• 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: What it might be, purpose and requirements for appreciation

Dan Siman

New member
This first post by Dan Siman is copied here and what follows is discussion that arose on the nature, purpose and requisites of art and then it's appreciation. What sparked this debate was the realization that Dan's pictures are devoid of a biting mark, a moving bird, anything to break the tranquility. From there we move to ask questions on what art might be and it's purpose for the creator and the rest of us. Then we touch on what is needed for us to then appreciate the art as intended by its creator. ADK


2zgvr7o.jpg


2s76dj7.jpg


vwphrc.jpg


30jtfg2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These pictures are evocative and have a quiet beauty and nothing to apologise for. I used to make photographs like this quite often. But no more!

I now see these scenes as stage-sets, beautiful but empty, and waiting for some punctum (action, motif, gizmo, gubbin, kicker, etc) to take full advantage of their promise; an elegant foreground detail, a rock on the intersection of thirds, floating leaves, anything to put a dot on the end of an incomplete exclamation mark. And I must confess to being so crass on occasion to throw a stone into the water and camera-catch the expanding rings of ripples to give the the viewer of the picture one more thing to think about.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Leaving the scene empty from punctum can allow the viewer's imagination to wander. May I suggest that you enquire about the collection of Seascapes by Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto?
 
Leaving the scene empty from punctum can allow the viewer's imagination to wander. May I suggest that you enquire about the collection of Seascapes by Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto?

Hiroshi Sugimoto I know about and I've had the privilege of seeing several of his original pictures up-close. The first (and only?) thing about them one notices is that they are huge. The thought that follows for me is that Sugimoto is exploring the irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content. It could be a grand private joke (not unknown in the art-world) and Sugimoto could be laughing behind his hand at our rapture.

Sugimoto delivers aura, the aura of a internationally praised artist exhibiting important work but pound for pound Dan Siman's water pictures are much more lookable.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Message Engraved in Art in art versus "Imaginorium" provided for us by the artist.

Jerome,

I have been sticking my neck out for years, trying to formulate, at least for myself what constitutes art. At first I thought it was merely the export to physical form of ideas created by the imagination that were driven to be shared with the world. Art occurs then by completing an "Arc of Intent" when the artist experiences eruptive feelings, emotions and consequential ideas sufficiently close to his/her intent. From then on becoming publicly acclaimed depends on the works drawing power to pull folks attention in and interest them beyond that moment and more so to return and spread that story to others. Those that were well received are then saved for posterity. That's how I thought of art. There was some key idea engraved, so therefore some defined subject was needed.

However, things turned on their head when I proceeded to go return to the major galleries of Munich, Paris, London and New york and come face to face with abstract and even to me emptiness in art. So how was as my concept so wrong?

Hiroshi Sugimoto I know about and I've had the privilege of seeing several of his original pictures up-close. The first (and only?) thing about them one notices is that they are huge. The thought that follows for me is that Sugimoto is exploring the irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content. It could be a grand private joke (not unknown in the art-world) and Sugimoto could be laughing behind his hand at our rapture.

Sugimoto delivers aura, the aura of a internationally praised artist exhibiting important work but pound for pound Dan Siman's water pictures are much more lookable.


I have never seen Sugimoto's prints and I did not know they were huge. Yet they have a profound effect on me. I believe I am not the only one in that case.

For me, they have a hypnotic effect because the landscape is so empty. The "irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content" was lost on me.


For me, they have a hypnotic effect because the landscape is so empty. The "irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content" was lost on me.

Maris,

You look for concrete evidence of design and craft that shows that the photographer thought about his/her imagined work, refined it and then materialized it through skill and craft to a presentable form that evokes something like the ideas that needed so much to be expressed therein. You are correct that most of the very best pictures of the past century or so are this defined and those who fail, do so by not having a driving formed intent nor the care to make it happen.

Jerome,

You, no doubt, already know about the great works that support our appreciation of expressed ideas. Here, however, we are celebrating something more open ended and not tightl controlled by the artist, just facilitated. We are given a space, real or imagined, into which we can wander. We can bring with us whatever needs, fantasies and dependencies we might wish or need to address at that moment. Our wanderings need not be purposeful, but they are safe, hardly limited, yet private, discrete and protected. In a way, these open-ended works serve as opportunities for contemplation and exercise of our imaginary options, but without cost or risk.

