• 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!

High Speed Liquid Photography

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Lee,

Yes, at first sight these high-speed, strobed water drops exploding are impressive!

But why?

These are fascinating since we see some of the instantaniously beautiful and transient inner structure of something not normally open for us to see. After all, these water drops live on a time scale shorter than human vision can parse.

So, yes, these are a technical achievement to be impressed with! But what then?

From there, what has been done creatively?

Little beyond the record.

The interest is purely related to revealing the unfamiliar bowl, mushroom and other shapes that reside in the short lifespan of a water drop smashing into water itself.

There is no mindful art present to take me beyond my inquisitiveness.

I have no impression of decisons and judgements of a person.

It is to me, mundane.

The framing is surprisingly unpleasing to me.

There is no sense to the color schemes or compositon that arouse my interest.

I'm sure that someone could indeed make art out of this for someone to get a kick out of.

I think that something more must be added beyond a great dress to make a girl a good dancer and that is talent!

So far, this has not come through to me.

Asher
 
Last edited:
I'll refrain from commenting on the comment! =D

However, I think in artistic expression there is room for technical excellence. There is a whole segment of painting that aims for photo-realism, and it is achieved through a high degree of precision in the technique.

To me, this is what is impressive here. This guy has taken this application of photography to a high level of excellence.

One of the photos displays a droplet reaction inside a bubble. I have never seen this done before and therefore is creative and I assume takes a level skill that is not common.

For me, this is an example of excellence as art and maybe not excellent art... ?
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
I don't know...I think they are quite artistic. Probably nothing I would want to hang on my wall, but then neither are some of the multi-million dollar paintings around. Beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder.

While I agree that the compositions are uninteresting, the photographer does play quite a lot with light of different colors, so it is not simply a matter of the shapes of the droplets.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I don't know...I think they are quite artistic. Probably nothing I would want to hang on my wall, but then neither are some of the multi-million dollar paintings around. Beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder.

While I agree that the compositions are uninteresting, the photographer does play quite a lot with light of different colors, so it is not simply a matter of the shapes of the droplets.

Kris, Ed and Lee,

Fore sure, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and technical excellence can be awesome, but what then makes it art?

Kolbrenner, a student of Ansel Adams, realized that composition, tonalities, wonder, thought and embedding empheral beauty where ingedients of photographic art.

Snapshots might by chance have those qualities, but that's quite unlikely.

Kolbrenner told me and also wrote that


"If a man buys a camera, he's photographer
he purchases a flute he owns flute."


Here, the photographer has purchased a strobe set up and photographed the transient lives of drops of water. However, so have so many other people before him, but with artistic qualities that come from a vision embedding much more tham a mere technical snapshot with expensive gear.

For sure the reality is wonderful. I have clearly stated that. Many people owning cameras have trecked to Yosemite and snapped images; but not the magic!

Here, the beauty of these droplet structures has only been touched on in his particular pictures, to my impressions and esthetic sense.

Note, Kris, that you remarked that you wouldn't chooose them for your wall. Well art, in my opinion has a compelling nature to ask you to revisit time and again and each time there's more of a relationship between your world and that work.

My thoughts,

Asher
 
Kris, Ed and Lee,
... Well art, in my opinion has a compelling nature to ask you to revisit time and again and each time there's more of a relationship between your world and that work.
...

I like that definition.

I also think it is one definition of one kind of art.

Some art is created for the purpose of getting a one-time reaction.

Great art, indeed, keeps you coming back.

The question that keeps coming back to my mind is this; Is creativity art? Does the act of doing something creative qualify as art?

Art is so broad. I think this is demonstrated by the phrase "Its more of an art than science". Science is predictable, art is creative?

However, I do learn by hearing what others think of as art. ;)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I like that definition. I also think it is one definition of one kind of art.
Thanks!

Some art is created for the purpose of getting a one-time reaction.

Sure and that, for example is Performance Art, separate from Ballet, Dance, Music, which [combines Performance Art with the original Art of the composer.


The question that keeps coming back to my mind is this; Is creativity art?

I don't believe so. Creativity to my mind Ed, is just a required component in the making of art.

Does the act of doing something creative qualify as art?

One can hope. But it also requires successful embedding of human values and implementation.

