• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Art in the imagination or the image - (Originally posted in "The Human Form As Art")

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Art in the imagination or the image - (Originally posted in "The Human Form As Art")

I don't see the human body as art. It's too functional for that. As for the photograph. Well, sometimes we may assume the image is artistic or 'arty farty'. But the image is just that; an image. If the intent of the artist is to be artistic, who is to judge whether there has Ben a measure of success? And if it fails do we still consider the form to be art? Head as art. Does that leave me with a sense of artistic inadequacy? No. Just a deflating sense of disappointment.



20110902_3154 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​


All this is giving me a head ache. If I look in the mirror I don't see any part of me that would or should be photograph.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tom,

To me art, at least in the Western cultures, is most often associated with the export of ideas and or patterns in some physical form that evokes some kinds of reactions hoped for by the creator. When the work does that, the art exists. Then it's for the rest of us to either appreciate it or not as we instinctively do, or chose to do.

So there's nothing inherent in most things that would make a "snap of it", become "art" in most cases. This includes your chin, LO!. However, in this case, you had strong feelings that you described and now these are inevitably associated with the picture. So this chin has to be seen as a picture in itself: does it work in that respect and secondarily as a reference to it's opposite, the unseen muse the bearded man might very well prefer looking at.

So, the work can be considered art. Sorry, but it can indeed work that way!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
In that case, Asher, I will frame it, send you a print and invoice you in the next outgoing mail. Telstra is about to cut my phone off.
Christine thinks I'm a work of art but I think she is biassed. Or I might be mistaking her inuendo for a compliment.
Quote: 'You're a real work of art, you are!' unquote.

Cheers
Tom

Tom,

To me art, at least in the Western cultures, is most often associated with the export of ideas and or patterns in some physical form that evokes some kinds of reactions hoped for by the creator. When the work does that, the art exists. Then it's for the rest of us to either appreciate it or not as we instinctively do, or chose to do.

So there's nothing inherent in most things that would make a "snap of it", become "art" in most cases. This includes your chin, LO!. However, in this case, you had strong feelings that you described and now these are inevitably associated with the picture. So this chin has to be seen as a picture in itself: does it work in that respect and secondarily as a reference to it's opposite, the unseen muse the bearded man might very well prefer looking at.

So, the work can be considered art. Sorry, but it can indeed work that way!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In that case, Asher, I will frame it, send you a print and invoice you in the next outgoing mail. Telstra is about to cut my phone off.
Christine thinks I'm a work of art but I think she is biassed. Or I might be mistaking her inuendo for a compliment.
Quote: 'You're a real work of art, you are!' unquote.

Cheers
Tom

Actually, I'd be more than delighted to have it on my wall. It has an honest roughness to it and there's no pretense of Guess Jeans giving us the unshaven male stud with his movie star bristle look.

Don't buy a new Porche yet!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I don't see the human body as art. It's too functional for that. ................But the image is just that; an image. If the intent of the artist is to be artistic, who is to judge whether there has Ben a measure of success?


Tom,

I want to revisit your arguments, now that you know I really happen to like this piece of your rough mug. Let's get "functional" out of the way. Once Duchamp signed a bunch of urinals and made a valuable series, the art world has recognized that functional work can be considered art, given the right provenance.

Let's instead address artistic intent. That itself does not art make. The intent needs other characteristics.

1. An idea or creative construct of emotions.

2. The export process of that to some physical form that can evoke a family of feelings the artist intends.

3. The execution of this is performed with sufficient skill for the art to actually work at least for the artist, (art)

4. The appreciation of the work in some way that makes other folk want to value the work and conserve it. (ART)

So intent itself is not sufficient, just that the photograph works for the photographer as intended.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Well said, Asher. Although my 'art' training is somewhat lacking, mainly because I didn't pay much attention and my learning was more towards the appreciation than the examination or scrutiny, I have taken the time to read on the subject over the years, especially in relation to photography. There are some startling ideas out there and I take in each with gusto and intrigue. I don't argue on the matter becaus, to me it makes no difference. I like all art because, I think, I understand it as a human endeavor irrespective of any definition one might apply. Mind you, this hasn't come easy. Nor did it come from any single revelation. It has been an accumulation of experiences and conversations I have had over the years with my 'arty farty' friends who tolerate me and allow me to enjoy their work irrespective of my ignorance.
I don't know how an artists brain works. It may well be the same as mine or yours; or not. I don't give much credence to the left side/right side stuff. I see my brain as something to come up with an idea and get my body to do it. Coming up with the ideas is a daily challenge. Getting my body to do it is becoming moreso.
Tom
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So, Tom,

What's the origin of the picture? Did you create it to make a point just for posting here or, (despite your best intentions, struggling against vanity), did you get captivated by your mug in the mirror once again?