Such open ended works I've coined as the "Imaginorium", an artisitic physical structure which requires no dominant subject, just sufficient room or pathways to allow the players of the "Cathedral of our mind" to populate, if it were, a new playground or gymnasium, as if on some outing. This then is the other part of art, where the intent is not to engrave an idea, but places for ideas to grow.

Maybe, these two facets of art help explain the divergence between the ideas of something lacking in giant "empty" soft landscapes and the praise of them as great works of art.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Message Engraved in Art in art versus "Imaginorium" provided for us by the artist.

Jerome and Maris,

So here's where we are. Are Dan Simans' soft, gentle, dreamy but admittedly empty seascapes "art with no bite", so to speak: nothing to grab or take home, no subject, sort of incomplete, waiting for that bird or boat to come? Or else, are these works mature, completed, just despite what seems to be missing?

Let me point you to Cem Usakilgil's useful compendium to previous OPF discussions on what might be covered by "Art" including my development for my self here of the concepts "Arc of communication" and "Arc of Intent" that seem to be required for much art, and eventually a case for something I call "The Imaginorium", a place for "sensotic" experience for some of the rest. The "Imaginorium", then is a conceptual gymnasium of the mind built into to an artist work where we a freely allowed and even encouraged to imagine what we wish or need at that time.

I have been sticking my neck out this way for years in a personal struggle, trying to grasp and formulate hypotheses, at least for myself, as to what might constitute art that humanity values so much. After all, art is collected, treasured, celebrated and stored for posterity. At first I thought "Art" was merely the successful export to physical form of ideas created by the imagination that were driven to be shared with the world. Art is born and occurs then, by completing an "Arc of Intent" at that moment when the artist experiences eruptive feelings, emotions and consequential ideas sufficiently close to his/her intent. From then on becoming publicly acclaimed depends on the work's drawing power to pull folks attention in and interest them beyond that moment and more so to return and spread that story to others. Those works that are well received are then saved for posterity, folk competing for the opportunity to save, store, display or even profit by it. That's how I thought of "Art". Always, I thought, there was some key idea engraved, so therefore some defined subject was needed.

However, things turned on their head for me and my simple ideas, when I proceeded to return to the major galleries of Munich, Paris, London and New york and come face to face with abstract and even to me emptiness in art. My ideas excluded much of the great works I saw. So how was as my concept so wrong?

Hiroshi Sugimoto I know about and I've had the privilege of seeing several of his original pictures up-close. The first (and only?) thing about them one notices is that they are huge. The thought that follows for me is that Sugimoto is exploring the irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content. It could be a grand private joke (not unknown in the art-world) and Sugimoto could be laughing behind his hand at our rapture.

Sugimoto delivers aura, the aura of a internationally praised artist exhibiting important work but pound for pound Dan Siman's water pictures are much more lookable.


I have never seen Sugimoto's prints and I did not know they were huge. Yet they have a profound effect on me. I believe I am not the only one in that case.

For me, they have a hypnotic effect because the landscape is so empty. The "irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content" was lost on me.


2zgvr7o.jpg


2s76dj7.jpg


vwphrc.jpg


30jtfg2.jpg


For me, they have a hypnotic effect because the landscape is so empty. The "irony of making a picture very large but at the same time virtually free of content" was lost on me.

Maris,

You look for concrete evidence of design and craft that shows that the photographer thought about his/her imagined work, refined it and then materialized it through skill and craft to a presentable form that evokes something like the ideas that needed so much to be expressed therein. You are correct that most of the very best pictures of the past century or so are defined thus. Moreover, those who fail, do so by not having a driving formed intent nor the care or craft to make a complete picture fully happen in their hands.

