Can Art have no Artist's Statement, Vision or Idea?

Cem_Usakligil said:

No disrespect meant. I could try to persuade you that this meta analysis is exactly right, but it would be in vain.

Click to expand...

Cem,

My good friend, for the meta analysis to work we have to agree on how you categorize the statements to pair them off as you have done and dismiss different approaches to explaining arguments as if they are mere repeats. In particular, I gave you the key statement where Vivek shows clearly that he accepts "ideas" being integral to the fabric of the art. Agreeing to that, albeit with hesitation over use of the world "controlling" is a major joining of our previously disparate statements.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Besides, I do not believe in persuasion.

Click to expand...

Cem,

I'd hope you state this only in some very narrow exceptional sense. After all, folk coming from diverse points on a map, observe events from different perspectives. It's one of the great qualities of civilized man to put ideas forth to compete in the public space. We take risks in that any idea we have could be proven wrong. Persuasion is the ordering of ideas and influences to achieve agreement.

Jensen's ideas are indeed provocative. Understanding their implications is a worthy endeavor. This is especially true for those of us us who devote so much energy for our photography with ideas of delivering a work of lasting value.

Cem_Usakligil said:

However, I too have the right to voice my opinion which I did. If I am not allowed to, this forum ceases to be open.

Click to expand...

Of course you have these inalienable rights, but please, my friend, try going back and rereading the content and not just the rhythm of the confrontation of opposing ideas. What you seemed to have missed altogether is the point where Vivek and I found common ground.


Asher

Vivek,

As you made a concession to insert "ideas" into the essential fabric of art, I must follow suite with a concession of my own to your arguments.

In the sense that we, the observers have a right to look at art through the lens our own values and interests, the embedded idea can no longer be controlled by the artist once the art is published. So while an idea might be a controlling idea in exporting imagination to a physical form as a work of art, once born, the art goes out to the world and has to withstand critique like the rest of us.

Thus, once put in the public place, the artist no longer has the same control as in the making of the art. So Vivek, your are correct to this extent in protesting the term, "Controlling Idea". The art, once born, has a life of its own and has to survive on its merits and what the artists shares with us about its pedigree.

Asher

' Art ' is subjective.

Opinions are subjective. Otherwise they would be facts, not opinions.

Hence opinions about ' Art ' are subjective.

Where common ground seems to have been found; it no longer remains opinions of the parties concerned.

To them it represents facts that the parties have agreed to.

Once parties have agreed to the facts. They can go and argue about that which remains subjective.

This can go on ad infinitum.

That is why I refrain from expressing facts or opinions as I am doing here on subjective issues.

That too is subjective. But we can find common ground given enough time and typing. Then we can

argue about that which remains.

I find it productive to post my humble photographic work. Thinking it is of value. But that is a subjective

assessment. Just as ' Art'. Both being subjective; my work is as good as ' Art '' subjectively speaking of

course.

Fahim,


We can test that and it's been done. There's pretty good agreement on what's beautiful that crosses cultures. So we don't have to discuss whether a particular sunset or flower is beautiful but rather other aspects of the image that make us want to return to it. That art is "subjective" is really only true in the sense that art appreciation has a major subjective component. That we do appreciate art that is collected and saved and hoarded by our cultures depends mostly on what is held in common in the experience of that work. Look at an audience or visitors to a gallery. That common enjoyment and the evoked joy and interest is the factual part of the art. Individuals will also color their perceptions with their own individual treasured memories and baggage, but the gross reception of art in any given community is objectively observable by its commonality of appreciation and evoked emotions and reactions.

It's the impressiveness and community infectiousness of the artwork's appeal that is so interesting to follow.

Your own work, Fahim, as I've remarked on many times, has a great sense of devotion to all the aspects of humanity in different cultures and each shows great respect on your part and affection and grace in return on from the faces of your subjects. That's your branding and style. Your work needs hardly any introduction to us and titles or not essential. Sure we can ask about the camera, technique, place and so forth, but these are extra and not needed for our immediate appreciation of your offerings.

