:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: : On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said: : : I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. : : It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start : feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of : being declared art, you have established a personal opinion, : intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the : level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, : defines it as art whether you like it or not. : If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked : about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would : firmly establish an indifference to it. : : Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it : closely, I have no doubt that it is art. : ...but that is my opinion. : Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY. : http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background on which they displayed it. Bob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 11:56:29 -0700, PeterN said:
On 8/11/2012 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said: On 8/11/2012 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-08-11 09:41:17 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said: Robert Coe wrote: Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be encouraged. What, in your opinion, defines "good art"? Note; You are asking each of us our opinion of what defines "good art", Just in this room we have a group who are going to be hard pressed to reach a consensus. So I I am going to make my way through your post commenting along the way, to finish with my opinion of what I believe defines art. I think it's one of those things where, if you asked ten different people at random, you would get ten very different answers. I agree. As stated above, it is going to be tough to find two who agree, close maybe, but even then we will be inclined to come to our individual interpretations of what each of the others have stated, and still not agree. I don't think many artists would claim their work is "good", or "brilliant", or "exceptional". It is simply their work, and it is up to other to decide what they think of that work as individuals. That is probably true for many "artists". However, there are certainly those artists who do not follow that school of modesty and immersion in their work, but assume a role of "artistic arrogance" defying critics and viewers alike, who make any judgement of their work. Now apply that to photography; what makes an image "good art"? Is it something that more people like (lowest common denominator) or something that a few experts in the field really like (highest common factor). With regard to photography we have a few categories to work through before we get to "photographic art". First we should agree that not all of the products of the camera, darkroom and computer are "art". Some of that product is deliberate intentional art, some is accidental art. Photojournalism does not start from a position of being produced as art, some of that work, can, and does reach my definition of art (see below), usually accidentally, sometimes deliberately. The deliberate documentary can also be in both the accidental and deliberate art category. However, as with photojournalism, the production of "art" is not the typical intent. The family documentary, or snapshot is usually shot without pretension or intent to create art, but the shooter might unwittingly produce a photograph which could be absolutely defined as 'art". Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less? No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art. It's a bit like comparing an expensive, exclusive publication aimed at a very discerning audience to a tabloid newspaper or cheap novel that sells millions of copies to a mass market. Which is "better art"? I don't have answers to any of these questions but I would be very interested to hear your and others' views. OK! Let's get my definition out of the way. To my way of thinking, "art", be it sculpture, painting, music, dance, photograph, or any other product of the creative mind, and sometimes the uncreative mind, which evokes an intellectual, visceral, response, be it one of deep emotion, hatred, nostalgia, uncontrollable laughter, nausea, or all of the above, can justifiably be called "art". A photograph which merely informs, to my mind is an example of pure photojournalism, or photographic documentary. There is an overlap here, as there are times one cannot disqualify work from these two categories as "art". A work which leaves one indifferent, not liking it, appreciating it, disliking it, or downright hating it does not reach the level of "art". That is probably just a snapshot. That doesn't quite read coherently. Let me rephrase that last remark. ;-) A work which leaves one indifferent, not provoking the viewer to the level of hatred, or the ability to express any personal emotional investment, is certainly not art. Which viewer? Any viewer. What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it? His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art". I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as art whether you like it or not. If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly establish an indifference to it. Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is thereby elevated to art? No. You looked at it, it was meaningless to you, and you are somewhat indifferent to it, ergo it is probably what it always was, a snapshot, never art, mostly a wasted effort. There are shots which have been submitted to the SI which can only be deemed snapshots. It takes one look by the viewer (in this case me) and the first thing that goes through my mind is, "Why did this individual even bother submitting this, SNAPSHOT"? Pretty much as some press shot of a politician at a press conference is just that, an example of non-art photojournalism recording a moment for which I feel nothing but indifference. This for example, is not art: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics..._120811_wg.jpg However, if you are somehow asked to comment on a postcardish, or worse image the photographer believes to be "special", and it doesn't grab you in anyway, good or bad, there is nothing wrong with expressing your indifference by saying something such as, "For me it is just a snapshot". This applies to 99.9% of baby, cat, dog, goldfish, and family vacation shots, the group in front of the Tower of Pisa for example. Though most wedding photographers would disagree, I don't think of wedding photography as art, satire maybe, art no. It is commercial photography documenting a personal life event aimed at a very small sector of the public, and I am truly indifferent to it. Regardless of how tough it might be to shoot, I can truthfully say, when I am asked an opinion of wedding photographs, "Oh! wedding photographs, what else do you have"? BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art. maybe not, but you implied that you did not think of it as art. Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it closely, I have no doubt that it is art. ...but that is my opinion. Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY. http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art": The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the pocketbook of the buyer. In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world. The definition is circular. Doug McDonald |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"
On 2012-08-11 12:31:48 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:56:06 -0700, Savageduck wrote: : On 2012-08-11 10:15:53 -0700, PeterN said: : : I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do. : : It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start : feeling and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of : being declared art, you have established a personal opinion, : intellectual response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the : level of a work of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, : defines it as art whether you like it or not. : If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked : about the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would : firmly establish an indifference to it. : : Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it : closely, I have no doubt that it is art. : ...but that is my opinion. : Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute, Utica, NY. : http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that piece is helped by the background on which they displayed it. Bob I have to agree. When I first saw this work, in the same gallery in 1973, it was mounted on a flat white wall. I was surprised to see it moved to the paneled wall when I took the shot in 2005. That said the "Munstertute" or The Munson, Williams, Procter, Art Institute is well worth a visit if you find yourself in UpState NY, between on the NY State ThruWay (I-90) between Albany and Syracuse, or on a drive out of the Adirondacks or Thousand Islands area on NY-12 which would take you into Utica, the rust focal point of NY on the Erie canal. http://www.mwpai.org/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photogs rights "Slim" threat, as in, "thin edge of the wedge??" | Seymore | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | April 10th 10 09:07 AM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 10:00 PM |