Jerome,

You, no doubt, already know about the great works that support our appreciation of expressed ideas. Here, however, perhaps we are celebrating something more open ended and not tightly controlled by the artist, just facilitated. I propose that we're given a space, real or imagined, into which we can wander. We can bring with us whatever needs, fantasies and dependencies we might happen to choose to at that moment. Our wanderings need not be purposeful, but they are safe, hardly limited, yet private, discrete and protected. In a way, these open-ended works could serve as opportunities for contemplation and exercise of our imaginary options, but without cost or risk. Such open-ended art could have important evolutionary value for humans, where new ideas are always needed and conflicting ones need to be resolved.

Such open ended works I've coined as the "Imaginorium", an artisitic physical structure which requires no dominant subject, just sufficient room or pathways to allow the players of the "Cathedral of our mind" to populate, if it were, a new playground or gymnasium, as if on some outing. This then is the other part of much of our art, where the intent is not to engrave an idea, but the intent is to provide places for ideas to grow without the limits we normally place on them. Carried to the extreme, one might imagine that the greatest art then frees us from all constraints to free thought.

Maybe, these two facets of art help explain the divergence between the ideas of something lacking in giant "empty" soft landscapes and the praise of them as great works of art.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I think that you may be confusing art and craft. Art is not about communicating ideas. It can communicate ideas, but that is not the purpose, it is the means. Art can exist in a pure abstract form. May I suggest that you listen to some famous pieces by Johann Sebastian Bach, for example the widely known Toccata and Fugue in D minor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATbMw6X3T40&annotation_id=annotation_78634&feature=iv&src_vid=ipzR9bhei_o

in particular the bars from 1:10 or 2:40 onwards.
Jerome,

I'm not referring just to ideas alone, but first to imagined and constructed sensory experiences, sensations, vibrations, harmony, dissonance, progressions, conflicts, patterns, paths and blocks to paths, all kinds of shapes made from all manners of sensations, feelings and emotions too. I'd argue that Bach heard all that in his head or struggled to experience music in his head well before expressing it. That's what I consider art can be. The making physical of what occurs in the creative mind, engraved in such a way so that others can be moved and recruited to advertise this work. It's not some message board but the export of what's created in the mind into some physical form which can in many cases outlive the creator.

If one is just sending a message, a telegram will do, art is not needed.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I think that you confuse the means and the purpose. What is the purpose of art? Why did Bach compose that toccata?

What would be the equivalent of that toccata in a photograph?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
First, Jerome,

Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 is one of most known and loved organ compositions and although attributed to Johan Sebastian Bach, its authorship is not at all certain. There are many puzzles about the work that have lead for scholars to question whether or not Bach indeed wrote it. For sure it appears to have parts inspired or lifted from other works. Some say it's an early work of Bach and that explains some naiveté. Still it's always a toweringly impressive work for me to hear.

Toccato pieces were keyboard compositions designed to show off the virtuosity and seeming unlimited improvisation of the keyboardist in between playing recognizable more classical fugal "dance" passages. So these were designed to delight and impress the audience with the dextrous skills and playfulness of the musician. I'll discuss my approach to fathoming purpose further below.

I must commend you for pointing us of bar graph representation of music. What a delight! This art was developed over decades mostly by STEPHEN MALINOWSKI and deserves far more attention and integration into our understanding and apprecaition of music. I really enjoyed watching the music develop in so many lines at once.

Thanks! I cannot immedately answer any of your 3 questions but let me put aside the last one first.


What would be the equivalent of that toccata in a photograph?

That's a great question! I shall have to think about it for a while.


I think that you confuse the means and the purpose. What is the purpose of art? Why did Bach compose that toccata?


The purpose of art is far more challenging for me to define than to ask, as I've done, "What art might be?" I'd repeat from my writing above that art draws us into itself and evokes feelings and an experience we value. I'd add to that the sense of entertainment too. But I am not sure I could say that the purpose of art is entertainment as that would first require that the frame of reference of purpose be delimited. If I myself really knew the purpose of art then possibly I'd also know why this music was composed, but I'm only at the very early stages of thinking about this. I'd hazard to say that it must have considerable evolutionary value to homo sapiens, since we invest so much in it.

Here are just a few of the many purposes one might conjure up:

There's purpose on a grand scale: "What are benefits for homo sapiens of art to which purpose man then, (unconsciously or consciously), strives?", "To what purpose does man make art?" and then "Is this different for music compared to picture making?"