Once we go beyond such beauty, amitiés, splendor, drama and the like, art, even important work, can become more difficult to understand. We shouldn't underestimate how much enjoyment we each might get from the extra effort someone makes in explaining their art. If there is no original idea/imagination/statement of the photographer to be expressed, then no art will result and there's nothing to be explained or worth our efforts. Introductions to the photographers ideas and motivations can now be, with more complex projects, absolutely essential. Leaving it up to anyone to interpret "as they wish" is always there as an option, but is going 3rd class in the experience one gets! For example, look at Mitch Alland's work on Bangkok and there we don't look at just one picture or many pictures but what we see between what he shows us, allowing us to use our own imagination as he moves us through one image to another at odd angles and juxtapositions, all carefully planned out.

So once we leave the obvious realms of agreeable beauty and the like, we need to guide each other with introductions and let on to our intentions in making the art. If there are no intentions/imagination/ideas/imperatives defining and or penetrating the work is something physical indeed, but not art! That, in essence, is what Books Jensen was saying in his podcast in the very first post.

Addendum: Let me state that Brooks Jensen doesn't address works where the artist leaves a lot of room for us to exercise our own imaginations. But then such works do have controlling ideas: to provide an immediately appreciated physical form of art that is also structured "space" for us to meander inside and flaunt or test out our own creative fantasies. I have called this an "imaginorium", like a gymnasium for the imagination. I'd argue that the best art includes such extra space for us to use for ourselves.

Asher

My wife's cousin recently said to me, "I like your art."

I said "I'm an artist?"

I've never thought of myself as an artist.

I've never really tried to create something, I've only captured what I've seen in front of me with this digital medium.

Am I an artist?

Maybe someday I will be able to envision what I want the viewer to feel, then create something that envokes those same feelings.

Asher Kelman said:

A leaf floating on the water might be appreciated then for its own transient beauty. A photograph of that in certain light can evoke that beauty many times over. However, when the photographer declares the title, "A Life's Journey", a whole new range of ideas are sparked, all directed by the artist who is absent for his/her art. Somehow, the artist has to convey to us something physical expressing just imagination and memory. If these never existed or are not expressed then there's then no art to appreciate just craft.
Asher

Click to expand...

Interesting conclusion, Asher. All that's needed to transform craft into art is a meaningful statement, right? Ok, let's explore. Walking the dogs with my wife a few weeks ago, she noticed a flattened daisy in a dried out puddle. The immediate reaction it evoked was of an acrylic painting on mud. So I unharnessed my carry-everywhere camera and took a couple of pictures, one of which is below with minimal post-processing. Just a snapshot but one that I like.


Thinking more about it later, I wondered how the daisy ended up in the dried out puddle. One possible story is this: "A little girl picking flowers by the river got caught in a rainstorm. Running for shelter, she dropped a daisy in a puddle. A few hot days later, with the puddle dried out, the daisy was there in its grave". So that's the title: Daisy in its Grave. Does that title coupled with the story make the snapshot art?

Cheers
Mike

Hi, Michael,

Michael_Stones said:

So that's the title: Daisy in its Grave. Does that title coupled with the story make the snapshot art?

Click to expand...

It was art before that, and adding that did not make it "more like art".

But it probably enhances its value to the viewer, just as a frame might for an oil painting (or might not, depending on the frame).

The are many kinds of art. Here's one:


Best regards,

Doug

Yes Doug, I kind of agree on two counts, but which raise other questions, and fully with the third. Here's the other questions. If a picture stands or falls on its own merits, where are the dividing lines between junk, craft and artistry (or do we need them)? If 'art' is in the eye of the beholder, cannot something that enhances the value of the object to the beholder and is intrinsic to the meaning of that picture (a statement, title, whatever) push the object closer to or beyond that hypothetical dividing line?

To my mind, a dividing line between junk and craft is usually a technical matter, but that between craft and art meaningless unless objective means of differentiation are available. Such criteria certainly are available but contentious to many photographers. They include exhibition in a place acknowledged as a reputable Art Gallery, publication by a publishing house that specializes in art, success in photographic competitions, etc. These criteria are all 'high end', imply acknowledgement of value (commercial and/or artistic) by so-called experts, and relate to thresholds that differentiate works of art and craft. I'm not advocating for these or any other criteria, only indicating that without specificity what is mean by 'levels of artistry' becomes a non-sequitor. I have to wonder whether other fields of art (painting, literature) have these kinds of discussion or are mature enough not to worry anymore.