Either way, the mugshot is still worthwhile to me. I'd just like to know what sparks this creation!! Maybe, the very act of exposing the narrowness of nude photography to ridicule, allowed you to focus on some idea you otherwise would never have had; hence this picture?

Asher
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Asher,

Why did you move the picture to this forum? Don't you think that it was an explicit choice made by Tom to post it initially in the Human Form As Art? It is a nude picture after all.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Asher.
I do self-portraits as a matter of self-discipline from time to time for teaching purposes, self expression, experimentation and just plain fun. This was taken last year some time. I'm due for another session. I'll let you know how they turn out. Maybe some naked shots to fit the other forum.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Asher,

Why did you move the picture to this forum? Don't you think that it was an explicit choice made by Tom to post it initially in the Human Form As Art. It is a nude picture after all.

Cem,

As you well know, we always have moved pictures to where it's most appropriate. Some folk were putting their "art" in Photography as Art" and overwhelming the place, for example. The section on nudes is only to accommodate nakedness that offends but is still so valuable for OPF freedom of expression. Otherwise, it all belongs in "Photography as Art". Let me quote from my note to Tom

Asher Kelman said:
Hi Tom,

I'm always happy to be challenged. The section on nudes is to provide a place where folk who are religious will know not to click and so be embarrassed or annoyed as their principles are against such pictures in general. So your picture then would never be seen by .........................

Placing the picture in the theory section makes it far more visible, as it's now in the very beginning of the forum listings.

So that is, in part, why it's best not to have the mug of yours there. The term "nude" is designed to allow folk at work to not be rebuked or worse for having pictures on their computers, even during coffee break that are against company policy. [Also, those who make artistic images of nudes, look for that rare safe place where their work will be appreciated for the right reasons.] Otherwise, we'd have no compelling reasons for this [infrequently used] section.

A good picture is a good picture, irrespective of the actual placement. Tom's mugshot is wonderful and is getting the attention it deserves and can be still understood in reference to nudes with smooth breasts and curvy bottoms! If we try, we can imagine them close by! :)

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher.
I do self-portraits as a matter of self-discipline from time to time for teaching purposes, self expression, experimentation and just plain fun. This was taken last year some time. I'm due for another session. I'll let you know how they turn out. Maybe some naked shots to fit the other forum.

Naked shots mean "nude" as in the case the the police feel they must cover you in public to protect the innocent from the sight of your privates, even if you are wearing a g-string or the like. At least in LA, men can go shirtless and have both nipples showing and not get arrested. They can even where silk shorts! That's LA. In Jerusalem, in Mea Shearim, they yell insults at tourist women with short sleeves, LOL! So offense can vary in different cultures.

In the USA, just looking at a naked female's breasts or thighs could be grounds for disciplinary action at work, creating a "hostile work environment"!

So we take nude and naked to apply just to those pictures which would cause trouble for people by virtue of personal discomfort or else the real risk being punished at work. We also use the added prefix NSFW, not suitable for workplace to add further protection.

So what point can't we make outside of that restricted forum that you'd need that forum for?

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
No point at all, Asher.
I think you have made it here quite nicely.
I'm still trying to come to grips with the fine examples of hypocracy you have provided. Us humans can demonstrate and support bizarre ideas in the name of culture and religion.
Tom
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
No point at all, Asher.
I think you have made it here quite nicely.
I'm still trying to come to grips with the fine examples of hypocracy you have provided. Us humans can demonstrate and support bizarre ideas in the name of culture and religion.
Tom

Tom,

Explain to me that a young woman can walk around essentially naked on a public beach with families around, yet get arrested for public indecency doing the same in a New York Exhibition of Nude Photographs! Why is it that women can have a see through blouse and short skirt that barely covers her symphysis pubis but when Janet Jackson famously flashed her aged sagging teat in a sports arena, the TV companies were fined $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$? In the same games, at the interval there were giant adverts for Cialis and Viagra, just in case little boys didn't already have angst about being able to be "big enough" to themselves perform, one day!

Even viruses get gamed this way. I was testing a young Irish teenager's genital sore and gave the results to her mother, "This is just herpes simplex virus type II", (i.e. genital herpes, which is, BTW, a forever infection), "Holy mother of God, be praised, she said, I knew Catherine was a good girl!