Next, Purpose of Music or Art on an individual artist: I'd ask, "To what purpose does an individual musician make music: to earn money, seduce a lover, impress society or some higher personal drive." "Could such a musician be compared to a skilled cabinet maker serving the Royal court of Louis XIV?" He knows all the curves and patterns that are pleasing and has the skills to churn out the furniture on command and payment. So I find "purpose" to be a complex heading.

Lastly, Purpose of Music to the occasion it is played: They may need to show respect for a Duke's passing or the coronation of a King or take up 15 minutes before dinner and the grand ball or it might be to entertain folk for an hour and not have them talk politics, complain or be for ever sarcastic, witty or concerned with fashion or the topic of the day. Today it might be, something to dance to or set the mood for entertaining a prospective lover.

Likely as not, you have already gone far beyond my initial quick and rather superficial thoughts on this. So please share your own crafted definition of the purpose of Art and the honest reason as to why Bach composed this Toccata, if indeed he did. Since you pose the question, you must already have framed answers. Also, while we're at it, what do you imagine would be your pictorial equivalent of that toccata. I still have much more work to do on that subject!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Maybe purpose what not a well chosen word.

Let me go back to the original question: we are discussing here about a definition of "art". That implies that we are looking for something which is common between all what is generally considered "art". The hypothesis that art expresses ideas is easy to disprove: not all art expresses ideas. Toccata and Fugue in D minor is universally considered "art" and does not really express ideas. Expressing ideas is therefore not a commonality between all what is art.

Now, when I said "purpose" I was thinking of something more mundane than the role of art for humanity, etc... I was just thinking about what the artist was trying to achieve. And I think, and maybe you will agree, that the artist is trying to produce emotions in the viewer or listener. This was the "purpose" I was referring to and it seems to me that it can be viewed as a commonality between all what is generally considered "art". At least, I was not able to find a counter-example. Even Marcel Duchamp's fountain, which artistic merits were disputed eagerly, was finally considered "art" for this very reason, wasn't it?

Interestingly, and it is the reason why I gave the video by Stephen Malinowski, the emotion depends on how the message is delivered. The video and the music contain exactly the same information, but the video alone would not have any effect on most people. The music, on the other hand, is universal and understood all over the planet even by people who have not the same culture. The video with the music works, of course.

What could be the photographic equivalent of that piece of music, then? We will probably never find a real equivalent, but I was not thinking very far... Toccata and Fugue is characterized in that it does not really convey a message but is a technical tour de force. Hiroshi Sugimoto seascape do not really convey a message and are technically complex so it was the equivalent I was thinking about. Not necessarily the best analogy, but one which serves the purpose of the discussion.

Last but not least, you referred to Cem Usakilgil's posts. I should say that I was very much moved by Cem Usakilgil's announcement than he was abandoning photography because he has "been fooled to think that perhaps he was doing something meaningful and that somebody out there might have enjoyed his work after all". It is not meaningful if nobody else enjoys it: it fails the purpose. Or as it was said in another seminal thread: it is worse to be ignored than criticized.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Can thoughts, concepts, plans be excluded in art?

Let me go back to the original question: we are discussing here about a definition of "art". That implies that we are looking for something which is common between all what is generally considered "art".

Jerome,

That is not any condition I have suggested must ever be met. Re-read what i've written. Ideas are only included to the extent that all thoughts are ideas. The concept of using a rising set of notes in a particular scale, is an idea and a thought. As soon as one imagines anything, sound or sight, it's a an idea. These cannot be excluded in art. But the ideas as a message, for example,

"the king is noble"

are never required in art!

The hypothesis that art expresses ideas is easy to disprove: not all art expresses ideas. Toccata and Fugue in D minor is universally considered "art" and does not really express ideas. Expressing ideas [i.e. messages] is therefore not a commonality between all what is art.

I never said it was.

But the mental package of thoughts, including music and expectations of association with emotion imagined by the composer, are indeed thoughts and ideas. Those must be engraved in the physical writing and/ the physical playing of the notes.