With respect to your third point, Doug, I fully agree that elegance and parsimony (simplicity that subsumes complexity) can be criteria for artistry whatever the context. What worried me bit about Asher's third proposition ('In that exported manifestation, if faithful, and crafted successfully, there are ideas, vision, themes, substance and or imperatives to move us.' my italics) is that it sounds suspiciously like a deductive approach to artistry (e.g., in a later post: 'We then do our best to receive it and re-experience the emotions and thoughts the artist intended to provoke.') with neglect of its inductive counterpart. John Kok, in this thread, suggested that the beholder is part of an arc of communication and may interpret a work differently from the artist. To me, this is obviously true. The beholder may not want to play Sherlock Holmes and try to guess the artist's intent but be moved cognitively and/or emotionally because the picture triggers personal relevance. Sometimes both go hand in hand, which is great for both parties.

Cheers
Mike

Hi, Mike,

Michael_Stones said:

If a picture stands or falls on its own merits, where are the dividing lines between junk, craft and artistry (or do we need them)?

Click to expand...

"junk" is not one point on a scale where "craft" and "art" are other points. (Or, if we want to consistently work with gerunds, "junk-making" is not a point on a scale with craft and artistry.)

There is junk art, and mediocre art, and good art, and great art.

With respect to your third point, Doug, I fully agree that elegance and parsimony (simplicity that subsumes complexity) can be criteria for artistry whatever the context.

Click to expand...

Not at all. They can be criteria for the "goodness" of art. This example, is, because of those things, in my opinion, great art.

The solving of a system of two equations in two unknowns is art, or the successful replacement of a faucet washer, are art. "Great" art? Not in most cases. But art nevertheless.

It is no accident that in the language of patents, already known accomplishments are called prior art. That's because all such accomplishments are art - some already accomplished, some newly accomplished. Some such art is great, some is trite, some is just plain bad.

We spent quite a while some time ago trying to figure out what made a photograph "good enough" to be art. In fact, that question is misguided. It is always art. The question is, what makes it good enough to be good art - or perhaps even great art.

The notion that "art" is a point on a scale of quality, or worth, is badly misguided.

Best regards,

Doug

Art: Saving "fascination" to re-experience and enjoy again.

Asher Kelman said:

A leaf floating on the water might be appreciated then for its own transient beauty. A photograph of that in certain light can evoke that beauty many times over. However, when the photographer declares the title, "A Life's Journey", a whole new range of ideas are sparked, all directed by the artist who is absent for his/her art. Somehow, the artist has to convey to us something physical expressing just imagination and memory. If these never existed or are not expressed then there's then no art to appreciate just craft.
Asher

Click to expand...

Michael,

But there's caveat. But there still needs to be some imagination, thought and need to express something for that "artist's statement" for art to be some "expression" of the artist.

Michael_Stones said:

Interesting conclusion, Asher. All that's needed to transform craft into art is a meaningful statement, right? Ok, let's explore. Walking the dogs with my wife a few weeks ago, she noticed a flattened daisy in a dried out puddle. The immediate reaction it evoked was of an acrylic painting on mud. So I unharnessed my carry-everywhere camera and took a couple of pictures, one of which is below with minimal post-processing. Just a snapshot but one that I like.

Thinking more about it later, I wondered how the daisy ended up in the dried out puddle. One possible story is this: "A little girl picking flowers by the river got caught in a rainstorm. Running for shelter, she dropped a daisy in a puddle. A few hot days later, with the puddle dried out, the daisy was there in its grave". So that's the title: Daisy in its Grave. Does that title coupled with the story make the snapshot art?

Click to expand...

Michael,

It's so interesting that the elephant in the debating room since the arrival of Duchamp art is the rationale for collecting "found or repurposed objects" declared to be "art".

I have been struggling with this to discover our motivations as a society for hoarding such pieces that were not "made to the order" of our imagination. This past several days I was in Santa Barbara walking along the beach contemplating this very notion of "found art" when I came across a weather and wave-worn stout log that has been cut off a tree trunk but the evidence of several long smoothed-out but obvious saw cuts. The bark had interesting markings, cut into the wood, perhaps by some insect as the log was half buried in the sand. Of course I photographed it.

The pictures satisfied me that I had discovered something remarkable. I wanted the log but had to many lenses with me and the log was too heavy.

For several nights I thought about getting the log and wished I had some broad wheeled and buggy to get it back to my hotel, a mile away. but why was I so concerned with owning that piece of tree? It was not beautiful and certainly has no monetary value, at least as of yet.

