[SI] New Mandate: Interesting (see description)

GavinS wrote:
Dudley Hanks wrote:

I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say the same
thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my pleasure, great.
If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it for myself."

... The true artist will acomplish both with the same brush.
An artist will decide what the viewer is supposed to see, has to see.

I'm more familiar with the scenario where the artist has a statement in
mind for their work but each viewer interprets it a little differently
in their own personal way. If it's a powerful idea well executed, it
will naturally stimulate the viewers interest and emotions but there's
no telling what each individual will add to it.

If an artwork is *interesting* to viewers, it will elicit a rich variety
of interpretations. The best art could have people making up very
elaborate & detailed stories about what they think it meant to the
artist but the artist rarely will agree. If the reactions are
predictable, that a failure. Scientific papers create specific reactions.

It might be a photo of an odd fellow on the street with a quizzical look
on his face surrounded by a bustling lunch hour crowd downtown - staring
off to the side. Maybe the photog feels sorry for the guy who doesn't
seem to be connecting to the world around him, but the collector who
buys it sees a genius brewing clever ideas in his head to save humanity
- inspired by the lively surroundings teeming with life yet off in his
own world for a moment. His wife sees something similar and imagines him
turning to the lady next to him a moment later to explain his thoughts &
feelings. Their teenage son sees the same lady and imagines she just
asked him a difficult question and imagines the crowd as an overwhelming
distraction that the man is aching to escape from. Now that's an
interesting photo and work of art.


It will only work if you make it interesting to them.

Yep.


"Art" was described to me in the following manner, long ago. Now
paraphrased with my own important additions. A lesson which I've never
forgot.

"The role of the artist is to take any image, especially the mundane, the
ordinary, the commonplace, and present it in a way that will make the
viewer forever perceive their reality in new and important ways."

Yep.


If you can't make it interesting to them then how will they ever bother to
learn from it.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"GavinS" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:05:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"GavinS" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:04:57 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

I find it interesting that most artists I've talked to seem to say the
same
thing, "I do this because I love it. If others share my pleasure,
great.
If not, that's too bad, but I don't do it for them; I do it for
myself."


The self-absorbed egotist might say that. The true artist will acomplish
both with the same brush. An artist will decide what the viewer is
supposed
to see, has to see. It will only work if you make it interesting to
them.

"Art" was described to me in the following manner, long ago. Now
paraphrased with my own important additions. A lesson which I've never
forgot.

"The role of the artist is to take any image, especially the mundane,
the
ordinary, the commonplace, and present it in a way that will make the
viewer forever perceive their reality in new and important ways."

If you can't make it interesting to them then how will they ever bother
to
learn from it.

Capice?


Good definition. But, if you don't first find it interesting yourself,
there isn't much chance you'll make it interesting to anybody else...

Take Care,
Dudley


The interest to yourself is implied. A true artist will find it an
interesting lesson for humanity to learn, one they must learn. An artist
must convey that lesson because it is of universal interest to all. The
artist has no choice. If the subject conveyed is supposed to hold interest
for the viewer it is already interesting to the true artist. Otherwise
there's no reason to convey it to anyone in the first place.

Whenever humanity is on the precipice and crux of a new epoch in their
evolution; they turn to the artists, the visionaries, the creative
thinkers; to free themselves from the corner they have painted themselves
into with their mundane lives, trite values, and non-visionary and foolish
beliefs that are causing their imminent social demise. They know of
nothing
else which can save them, so they must turn to those who were always
waiting on the fringe. The artist plays a vital role in the continuation
of
humanity. The artist knows what must be conveyed to help them to survive
through their foolishness and ignorance. If it is no interest to the rest
of humanity then it will also be of no interest to the true artist.

Considering that most here only take joy in buying the latest new toy and
trying to take "pretty pictures", this message will be of no significance
to them. They are not artists, do not have an artist's mind, nor an
artist's heart. But since you asked I gave you the respect of an answer.