Interestingly, and it is the reason why I gave the video by Stephen Malinowski, the emotion depends on how the message is delivered. The video and the music contain exactly the same information,

Not true, I'm afraid, although , I admit the presentation is brilliant and adds so much to the experience that listening alone cannot deliver. The bar annotation opens up the added character of the music visualization of transient events and allowing us to more easily see the patterns and structure. Despite these advantages, the annotation in bars needs to be taken further and refined. There's such a lot missing without which, merely looking at the video cannot evoke the music to be heard in one's mind. We're missing so much: volume, how the note is approached, character, vibrato for example, the nature of the instrument, flute or violin and more.

but the video alone would not have any effect on most people.
If the video was refined and we we're fully educated, we'd experience the music fully in our minds, just like reading a novel. However, the graphic system is still in it's infancy and most of us are pretty well illiterate in music. Beethoven or Mozart, no doubt, would hear the music perfectly, just be glancing at the score.

The music, on the other hand, is universal
to those in the West. But then it could not be appreciated in the way we do. Art often requires cultural connections and or education to allow reference to other works.

and understood all over the planet even by people who have not the same culture.
I doubt that. The scales are not part of all cultures and the "Bach" composition depends on that being a common ground before the music can be experienced by anyone in the same way. Furthermore, the fugal passages are related to dances that belong to Western European tradition. A tribe from the Amazon or in congo would not have that required background.

The video with the music works, of course.

And in a special expanded way. It actually adds to the music as it reveals the inner workings. So I feel that listening and watching the video is a whole new and experience. So I appreciate so much your link above.

Asher
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Maybe purpose what not a well chosen word..........

Now, when I said "purpose" I was thinking of something more mundane than the role of art for humanity, etc... I was just thinking about what the artist was trying to achieve. And I think, and maybe you will agree, that the artist is trying to produce emotions in the viewer or listener.

Exactly. That's what I've written over and over again. Here I'll put in one place my current ideas made for my own guidance and offered for your consideration.


1. Art referred to here covers those creative, often physical, products of particular people who's works are valued, shown even prized and collected for posterity. Art can be found in museums, in galleries and performed in theaters and auditoria. Those that make them have a unique talent to produce captivating work that move us so much that we're drawn into new special imaginative worlds to experience great ranges of emotions, feelings and more. We are pulled again to return to the work and even recruit others to enjoy, once more, the feelings evoked, the emotions released and perhaps new ideas discovered as a result.

2. Because these works are so unusual and rare and their remarkable positive and entertaining effect on us, we select our favorite works to be publicized, collected and saved for posterity and as a consequences, some works achieve great market value as they are so prized and even considered as investments or a hedge against bad times, like gold.

3. Art is made by several mechanisms alone or in combination:


  • somehow exporting concepts from the brain of the artist to a designed or discovered physical form from which the emotions, feelings, ideas, thoughts, consequences or whatever the artist imagined, are evoked and invoked by the expression in physical form be it a performance of the work, such as music or dance, a tangible work, such as a sculpture, painting or perhaps a photograph.
  • somehow producing or discovering a structure more or less devoid of feelings in which we bring along our own imagination and populate the forms and spaces in the work with our own concepts, feelings, fantasies and more to become, as it were a device to act as an agreeable gymnasium or "imaginorium" of the mind, but displaced and projected to within the unique framework of artwork where the constraints of our minds might be released.
4. Prerequisites and dependencies for our experience of art: In many cases, we may discover that the art is dependent on a hidden substructure from culture, mythology, skill or knowledge so that all art cannot necessarily be universally experienced and or appreciated by different groups or even individuals within a single group. Rather we likely have, (related and overlapping), families of experience that we might share. That's the nearest we can approach to appreciating art that has left the realm of the artist's mind and possession to have an eternal life of its own.


Asher
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
J
to those in the West. But then it could not be appreciated in the way we do. Art often requires cultural connections and or education to allow reference to other works.

I doubt that. The scales are not part of all cultures and the "Bach" composition depends on that being a common ground before the music can be experienced by anyone in the same way. Furthermore, the fugal passages are related to dances that belong to Western European tradition. A tribe from the Amazon or in congo would not have that required background.