I finally developed the idea that such pieces have fascination because of the shape and patterns and maybe, it's our genetic inheritance as homo sapiens that causes us to look further at fascinating patterns so we might expand our ways of relating to the world around us. When we collect these artifacts, we are saving fascination to be re-experienced, find more clues on life and at the same time exercise our imagination, fantasies and emotions. Maybe that is the glue that hold art together.

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Mike,

"junk" is not one point on a scale where "craft" and "art" are other points. (Or, if we want to consistently work with gerunds, "junk-making" is not a point on a scale with craft and artistry.)

There is junk art, and mediocre art, and good art, and great art.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Hi Doug

That's one way of scaling, usually called an ordinal scale to imply rank ordering of the categories. However, there are other ways of scaling, the most basic of which is a nominal scale consisting of categories without defined ordering. For example, some of my photos are junk for any number of reasons to do with technical deficiencies and other demerits. Others are technically proficient but lack spark, oomph or resonance with wider ideas. I think of these as craft - pretty pictures, maybe, but nothing to shout home about. A few have merit for me because they have some form of elegance or set me thinking about something broader. Whatever, the reason, I return to look at them again. I think of these as having the potential to be art even though others may disagree. This example of a nominal scale has implicit ordering but not defined ordering, as in your example. We invent scales to suit a purpose; for something as nebulous as scaling art, a nominal scale makes fewer assumptions albeit at the cost of sensitivity.

Regards, Mike.

Hi Asher

Re. Your statement: "I finally developed the idea that such pieces have fascination because of the shape and patterns and maybe, it's our genetic inheritance as homo sapiens that causes us to look further at fascinating patterns so we might expand our ways of relating to the world around us. When we collect these artifacts, we are saving fascination to be re-experienced, find more clues on life and at the same time exercise our imagination, fantasies and emotions. Maybe that is the glue that hold art together."

When in England during April, I visited an old friend and former colleague who is among the foremost researchers on memory in childhood. His new book, published a couple of months ago and about which he is justly proud, has the premise that the purpose of memory is less to record the past than to adapt to the future. I think you and he (and me, too) are kindred spirits.

Cheers
Mike

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

I finally developed the idea that such pieces have fascination because of the shape and patterns and maybe, it's our genetic inheritance as homo sapiens that causes us to look further at fascinating patterns so we might expand our ways of relating to the world around us. When we collect these artifacts, we are saving fascination to be re-experienced, find more clues on life and at the same time exercise our imagination, fantasies and emotions. Maybe that is the glue that hold art together.

Click to expand...

On top of the genetic "filter" and its serving "data base" there is the incredible sensitization of our individuate experiences.

There are all kinds of little things from my background that will call my attention to something (perhaps not in the sense of making me want to have it; more often in the sense of wanting to examine it, or know more about it).

I'll notice that, in a movie set in Manhattan in the 1950, when the character lifts up the telephone set base, I can see a little paper sticker on the bottom of it. Hmm, I think, there never would really have been such. I'll bet that's the prop department inventory label.


So we each multiply the repertoire of sensations from seeing, or hearing, or smelling something by an incredible set of experiences and integrate the product; things pop out that would only do so to us, and it makes that object have an importance, or suggest a story, it might not to the vast majority of the populace.

This is one reason we have the incredible diversity or "takes" on many of the pictures we have here: the photographer of a nice shot of a locomotive tender calls attention to the bright red oil can sitting on the wood pile, while I see the dull black speaker and microphone of the mobile radio set just barely noticeable against the dull black tender itself. I note the anachronism (this is a "period" locomotive, oh-so-authentic).

And Will Thompson might have said, "Oh, yes, you know that in that microphone model, the push-to talk button often got stuck because of a design flaw in the cable clamp."

In communication theory, we are aware that the information actually received by the recipient comes from the actual facts in he context of the properties of transmitter and the properties of the receiver (and I don't just mean the apparatus).

And context is so important. A long time friend and colleague of mine has always been interested in police radio communication, and so was quite familiar with a lot of law enforcement practices when he and I first hung out together (in the late 1950's). He was going with a girl who had moved to Ohio from another state, and she needed to get an Ohio operator's license.*


Scoping out the deal for her, he went to the nearest Highway Patrol office, a small one, and said to the desk officer, "Excuse me, but when do you give OL tests (using the normal Patrol jargon for the Operator's License)?"