Aside: This is why humanity is now doomed. They allowed and even wanted
their most creative and visionary people dead during the 80's and 90's.
The
very people that could help them through this present and even more
tumultuous forthcoming epoch of chaos. Even praying to their "god" that
the
very people that could and would have saved them should all die of HIV.
Little did they know they were condemning all of humanity. I, being just
one survivor of their holocaust, will lift no finger to help them, and I
could, easily. This is the lesson they taught me. This is humanity's
death.
Signed, sealed, and delivered ... it's now yours. There's not even one
thing you can do to change it. It's far too late for that. Save this
message for humanity's epitaph if it makes you feel any better.




Near the beginning of your speal, you noted that (pardon my paraphrasing),
if it's interesting, the artist will find it interesting and make it
interesting to everybody else.

So, artists like A. A. and Fuzzy Duenkel have no control over their own
work? They simply react to a stimulus simply because it's interesting?

Hmmm, interesting...

Take Care,
Dudley

An artist will decide what the viewer is supposed to see, has to see.



This is one of those artsy fartsy statements that just doesn't equate well
with the real world...

It assumes everyone perceives everything in the world the same way, and,
hence, must be interpreted if not identically, then nearly so.

First of all, I find it somewhat offensive, since it more or less says that
the blind cannot appreciate visual art, which is entirely untrue.

While I do not see the same image as somebody with 20/20 vision, that
doesn't mean I can't enjoy it. Even if I am completely without sight,
somebody can describe it to me, and the description might be just what I
need to chear me up, make me think, or just amuse me. Was it the
description or the art which I'm appreciating? Obviously, the art.

Even among the fully sighted world, not everybody "sees" things the same
way. Since we, in real terms, all see different images than what is in
front of us (nobody actually sees the actual object, just their mental image
of it), all who view any given work of art are in reality "seeing" something
different from the others and unique to themselves.

So, how can any artist, regardless of how talented he or she is, dictate
what others will see? Or, how they will see it?

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:00:48 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

As I've said before, I like the mandate angle because it forces me to
look at scenes for aspects that might not be considered otherwise.
Mandates can make you see pictures where no picture was seen without
the suggestion of the mandate.

The same can be done with a daily horoscope reading. I've never found a use
for astrology other than used as a good "what if" thinking-exercise toy.
Though I did study it extensively for a period just to satisfy my own
insatiable curiosity. Results = no conclusive results at all. In fact it
was wrong slightly more times than correct. No better than tossing a coin.
I have however found that when pressed with a difficult problem a horoscope
reading can nudge you out of a thinking-rut and suggest new possibilities
that went unconsidered before due to its more extensive language compared
to a coin toss. I'm not in any way suggesting that horoscopes are in any
way true however. You can use those like random photography mandates, to
suggest what you should photograph that day. With or without SI
participation. No need to wait for another SI mandate if you're looking for
creative and random suggestions. A way to toss dice that return more than
just a number. Outside of that and similar "what if" thinking-exercise
uses, I see no other benefit to astrology.

Come to think of it, if the SI gang is hard-pressed for new ideas they
might consider each person submitting an image suggested by the
photographer's horoscope in the paper that day. Titling that image with
that person's horoscope that day. It would be just as effective, just as
random, just as challenging. If a photographer felt that day's horoscope
challenge beyond them, they could wait 'til the next day, or the next, or
the next, ... You know, until the planets were in the proper alignment. (-:

Purists will however compare EXIF creation data with the photograph's natal
horoscope, the time of its birth. (-: That's humor in case anyone takes
this seriously.

On 2009-08-01 21:14:35 -0700, Will Billiams said:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:00:48 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

As I've said before, I like the mandate angle because it forces me to
look at scenes for aspects that might not be considered otherwise.
Mandates can make you see pictures where no picture was seen without
the suggestion of the mandate.

The same can be done with a daily horoscope reading. I've never found a use
for astrology other than used as a good "what if" thinking-exercise toy.
Though I did study it extensively for a period just to satisfy my own
insatiable curiosity. Results = no conclusive results at all. In fact it
was wrong slightly more times than correct. No better than tossing a coin.
I have however found that when pressed with a difficult problem a horoscope
reading can nudge you out of a thinking-rut and suggest new possibilities
that went unconsidered before due to its more extensive language compared
to a coin toss. I'm not in any way suggesting that horoscopes are in any
way true however. You can use those like random photography mandates, to
suggest what you should photograph that day. With or without SI
participation. No need to wait for another SI mandate if you're looking for
creative and random suggestions. A way to toss dice that return more than
just a number. Outside of that and similar "what if" thinking-exercise
uses, I see no other benefit to astrology.