Now gonorrhea, a delicate bacterium, sensitive to one shot of penicillin in the arse, would, however, have been a sign of her daughter being a slut. This stupidity about sexual matters caused HIV to be secret, not reportable in law, by doctors, (as with syphilis), and hence the epidemic worldwide! Had we a better attitude to the body and science, all cases would have been tracked down and the infection would have been halted with that and condoms.

Traveling in Africa, i saw many communities where breasts were shown normally in public without any outrage or men losing control!

So yes, your rough Aussie mug does make us think of all this self-righteous and damaging hypocrisy. Think of it! A lot of women in religious conservative communities won't go to a male doctor even if he's the only one around! So they get cancer that's too advanced to cure. We are such a stupid species for all out technical advances!

However, in art, here in OPF, we must have a sanctuary for photographs involving the nude and that is what we have for the admittedly few people who feel it will not be the path to hell.

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Asher, you are on thin ice here. I could very well say; ' No, my friend, you explain it to me. You made these rules, not me'.

Re: Janet Jackson..maybe the authorities thought ' her aged sagging teat ' was not that aged after all!
As to ads for ' Viagra and Cialis ', just goes along with the ' Supersize it' syndrome! Teat or burgers..no difference; except you suck one and chew the other. Depending on the state of one's dental prowess of course.

' We are such a stupid species for all out technical advances! '. Another 500 years down the road, if homo sapiens still exist, they could very well say the same thing and be absolutely right.
I heard Copernicus once say something similar in confidence to me. he also told me not to book cruises from Socal to the Dominican Republic.

Regards.







Tom,

Explain to me that a young woman can walk around essentially naked on a public beach with families around, yet get arrested for public indecency doing the same in a New York Exhibition of Nude Photographs! Why is it that women can have a see through blouse and short skirt that barely covers her symphysis pubis but when Janet Jackson famously flashed her aged sagging teat in a sports arena, the TV companies were fined $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$? In the same games, at the interval there were giant adverts for Cialis and Viagra, just in case little boys didn't already have angst about being able to be "big enough" to themselves perform, one day!

Even viruses get gamed this way. I was testing a young Irish teenager's genital sore and gave the results to her mother, "This is just herpes simplex virus type II", (i.e. genital herpes, which is, BTW, a forever infection), "Holy mother of God, be praised, she said, I knew Catherine was a good girl!

Now gonorrhea, a delicate bacterium, sensitive to one shot of penicillin in the arse, would, however, have been a sign of her daughter being a slut. This stupidity about sexual matters caused HIV to be secret, not reportable in law, by doctors, (as with syphilis), and hence the epidemic worldwide! Had we a better attitude to the body and science, all cases would have been tracked down and the infection would have been halted with that and condoms.

Traveling in Africa, i saw many communities where breasts were shown normally in public without any outrage or men losing control!

So yes, your rough Aussie mug does make us think of all this self-righteous and damaging hypocrisy. Think of it! A lot of women in religious conservative communities won't go to a male doctor even if he's the only one around! So they get cancer that's too advanced to cure. We are such a stupid species for all out technical advances!

However, in art, here in OPF, we must have a sanctuary for photographs involving the nude and that is what we have for the admittedly few people who feel it will not be the path to hell.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
' We are such a stupid species for all out technical advances! '. Another 500 years down the road, if homo sapiens still exist, they could very well say the same thing and be absolutely right.
I heard Copernicus once say something similar in confidence to me. he also told me not to book cruises from Socal to the Dominican Republic

I think the moment we opened our mouths and learnt to communicate with each other we were destined for trouble.
I can imagine my beloved Christine making her first utterances.
'Tom, get off your fat arse and do something useful'
To which I would reply.
'Thats it. Get your clothes on. You're not going out naked again and having those blokes from the cave next door learing at you'.
Not letting me have the last word, she would promplty retort:
'Well, you can cover that thing up as well. You almost poked Junior in the eye with it this morning'
And there we have the beginning of a moral world.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
So that I know what the limitations are I'll do a virtual strip. You let me know when you want me to either stop or move to another thread (probably one at another forum, no less).

Here we go. All children and hyperactive pets leave the room.


_DSC9260 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So that I know what the limitations are I'll do a virtual strip. You let me know when you want me to either stop or move to another thread (probably one at another forum, no less).

Here we go. All children and hyperactive pets leave the room.


6874402770_65b1ebd10a_z.jpg


Tom Dinning: All children and hyperactive pets leave the room.