"Excuse me?" said the officer. My friend repeated his question in the same way. "I'm not following you, sir" said the officer. My friend said, "I'd like to know when you give the Operator's License test."

"Oh, sure." said the officer. "I think they have recently changed the schedule. Let me find out."

Turning to the door to another room, he said, "Hey, Harry - when do they give the OL tests here now?"

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman said:

Michael,

But there's caveat. But there still needs to be some imagination, thought and need to express something for that "artist's statement" for art to be some "expression" of the artist.



Michael,

It's so interesting that the elephant in the debating room since the arrival of Duchamp art is the rationale for collecting "found or repurposed objects" declared to be "art".

I have been struggling with this to discover our motivations as a society for hoarding such pieces that were not "made to the order" of our imagination. This past several days I was in Santa Barbara walking along the beach contemplating this very notion of "found art" when I came across a weather and wave-worn stout log that has been cut off a tree trunk but the evidence of several long smoothed-out but obvious saw cuts. The bark had interesting markings, cut into the wood, perhaps by some insect as the log was half buried in the sand. Of course I photographed it.

The pictures satisfied me that I had discovered something remarkable. I wanted the log but had to many lenses with me and the log was too heavy.

For several nights I thought about getting the log and wished I had some broad wheeled and buggy to get it back to my hotel, a mile away. but why was I so concerned with owning that piece of tree? It was not beautiful and certainly has no monetary value, at least as of yet.

I finally developed the idea that such pieces have fascination because of the shape and patterns and maybe, it's our genetic inheritance as homo sapiens that causes us to look further at fascinating patterns so we might expand our ways of relating to the world around us. When we collect these artifacts, we are saving fascination to be re-experienced, find more clues on life and at the same time exercise our imagination, fantasies and emotions. Maybe that is the glue that hold art together.

Asher

Click to expand...

So here's the heavy section of trunk embedded in the sand the first day I saw it, before it vanshed after one tide. Subsequently, it reappeared days later, elsewhere. I then felt bound to take home what was now shown to be mine by destiny.


I asked myself, what drove me to schlepp this heavy wood home where there's no room for it and for sure no welcome from my dear wife? She claims it was just to assert authority. However, I've been deeply questioning why it is attractive to me. For sure it's not beautiful! My best answer is that I want to study it and my reaction to it to try to learn about our hunting and gathering of "things and then elevating them in importance.

Why do I do I think of that lowly chunk of wood with marks? If it really has some substantial "artistic value", why did countless others who passed by leave it there in its home in the sand?

I am wondering if found objects can become "art" that museums collect and if that represents the same "sorts of things created by folk expressing imagination and feelings", then where do these diverse forms of art cross paths?

Is that "commonalty" just the need to store and share objects that fascinate, entertain and engage us strongly?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

So here's the heavy section of trunk embedded in the sand the first day I saw it, before it vanshed after one tide. Subsequently, it reappeared days later, elsewhere. I then felt bound to take home what was now shown to be mine by destiny.

Asher Kelman: Driftwood with Glyphs

Canon 5DI 24mm TSE II​

I asked myself, what drove me to schlepp this heavy wood home where there's no room for it and for sure no welcome from my dear wife? She claims it was just to assert authority. However, I've been deeply questioning why it is attractive to me. For sure it's not beautiful! My best answer is that I want to study it and my reaction to it to try to learn about our hunting and gathering of "things and then elevating them in importance.

Why do I do I think of that lowly chunk of wood with marks? If it really has some substantial "artistic value", why did countless others who passed by leave it there in its home in the sand?

I am wondering if found objects can become "art" that museums collect and if that represents the same "sorts of things created by folk expressing imagination and feelings", then where do these diverse forms of art cross paths?

Is that "commonalty" just the need to store and share objects that fascinate, entertain and engage us strongly?

Asher

Click to expand...

Found objects certainly have a place in art, as art history attests. They can have protective significance, too (e.g., totem in North American culture, good luck charms, etc.). Children's play often treats inanimate objects as living beings to be cared for, but most kids lose such capacity over time. Maybe artists retain a vestige of that kind of playfulness. Why did that particular piece of driftwood strike a chord with you? Probably because no one else would love and appreciate it. That makes you a good man in my book.
Cheers
Mike

Hi, Mike,

Michael_Stones said:

Found objects certainly have a place in art, as art history attests. They can have protective significance, too (e.g., totem in North American culture, good luck charms, etc.). Children's play often treats inanimate objects as living beings to be cared for, but most kids lose such capacity over time. Maybe artists retain a vestige of that kind of playfulness. Why did that particular piece of driftwood strike a chord with you? Probably because no one else would love and appreciate it. That makes you a good man in my book.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

Best regards,

Doug

Michael_Stones said:

Children's play often treats inanimate objects as living beings to be cared for, but most kids lose such capacity over time. Maybe artists retain a vestige of that kind of playfulness. Why did that particular piece of driftwood strike a chord with you? Probably because no one else would love and appreciate it. That makes you a good man in my book.