When I was a child, I read the book "L'expédition Orénoque-Amazone" (by Alain Gheerbrant), which described an expedition to visit tribes in the Amazon basin between 1948 and 1950. This was before globalization and the tribes had had no contact with western culture. They went with film but also sound recording instruments and tried to record the music of these tribes. At one point, members of one tribe asked whether the visitors also had their own music, and they played classical music to them (I think it was Mozart and not Bach). The effect was beyond description.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
When I was a child, I read the book "L'expédition Orénoque-Amazone" (by Alain Gheerbrant), which described an expedition to visit tribes in the Amazon basin between 1948 and 1950. This was before globalization and the tribes had had no contact with western culture. They went with film but also sound recording instruments and tried to record the music of these tribes. At one point, members of one tribe asked whether the visitors also had their own music, and they played classical music to them (I think it was Mozart and not Bach). The effect was beyond description.

Doubtless, but was it the same? If one has never seen a Cathedral with towering columns, vaulted ceilings, filtered light and hard wooden benches, then the the organ experience, without that background will be different. Add to that lack of knowledge of all the dances and jargon our brains are imbued with by the age of 10, the unspoiled natives can be fascinated, but it's no way going to match our own in depth fully dimensional experience. In the same way, looking at a bronze sculpture the Benin Kingdom in West Africa, we might be blown away by the technique, beauty and modernity of these wonders. However, our appreciation is superficial as we know almost nothing of their songs, metaphors, history and civilization that made the works so special in the first place.

Asher
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In case any one think that I believe I really understand art from my seemingly definitive statements in post #13 above, I'd like to assure you that this is just a work in progress started in 2006, where I challenged myself to actually put in writing by ideas on this matter. They evolve as I observe and learn more. So I welcome any observations or alternate views on art. Doubtless there are huge gaps in my understanding! I recognize that.

Asher
 
Hi Guys

Here's a different take on the issue. I saw Dan Siman's photos when originally posted and really liked the first (purplish) image but thought the others mundane. That surprised me because I don't normally appreciate unnaturally coloured photos and particularly dislike over-saturated photos of scenery. The first photo is not over saturated; however, the colour adds an element of surprise.

Now, to cut to the chase, discussion about art theory often seems like words, words and more words, without much substance (or so it seems to me). A critical question is, 'What makes a photograph memorable', thereby making one return to view it again.

A couple of theses under my supervision tried to answer this question. The first was published in Photography and Culture a couple of years ago, with the second more thorough but ongoing. I'll be happy to send anyone a copy of the first paper - send me a private message containing your email address because private messages don't allow attachments.

The answers to the question about what makes photos memorable (for intervals up to a week) are surprisingly simple. With photos sampled from a widely used research archive, and ratings on pleasantness and arousal obtained from the participants (and also available from a normative database):
(1) Unpleasant photos were more memorable if arousing;
(2) Pleasant photos were more memorable if rated as very low or very high on arousal;
(3) Photos near the midrange between pleasantness and unpleasantness were least memorable.

These findings represent overall trends within the samples of participants. Other findings related to personality traits and/or induced mood at the time of viewing the photos (e.g., for photos near the midrange on arousal, more emotionally stable people remember more unpleasant photos; more neurotic individuals remember more pleasant photos). So what makes photos memorable also varies with personality, and particularly neuroticism.

The samples studied were students, not 'experts' in art or photography. However, the pleasantness and arousal dimensions have cross-cultural applicability with linkages to independent neurophysiological systems for the appraisal of a wide range of emotive content (e.g., facial expression provides another example). Although ratings of pleasantness and arousal to a given photo may differ between 'experts' and 'novices' (because of prior experiences) and with respect to personality, they are the primary dimensions used by everyone for the evaluation of photos.

So why was Dan Simon's purple photo memorable to me? Because I thought it pleasant and (due to the colour) arousing. The B&W photos were less arousing and therefore less memorable.