Well that could make for some "interesting" mandates;
Male sheep, mountain goats, oversized pussy cats(lions), fish, twins,
weighing devices, crusteateans, Arthropodic arachnids, deformed horses
with a propensity towards archery, jugs or buckets of water, boring
young women, or male bovines. That should cover us for a year.


Come to think of it, if the SI gang is hard-pressed for new ideas they
might consider each person submitting an image suggested by the
photographer's horoscope in the paper that day. Titling that image with
that person's horoscope that day. It would be just as effective, just as
random, just as challenging. If a photographer felt that day's horoscope
challenge beyond them, they could wait 'til the next day, or the next, or
the next, ... You know, until the planets were in the proper alignment. (-:

Naah! I have a hard time dealing with organized religions, they are
fantasy enough for me without adding another mind numbing element of
horoscope.


Purists will however compare EXIF creation data with the photograph's natal
horoscope, the time of its birth. (-: That's humor in case anyone takes
this seriously.

....and that is certainly giggle-worthy.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 1/08/2009 11:32 PM:
:
: I'm truly amazed you're still here, if you're after "fun".

Touché, I guess. But then what's your excuse (for staying)? Your campaign
against people posting to aus.photo seems to have largely petered out.

Why don't you send something to the Shoot-In next time? Or do you, under a
different name? I never figured you for a sock, but you never know.

Actually, if you stopped lying, you'd be less likely to be pointed out as a low
life idiotic troll.

I never stopped anyone from legitimately posting in aus.photo, you stupid moron.
I do however stop off-topic posts from taking off in that newsgroup, by
interfering with them. And it has never stopped: just try it again and watch
what happens.

Capice, or is reality too tough for you?

Bowser wrote,on my timestamp of 1/08/2009 11:49 PM:


First rule of the shoot-in: trolls have endless hours to complain about
it but no time at all to shoot and submit.

Second rule of the shoot-in: absolutely nothing forces anyone to participate in
that crap.

Now: kindly **** off aus.photo with your trolling or stay on topic, moron.

Got it or do you want me to bitch-slap it into your brains, dickhead?

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 2/08/2009 7:43 PM:
Noons wrote:
Bowser wrote,on my timestamp of 1/08/2009 11:49 PM:


First rule of the shoot-in: trolls have endless hours to complain
about it but no time at all to shoot and submit.

Second rule of the shoot-in: absolutely nothing forces anyone to
participate in that crap.

Now: kindly **** off aus.photo with your trolling or stay on topic,
moron.

Got it or do you want me to bitch-slap it into your brains, dickhead?

**** you, Noons.


**** you, ****head.

Annika1980 wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
If an artwork is *interesting* to viewers, it will elicit a rich variety
of interpretations. The best art could have people making up very
elaborate & detailed stories about what they think it meant to the
artist but the artist rarely will agree. If the reactions are
predictable, that a failure. Scientific papers create specific reactions.

Not all art needs to be a good subject for a caption contest.

Here are three pics I took yesterday. Are they art?
Nah, just pictures. One of them has an artsy-fartsy look simply
because it was a combined exposure of a regular pic with an infrared
shot.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630329

Where's my 3D glasses :-)


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630330

Pretty interesting. Turkey vulture?


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630331

The feet are interesting.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 2009-08-02 09:32:00 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Annika1980 wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
If an artwork is *interesting* to viewers, it will elicit a rich variety
of interpretations. The best art could have people making up very
elaborate & detailed stories about what they think it meant to the
artist but the artist rarely will agree. If the reactions are
predictable, that a failure. Scientific papers create specific reactions.

Not all art needs to be a good subject for a caption contest.

Here are three pics I took yesterday. Are they art?
Nah, just pictures. One of them has an artsy-fartsy look simply
because it was a combined exposure of a regular pic with an infrared
shot.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630329

Where's my 3D glasses :-)

Different, but familiar.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630330

Pretty interesting. Turkey vulture?
Nice shot Bret, and Paul it is actually a turkey.

These guys are turkey vultures;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0059w.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630331

The feet are interesting.

Bret, this is just a great capture & pic


--
Regards,

Savageduck