Click to expand...

Michael,

Thanks for the insight! The caring-bonds for soft objects is common with other primates too. But what about solid objects?

Certainly, it's not rare to see people collect shells, driftwood and sea-washed rocks. Is our behavior just a vestige of being hunter-gatherers? Maybe one collects materials that might be fascinating or useful to us or to someone else for exchange. But perhaps what's at work is collecting "fascination" and "wonder". One cannot drag home a sunset or a waterfall, but we can bring home much smaller wonders to feast our eyes on again and again. These also make great objects to trade for sustenance and wealth.

Imagine, Audubon, (the father of a movement for protecting wild animals), hunted down and killed the most exotic beautiful birds merely to draw and paint them! He was this able to profit with adoration, fame and fortune!

I still pick up pretty leaves they are not cuddly and the beauty fades! Audubon, however, already a good painter was prepared to kill for art and was a far greater businessman! For us today, with any of myriads of cameras, can paint anything we find fascinating. Unlike Audubon of old we don't need to kill for that, but also what we do is hardly ever as unique and salable. Today, he would not command such positive attention, in fact there would be a campaign against his cruelty by the very society that carries his name!

Asher

If my thinking is correct, all art might be unified by the following idea:

Art, in all it's valued forms involves the creation or collecting of fascinations for subsequent appreciation, contemplation and wonder.

So only manufactured art, materialized from the imagination would need guiding creative ideas. Other art can merely be discovered! So Brooks Jensen might be right for art we try to make with a camera. It's unlikely to be sufficiently fascinating unless we design it right in the first place! In photography, for sure, it's, (at the very least), the removal of distracting material that allows an image to work its wonder on us.

But if art is the collecting of fascinations, "piffle" might be too harsh a word for the raw snaps that don't have careful thought behind them. After all, they can still be cropped and reworked later on just as a piece of simple driftwood can be carved and polished!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Michael,

Thanks for the insight! The caring-bonds for soft objects is common with other primates too. But what about solid objects?

Asher

Click to expand...

Solid object evoke caring and protective reactions in a play context, too. According to Wikipedia, the earliest dolls were made from clay, wood, bone etc.; later from porcelain and nowadays from hard or soft plastic. When you were a kid, I bet you played with lead soldiers, cowboys, farmers, fire fighters, engine drivers, knights of the realm, etc., some of which are around today in plastic forms.

Nowadays, counterparts to these dolls are made pixels that move around viewing screens as directed by a computer code with instructions to that code by the game player.

Common to all these examples is fascination that endures because of active relationships under perceived control by the child. Adult play is often more passive (looking a pictures, going to the theatre, watching sport) but not so different in that the player retains ultimate control to quit the game.

What has all this to do with art? Mainly elicitation of similar cognitive/emotive reactions (joy, anger, wonder, sorrow, despair) that probably derive from common characteristics, with the beholder an active participant for as long as fascination endures. These are reasons to consider art as a form of play.

Cheers
Mike

Asher Kelman said:

If my thinking is correct, all art might be unified by the following idea:

Art, in all it's valued forms involves the creation or collecting of fascinations for subsequent appreciation, contemplation and wonder.

Asher

Click to expand...

Let me be a constructive critic initially. (A bent toward and a lifetime in science inclines me this way, but I've read next to nothing about art theory so take these kindly meant comments with a grain of salt).

1. "Valued" by whom? One person's "junk art" may be someone else's "great art", to use Doug's scaling from earlier in this thread. Without critique by FR Leavis, DH Lawrence might be considered not a creator of great literary art. Alternatively, porno stuff bored me silly though some may value it as art.
2. Why just "... appreciation, contemplation and wonder"? These are passive but positive terms for feelings. What about joy, laughter, excitement, anger, rage, terror, disenchantment, angst? Are more inclusive terms not available?
3. The inclusion of "creation and collecting" makes all kinds of sense in principle, but not all works of art are collectable (e.g., happenings; meat sculptures that decay).
4. "Fascinations" - things that fascinate - may only do so until you figure them out. Some books fascinate at the time of reading but are never reread nor thought about again. The same with some creations in the visual arts.