Tom,

This is actually very good art and even ART that could sell. Actually it's so unnervingly simple and brilliantly executed. Note that the technical quality of the image is not very important. It works! So although it may not be technically brilliantly, it's a photograph that works so well it is ART. Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm correct of course! :)

Asher
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
From the last post, it can be seen that the picture is well exposed, has good color, is interesting and catches the eye. It's something that one would talk about and mention to one's friend and say, "You gotta see this crazy Aussie bloke". This picture will always be funny and also on another level deeply probing our various cultures on nudity and perception of public decency. Not that art needs to have any meaning; nothing of the sort! Art can just have elements in harmony or tension, matters that balance or overwhelm, gestures, patterns, rhythms and textures but no meaning at all.

Here's an example where there's no technical mastery that has to be admired. It's sufficient, and that's all that's needed.

However the modest simple and basic exporting of ideas from the "Cathedral of the Mind" to a 2D physical form is nothing less than brilliant!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
You have inadvertently raised a relevant point here, Asher, about the appreciation of a photograph; how we see images. Often I see here in this and other forums, reference to compositional elements as a form of critique or appreciation. There was a reference to 'triangles' for example in another thread here and I questioned their presence (in a far too subtle manner, I fear, for they were pointed out to me by an enthusiastic observer who probably thought 'have a read of this ignorant Aussie'). You see, I was far too busy looking at the content to be bothered with identifying very subjective shapes and patterns.
Someone famous once said that to appeciate a [photo] one must be educated in the art. The problem with this is that those that are educated can miss the point.
None of this photo is about the seeking technical perfection or creating an astounding composition. Its part of a continuing story.
What could be said of it by the educated is that this bloke has a point to make. Has he achieved that? Whether it has good colour, well exposed or is art is irrelevant to the uninformed for they can look beyond that mask and laugh.
Then I have achieved my goal.
In among the shots I took yesterday I had a moment of reflection. When I take self-portraits I let the camera do its thing and I do mine. The camera just clicks away and I am in front of it, performing. Its a wonderful experience and I would highly recommend it. The camera sometimes catches things that can be surprisingly revealing about oneself.
There are two things that surprised me yesterday.
How old I seem to have got since the last shoot.
How intuitive the camera can be when left to its own devices.
This one was caught in a moment of contemplation. I think it was the best shot of the day not because of any technical or compositional reasons but simply because thats how I feel some days.


_DSC9223 by tom.dinning, on Flickr​
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You have inadvertently raised a relevant point here, Asher, about the appreciation of a photograph; how we see images. Often I see here in this and other forums, reference to compositional elements as a form of critique or appreciation.

Tom,

That's quite true. In one school of thought, the structure is first and foremost the most important aspect of a good photograph and that only then, meaning or values are infused. The idea is then that the good photograph is based on structure not the content that's added.

As an example from the current OPF thread, posts 5 and 7 here

It is the structure of any photograph that makes it art, not the subject. This, of course, is a Modernist point of view. What one is trying to say, what message someone is trying to convey must first be grounded in a complete and integrated structure.

However, in the end there's a more situation-based ethics way out expressed on the subject:

Actually, any photograph can be art if it is seen in an art context. Whether it is good art or bad art is the real issue. And, of course, different people will have different opinions about whether the work is good or bad. Consensus over time is the final arbiter.

Now lets get to your prickliness about silly triangles, LOL!

Tom Dunning said:
There was a reference to 'triangles' for example in another thread here and I questioned their presence (in a far too subtle manner, I fear, for they were pointed out to me by an enthusiastic observer who probably thought 'have a read of this ignorant Aussie'). You see, I was far too busy looking at the content to be bothered with identifying very subjective shapes and patterns.

Tom,

Everyone coming to that picture has to work with what's in their own tool chest. So we each will discover some factors we all recognize, some others recognize, and some unique to one or two of us. A view I have, is based on my own existing "lionization" of the work of Escher on "overbuilt communities". The form and texture of the place seems like a corner of one of Escher's most famous works that I suggested in Antonioa Correira's thread, here. So I see this in reference to that mythology and it buttresses the meaning of the work for me by that common motif.

Someone else comes to the picture thinking of a work made resonant by overlapping or intersecting triangles. That means something to them, but if they looked at the Escher work, it might thrill them even more.

You might imagine a child playing hide and seek there or just going up the stairs to get a hug and some good beef stew from grandma.

That's the nature of work where it can serve as

  • an expressed idea or set of feelings,
  • intriguing shapes or textures

or something extra special that most of us don't realize is an option, projecting one's own imagination and the photographer's intent be damned!
 