Great and novel ideas are ten a penny. Creativity is rampant in human potential. It's our very nature.

Art requires delivery, the completion of creative intent by the possibility for feelings to be experienced over and over again.

Art is so broad. I think this is demonstrated by the phrase "Its more of an art than science". Science is predictable, art is creative?

This reminds me of the great William Jefferson Clinton who famously remarked,

"It depends what you mean by "is"!"

And he was quite correct!

Art too can be parsed with alternate meanings.

Art in "Medical Arts, refers to refined skill where one not only depends on skill and evidence based accepted bodies of knowledge and rules but also on informed opinion and judgement coming from apprenticeship and personal experience.

Also "Art" as in artful can implies tactics, nuancing an argument or strategem to be achieve ones goals, either honestly or not.

"Art" can also have commercial value, but that is something additonal to some work being esthetically and or culturally worthy.

I am mostly interested in Art as something which moves us.

However, I do learn by hearing what others think of as art. ;)

We try! I'm no pretender. As I said, I'm just the Unguru!

Asher
 
This is fun!

I'm reminded of my trip to Paris when me and a friend did a quick tour of the Musee d'Orsay. My memory is of a building with many many paintings and sculptures and artifacts, plus about two or three paintings that I hated to pull myself away from.

I remember taking snaps of these paintings and am now compelled to find those slides to remember those works.

BTW -- Do you know of any good resources on the web that provide a starting point for learning about this history of photography as art?

Thanks for the interaction, Mr. Unguru!
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
"If a man buys a camera, he's photographer
he purchases a flute he owns flute."

Yes, I remember this from that other thread. I still do not agree with it :)

Note, Kris, that you remarked that you wouldn't chooose them for your wall. Well art, in my opinion has a compelling nature to ask you to revisit time and again and each time there's more of a relationship between your world and that work.

I agree in what you are saying to some extent. One aspect of art is the urge to revisit the piece; otherwise why hang it on the wall, right? However, that only makes it art to me, personally! Is it still art even if I'm the only person on the planet who does return to it? Likewise, if everybody else loved a painting and I find it dull and would never revisit it, is it no longer art then? I would claim that it is still art, just not a type of art I enjoy. Likewise, it can still be art, even if some "expert" or gallery owner claims otherwise.

The same applies to all forms of art, obviously. I think that the visual arts and music are most affected by this division of art/non-art.

I like that definition.
Some art is created for the purpose of getting a one-time reaction.

Fireworks may be one such form of art.


The question that keeps coming back to my mind is this; Is creativity art? Does the act of doing something creative qualify as art?

In my opinion, creativity is definitely not art. Like Asher said, good art requires creativity, but too many "artists" have thought that just being creative is enough. Unfortunately, the art world has encouraged this far too much. New pieces that are original but utterly meaningless and done with little or no technical or emotional finesse become huge successes simply because they are original.


Science is predictable, art is creative?

Nope :) Science is hardly predictable. If it was, there would be no purpose to it. Most of the time, science is precise, and I think that is what is referred to in the common saying "Its more of an art than science". Science can and should be very creative. Think about it, could Einstein have come up with all his theories without vast amounts of creativity? I think not. Certainly, some tasks in science require no creativity (e.g. a lot of the practical experimentation), but for the most part, and especially the theoretical disciplines, they do.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
However, that only makes it art to me, personally! Is it still art even if I'm the only person on the planet who does return to it?

To my mind, yes! Even if you don't but the artist does, "The Arc of intent" from embedding human values to re-experiencing in some way, has been completed.

As soon as you respond to that work in the way that it causes you emote, think, react and to reassess valuers or the state of things, then the work is probably art. When you must revisit and share with others, this is now for sure art.

Likewise, if everybody else loved a painting and I find it dull and would never revisit it, is it no longer art then? I would claim that it is still art, just not a type of art I enjoy. Likewise, it can still be art, even if some "expert" or gallery owner claims otherwise.
Art requires a human to experience it. however we all have different cultural baggage and personal experience and education. So we of course can react differently to the same work.