A point about the act of creation that I find intriguing. The process is involving - exciting, fascinating, frustrating, depressing, even boring in places. Feelings upon completion include a sense of achievement, pride, relief and release. But with written work, I'll never read it again except for reference purposes in some other project. Other writers I know say much the same. But with photographic creations I like, I return to them constantly. They are on the walls of our home, in my office, and on screen savers for this computer. Do other OPF contributors do likewise?

Cheers
Mike

Michael,

You're so generous in applying your ability to criticize to my ideas unifying what art might be before it branches off and our primitive, (and constructed emotions), erupt in cascades from joy to tears and then we develop ideas, thoughts, stories, meaning and consequences.

Is fascination at the beginning of this? That needs more analysis but at least it's a start to be examined and then replaced if need be.

Of course, the assumption is that almost all art is united in someway by some basic root ideas or workings in the human mind and our relationship to interior and exterior worlds, real and imagined. This assumption, of course, may not be true. Music and dance might have different origins from collecting driftwood or making images of bison on cave walls.

I do not pretend to be some guru or academic expert on the subject of what art might be. Rather I find the subject worthy of consideration as I, myself, try to make works that will be valued beyond my own small circle.

Asher

Of course it is. By not including a statement you are not putting any preconceived ideas into the viewers head. If your aim is to not do that and let the image speak differently to each person then by all means leave it out. On the other hand if you need to give some important backdrop/story or something integral to the image then by all means do that instead.

My last project was all about fear. One of the ways I needed to know if a sense of fear or uneasiness was being portrayed I just showed the pictures and listened to the feedback without saying anything about them. I learned my photos were giving the impression of loneliness, isolation, fear, and un-easyness(is that even a word?)

If I had chosen to include a statement than the feedback might of been entirely different. So I see this trend invaluable.

Kalin Bucholz said:

Of course it is.

Click to expand...

Kalin,

Is this the original question you refer to as we have covered a lot of ground!

Kalin Bucholz said:

By not including a statement you are not putting any preconceived ideas into the viewers head. If your aim is to not do that and let the image speak differently to each person then by all means leave it out. On the other hand if you need to give some important backdrop/story or something integral to the image then by all means do that instead.

Click to expand...

Well put!

Kalin Bucholz said:

My last project was all about fear. One of the ways I needed to know if a sense of fear or uneasiness was being portrayed I just showed the pictures and listened to the feedback without saying anything about them. I learned my photos were giving the impression of loneliness, isolation, fear, and un-easyness(is that even a word?)

If I had chosen to include a statement than the feedback might of been entirely different. So I see this trend invaluable.

Click to expand...

Kalin,

That's important. Still, once you are confident in your language, you can still choose to guide the perplexed and they will be helped in most cases. However, if you want them to free associate, then have a title or no title designed to promote that.

Asher

Thanks for that quick reply Asher,

Yes, this was to the original question. I read through everything and was honestly a little turned off by the minutia of the answers. Although interesting at an academic level I found your answer to my post the most intriguing.

"Kalin,

That's important. Still, once you are confident in your language, you can still choose to guide the perplexed and they will be helped in most cases. However, if you want them to free associate, then have a title or no title designed to promote that."(still learning how to use quotes)

I'm a photo student so confidence in my work is still growing. The entire last semester was learning how to convey that language through my work while avoiding art for arts sake. Once I can confidently think my images are saying what I intend then I believe a statement can start to help in getting across any subplot.

For instance my project on fear. I was concerned on conveying fear, If I wasnt worried about doing that than I can move on to "and what about this fear" If I am trying to say something deeper than fear then a statement could achieve that purpose as opposed to putting that deeper level of fear into the photographs. I should say the project was also a learning experience in not being too literal. If the photos were very literal than a statement wouldnt be necessary most of the time. This was more of a study in conceptualization.

Im kinda wandering here but at what point do you draw the line at including that language into your work? At some point a statement will help guide the viewer when otherwise it could clutter the photograph.