Last edited:

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Geez, Asher! No wonder the viewers get scared off from commenting. When the boss starts making up words it's time to stand back and let him go.
I love your conciliatory ways but I'm just human and I love the feeling I get when my blood boils. So when someone tells me the rock looks like a bear or they love the leading lines or triangle i take great pride in being a red blooded Aussie and get pissed off. That's when my 'cathedral' becomes more of a brothel and I let fly. Like someone on another thread who got pissed with me for suggesting the place was something to enjoy when, in fact, it's palace of misery for them. I might have a different perspective to share but that doen'tget ake away the reason why the phot was taken in the first place and that's what we could be asking about. That was my error and I need to be more in tune with the photographer instead of thinking so much about myself and being right.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Geez, Asher! No wonder the viewers get scared off from commenting. When the boss starts making up words it's time to stand back and let him go.

Excuse me putting my huge blocks of thinking in your place of pictures. It's only that I got inspired by pictures that don't even have anything like a bloke like you undressing or a perfect composition of triangles. I will move this interference off to somewhere obscure. I was looking at your work AND also looking at Smith's B&W balanced compositions and then again Antonio's work. From that i realize that there are 3 categories of photographs here and the last one was the viewers projected ideas like you have for Antonio's work.

I love your conciliatory ways but I'm just human and I love the feeling I get when my blood boils.

for me it's when my heart turns upside down and my legs and hands shake: trees at dusk with leaves seeming to wink, look at me, look at me, girls with thin dresses in the spring, a child helping another child make their way to school

So when someone tells me the rock looks like a bear or they love the leading lines or triangle i take great pride in being a red blooded Aussie and get pissed off.

Well, the triangles might piss me off too, but sometimes there are critters in the rocks and elephants and even dragons in the sky. I know because my 4 year old grandson sees them too!

That's when my 'cathedral' becomes more of a brothel and I let fly.

Now you're talking!

Like someone on another thread who got pissed with me for suggesting the place was something to enjoy when, in fact, it's palace of misery for them. I might have a different perspective to share but that doen'tget ake away the reason why the phot was taken in the first place and that's what we could be asking about.


That was my error and I need to be more in tune with the photographer instead of thinking so much about myself and being right.

That was not an error. You have a perfect right and I'd say duty to think of a child playing there. That's what I meant by the extension of the mind. When you can bring your own imagination to the art, I think it works better.

The photographers job is to produce a picture that will stop you long enough to engage. Just like the artist bringing up a fine daughter and then letting her go off to find a mate. Once you marry her, it's on your dime and you can kiss her any way you wish! It's out of his hands and it's just a matter between the two of you. You need make no allowances for the artist once you have the picture. Your only job is to look after it, respect it but experience it to the fullest and have enjoyment. Everyone has to do it on their terms. You wouldn't tolerate the girl's father telling you how to caress her, for gawdsake. Same with a photograph.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Y
None of this photo [,that I share,] is about the seeking technical perfection or creating an astounding composition. Its part of a continuing story. What could be said of it by the educated is that this bloke has a point to make. Has he achieved that? Whether it has good colour, well exposed or is art is irrelevant to the uninformed for they can look beyond that mask and laugh. Then I have achieved my goal.

Tom,

I never ask, "Has the bloke achieved his purpose?", rather "Does it interest me?" That's the necessary hook that's needed for me as there are so many choices for my attention. However, here, if someone here says, this is for such a purpose, then we can address that.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In among the shots I took yesterday I had a moment of reflection. When I take self-portraits I let the camera do its thing and I do mine. The camera just clicks away and I am in front of it, performing. Its a wonderful experience and I would highly recommend it. The camera sometimes catches things that can be surprisingly revealing about oneself.

Tom,

That's a poetic way of saying you try observe and so comment on what's real to you. You allow yourself to do your thing. The camera is passive and honest, that's all!

If one is patient, then one can get remarkable results as you have shown, even with an unshaven Aussie guy.

There are two things that surprised me yesterday. How old I seem to have got since the last shoot.

That's the problem with mirrors too. They ruin my shoot of models. :)

How intuitive the camera can be when left to its own devices.

That is a wonderful quote. I may use it sometime!

The American photographer Jock Sturges told me that he never poses his models. Rather he let's them do their thing. I'm surprised at the pictures!

jock_sturges_13.jpg


Jock Sturges: Room with a view

but as you know, he got arrested, poor chap!

Asher
 
Top