That's my 2 cents worth

Cheers
Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
...A critical question is, 'What makes a photograph memorable', thereby making one return to view it again.
Michael,

The element that if find remarkable about successful art is that, not only does it draw folk to return but also they recruit others to follow suit to share the experience. So the appreciation becomes meme-like. For those who might seek a brief introduction to "memes", look here. Obviously, for the picture to get someone to revisit, the picture must be remembered, but more than that, the experience has to motivate them to re-new the feelings induced once before. Just because a picture is memorable, does not mean it will necessarily draw the viewer to return to get more of whatever they appreciated the first time around. So although, being memorable, could be a necessity for art to work to recruit loyalty and more fans, we do not know what the quality of these memories need to be. It could very well be that some of the most memorable pictures in a laboratory setting are the least likely to succeed as art because of not only other factors, but also the nature and quality of the memory of that picture.

A couple of theses under my supervision tried to answer this question.

Kudos! Good data is needed to clarify what's going on!

The first was published in Photography and Culture a couple of years ago, with the second more thorough but ongoing. I'll be happy to send anyone a copy of the first paper - send me a private message containing your email address because private messages don't allow attachments.

The answers to the question about what makes photos memorable (for intervals up to a week) are surprisingly simple. With photos sampled from a widely used research archive, and ratings on pleasantness and arousal obtained from the participants (and also available from a normative database):
(1) Unpleasant photos were more memorable if arousing;
(2) Pleasant photos were more memorable if rated as very low or very high on arousal;
(3) Photos near the midrange between pleasantness and unpleasantness were least memorable.

These findings represent overall trends within the samples of participants. Other findings related to personality traits and/or induced mood at the time of viewing the photos (e.g., for photos near the midrange on arousal, more emotionally stable people remember more unpleasant photos; more neurotic individuals remember more pleasant photos). So what makes photos memorable also varies with personality, and particularly neuroticism.

These are very interesting findings. I wonder whether or not art gallery owners and advisors to collectors have, on the whole, certain common personality traits.

What system of classification of personality do you use, is it Goldberg's "Big Five"?

The samples studied were students, not 'experts' in art or photography. However, the pleasantness and arousal dimensions have cross-cultural applicability with linkages to independent neurophysiological systems for the appraisal of a wide range of emotive content (e.g., facial expression provides another example). Although ratings of pleasantness and arousal to a given photo may differ between 'experts' and 'novices' (because of prior experiences) and with respect to personality, they are the primary dimensions used by everyone for the evaluation of photos.

I'm looking forward to reading the studies.

So why was Dan Simon's purple photo memorable to me? Because I thought it pleasant and (due to the colour) arousing. The B&W photos were less arousing and therefore less memorable.

I'd love to see more work with B&W as they do not have the RAZ-ma-taz colors that arouse us so artificially!

Thanks for your well-grounded insights. I hope to learn more from reading the published work!

Asher
 
Hi Asher

We measured the BIG FIVE with the most frequently used scale (developed by Paul Costa & colleagues). You are right that memory is only one step toward revisiting a photo. None of the photos used in the research could be described as a 'work of art' but all were technically competent and chosen to elicit a wide range of pleasantness and arousal ratings.

The personality effects were interesting. Only openness to experience affected the ratings, with more open people rating the photos as more pleasant and more arousing. These findings contrast with those on subsequent memory for the photos, in which only neuroticism affected overall level of recall (lower recall by more neurotic individuals).

What the findings show, I think, is that cursory appraisal of photos elicits different emotive reactions in different people, with their subsequent recall affected both by those emotive reactions and other personality characteristics. Had the individuals been required to inspect the photos for longer and against other frames of reference (e.g., 'Does this photo connect with anything important in your life?'), ratings on the pleasantness and arousal dimensions might well have differed, with implications for subsequent remembrance.

It's here that the findings intersect with ideas about art. Commenting on a recent photo of mine www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14496, Mike Shimwell wrote "I wouldn't seek to refine the image - it needs neither boosted colours or monochrome or glitzy treatment to acheve your end. It does need a viewer famiiar with the idea of mud and rain and death in the trenches." Wise words, indeed, and ones I much appreciated. Mike's point was that the photo would be mundane to individuals without but arousing to those with that familiarity.