(Sorry still learning how to quote)

Kalin Bucholz said:

Thanks for that quick reply Asher,

Yes, this was to the original question. I read through everything and was honestly a little turned off by the minutia of the answers. Although interesting at an academic level I found your answer to my post the most intriguing.

"Kalin,

That's important. Still, once you are confident in your language, you can still choose to guide the perplexed and they will be helped in most cases. However, if you want them to free associate, then have a title or no title designed to promote that."(still learning how to use quotes)

I'm a photo student so confidence in my work is still growing. The entire last semester was learning how to convey that language through my work while avoiding art for arts sake. Once I can confidently think my images are saying what I intend then I believe a statement can start to help in getting across any subplot.

For instance my project on fear. I was concerned on conveying fear, If I wasnt worried about doing that than I can move on to "and what about this fear" If I am trying to say something deeper than fear then a statement could achieve that purpose as opposed to putting that deeper level of fear into the photographs. I should say the project was also a learning experience in not being too literal. If the photos were very literal than a statement wouldnt be necessary most of the time. This was more of a study in conceptualization.

Im kinda wandering here but at what point do you draw the line at including that language into your work? At some point a statement will help guide the viewer when otherwise it could clutter the photograph.


(Sorry still learning how to quote)

Click to expand...

Kalin,

i can't find the quotes - so have no idea if what you have written makes sense. I only ken there are quotes mixed in with what you have written because you pointed out at the end that you can't use quotes.

this is funny in relation to the thread as it demonstrates an interesting point I think. or it is a beautiful dada moment.


..

what is not art for arts sake?

Kalin Bucholz said:

Thanks for that quick reply Asher,

Yes, this was to the original question. I read through everything and was honestly a little turned off by the minutia of the answers. Although interesting at an academic level I found your answer to my post the most intriguing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words!

Kalin Bucholz said:

Im kinda wandering here but at what point do you draw the line at including that language into your work? At some point a statement will help guide the viewer when otherwise it could clutter the photograph.

Click to expand...

Kalin,

All words are themselves metaphors, so there's no escaping approximations and fuzziness in conveyance of meanings especially something written at a different time or place. Still, in the end, in most cases, some guide is helpful, artist's statement or not. Just a title often will exclude 99.99999999% of the universe and still leave a gigantic set of possible paths for anyone to wander in.

Never worry about giving a title as the form and content of the picture will also speak for itself.

Asher

uote

Mark Hampton said:

Kalin,

i can't find the quotes - so have no idea if what you have written makes sense. I only ken there are quotes mixed in with what you have written because you pointed out at the end that you can't use quotes.

this is funny in relation to the thread as it demonstrates an interesting point I think. or it is a beautiful dada moment.


..

what is not art for arts sake?

Click to expand...

So there you are! All is revealed!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Asher Kelman: "A quote: "This is not a photograph""​

So there you are! All is revealed!

Asher

Click to expand...

Mark,

You just purloined my art! It was already art when I posted it! Who do you think you are, Prince, LOL!!!



Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Asher Kelman: "A quote: "This is not a photograph""​

So there you are! All is revealed!

Asher

Click to expand...

Imo, Mark was just referring to Kalin's text that it was not clear what had been quoted by Kalin when Mark wrote "I can't find the quotes". I.o.w. Mark wasn't actually asking for pointers as to how to create quotes in posts, lol.

So perhaps having no statements at all is indeed the safer option, it prevents unintentional miscommunications. And I should learn to keep my opinions to myself.

Almost always, I use a title and expect one.

Unusually, here, I found no use for one! In fact, explanations or a title could ruin its purpose and planned function.

Asher

Does anyone know when some variant of the Artist’s statement begin to appear regurlarly?

At another site someone suggested that it begin in the early 1900s and reached common place status by the 1950s. One person cited Tom Wolfe (in The Painted Word) saying that by the time abstract expressionism was popular, artists begin to write essays about their work, and from this was the wide use of the Artist’s statement. Others say the practice started earlier but don’t doubt that by the 1950s it was a common practice.

As a technical issue, if one finds the origins of this practice then the reasoning for it becomes less opaque.

As a hypothetical example, if this did become common in the 50s, the timing puts it during the main frontal attack of the cold war, when many artists were accused of being communist. If true then the artist’s statement likely became a tool of political ass covering.

In the cynical light of day, the artist’s statement is little other than an opportunity to promote the work under some pretext and to use that to direct the emotions of the potential patrons…..