Your Arc of Intent makes a related point: an artist tries to convey to others some concept or feeling associated with work he/she originates. How successful the artist will be depends partly on his/her expertise but also on characteristics of the viewer (e.g., personality traits, life experiences, knowledge, needs and desires). Sometimes an artistic work can elicit reactions far from the artist's intent. Years ago, I showed a photo of my wife, taken by candlelight, to her best friend. I thought it romantic, so did my wife. Her friend freaked - she thought its darkness signified death. The Arc of Intent was unfulfilled, but I bet that photo still remains memorable to her.

Best Wishes
Mike
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I am not really sure what is meant by "pleasant" and "arousing" in the context of the study. Could you point to examples, please? In particular, I wonder what a pleasant yet non arousing photograph could be.
 
Hi Jerome

We used rating metrics. In the first study, pleasantness ratings were choices between five faces ranging from a smiley face to a scowling face, with the faces for arousal ranging from animated to non-animated but neutral with regard to pleasantness-unpleasantness. The metric in the second study was a 10-point rating scale for each dimension. Both types of metric show minimal correlation between pleasantness and arousal with respect to all kinds of emotive content, and have been found reliable in research studies for over half a century.

Measures of this type allow respondents to indicate hedonic tone and arousing properties in the images they view. Neurophysiological interpretation suggests that differences in responses arise from cognitive interpretation of neural sensation through the mesolimbic dopamine system (for hedonic tone) and the reticular formation, via connections with the limbic system and thalamus (for arousal). Because the participants viewed each photo only for a few seconds before providing ratings, the ratings were of immediate reactions.

Normative data on the ratings shows fairly high consistency between people for the same on photos. An example of a pleasant but non-arousing photo might be Dan Siman's B&W images showing a pleasant scene in which nothing is happening or unexpected (at least, those are the responses those photos elicited in me).

Cheers
Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Michael,

Now that we have broached the important issue of a picture being memorable or not and that requires also knowing about the content and observer, we should be more familiar with the test system. So, just for the sake of reference, so that everyone will understand the thread, do you have pictures you can link to, so folk can really experience what these rating metrics are like.

Obviously, this only begins to address the more complex demands of making a picture popular. Still we're happy to take baby steps right now!

Asher
 
Hi Asher

The publisher doesn't allow reproduction of the photos used in the studies but I'll post some analogous illustrations over the weekend. Right now I have a class to teach.

Cheers
Mike
 

Tracy Lebenzon

New member
I've read this thread with interest and wanted to attempt to add to it.

First regarding the original images, image 3 and 4 are very similar. Image 3 is more compelling to me as I like the composition with the greater expanse of water. Image 2 is a delicious composition and an intrigue. My eye spends most of the time on the reflection, wanders to the dark and vague land spaces, to the sky and back to the water and then repeats. In doing this I come to enjoy that the work is about muted textures, colors and forms. It’s a great capture!

Image 1 for me is over the top. While it employs the best of the elements from the images in the group, and positively screams of tranquility nearly enough to inspire synesthesa, the drapes don’t match the rug, so to speak. The colors of the water don’t make sense to me given the colors of the sky. It’s all done right and I'm not suggesting otherwise, but only that I'm uncomfortable due to this.

I’d like to add a little to the related conversation.

> So here's where we are. Are Dan Simans' soft, gentle, dreamy but admittedly empty seascapes "art with no bite", so to speak: nothing to grab or take home, no subject, sort of incomplete, waiting for that bird or boat to come? Or else, are these works mature, completed, just despite what seems to be missing?

I was reading an excerpt from a book titled The Birth of Tragedy. In this book the author expresses that much of traditional art is a stage about redemption. Redemption in the traditional sense may be seen as being Asher’s bird or boat examples above.

A newer type of artistic expression (the book was written in 1872), was about unshielded exposure to reality, that didn’t necessarily portray redemption, or portray it as such.

In light of this, there is a long and established tradition which reflects that the photos don’t need to have redemption to be popular.

I have to wonder how far can one go to not include redemption and still be popular?

I'm also thinking of a couple particular wilderness lake locations i'd like to re-visit.
 
Top