Tonight I was at a recital. Camerata Pacifica presented a concer at the magnificent ColburnSchool in los Angeles. They started with Rain Spell by Takemitsu, a Japanese composer (who has in addition scrored a number of Japanese movies). The stage was almost dark except for some blue lights. Their was a flue, clarinet, violine, harp and vibraphone.

Imagine a piece of black paper with mostly empty space with lights and colors popping up with different tonalities form and texture.

That is what the music was like. Much silence then music coming from different places and unexptected combinations and contrasts. Forget the linear form of the classics.

Now to me, this was a multidimensional sculpture. I was fascinated.

However, a number of people, including a usually tolerant benefactor, were clearly facing a culture warp and were to say the least pained.

They would not want to repeat the experience; ever!

However, I am seeking out other sites of performance they have scheduled to hear the music again. I'll also buy a CD if avaialble!

They also played Crumb, Elven Echoes of Autumn which is also non-linear and for that the dissenters had already either left or put themselves into a protective passive-aggressive trance.

So here like in Visual art, reception, completing "The Arc of Intent", as I call it, only works for people genetically or phenotypically prepared for it!

So in tonights performances I could reconsider what we were writing about here. I then really appreciated how vision, talent, creativity imagination and skill cannot necessarily deliver a work to you if one's door is locked, bolted and welded shut!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
However, that only makes it art to me, personally! Is it still art even if I'm the only person on the planet who does return to it?

To my mind, yes! Even if you don't but the artist does, "The Arc of intent" from embedding human values to re-experiencing in some way, has been completed.

As soon as you respond to that work in the way that it causes you emote, think, react and to reassess values or the state of things, then the work is probably art. When you must revisit and share with others, this is now, for sure, art.

Likewise, if everybody else loved a painting and I find it dull and would never revisit it, is it no longer art then? I would claim that it is still art, just not a type of art I enjoy. Likewise, it can still be art, even if some "expert" or gallery owner claims otherwise.

Art requires a human to experience it. However we all have different cultural baggage and personal experience and education. So we, of course, can react differently to the same work.

Tonight I was at a recital. Camerata Pacifica presented a concerT at the magnificent Colburn School in Los Angeles. They started with Rain Spell by Takemitsu, a Japanese composer (who has in addition scrored a number of Japanese movies). The stage was almost dark except for some blue lights. There was a flute, clarinet, violin, harp and vibraphone. (Catherine Leonard is the Irish violinst that we know of well and really wanted to meet again, she's a treasure, as are all the others).

Imagine a piece of black paper with mostly empty space with lights and colors popping up with different tonalities form and texture.

That is what the music was like. Much silence space broken by music coming from different places and unexptected combinations and contrasts. Forget the linear form of the classics!

Now to me, this was a multidimensional sculpture. I was fascinated.

However, a number of people, including a usually tolerant benefactor, were clearly facing a culture warp and were, to say the least, pained!

They would not want to repeat the experience; ever!

However, I am seeking out other sites of performance they have scheduled to hear the music again. I'll also buy a CD if avaiLalble!

They also played Crumb, Elven Echoes of Autumn (which is also non-linear) and for that the dissenters had already either left or put themselves into a protective passive-aggressive trance.

So here, like in Visual art, reception, completing "The Arc of Intent", as I call it, only works for people genetically or phenotypically prepared for it!

So after tonights music performances I could reconsider what we were writing about here.

I then really appreciated how vision, talent, creativity imagination and skill cannot necessarily deliver a work to someone who's door is locked, bolted and welded shut!

Art is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it must reach the heart of the beholder.

Asher
 

KrisCarnmarker

New member
Asher, your example brings to light just what I meant. That is, whether something is art or not cannot be defined solely by my own feelings or the emotions the piece of art evokes in me. Even if it could, there is so much more to it than that.

Take as an example Rain Spell as you mentioned. Did any of the people who disliked the performance claim that it was not art? Maybe so, but I think most people would agree that it is art, just not art they liked and do not wish to repeat the experience. Without ever having seen/heard that composition, I'm fairly certain I would be in the group of people who would not like it (I've attended similar performances, but I reserve the chance to revise my statement :) ). I would never claim that it was not art or music though. I don't like Hip Hop or Rap either, but it is still music and art. Same thing with Death Metal or Experimental Jazz.

On the other hand, is a blank canvas art just because it hangs on the wall of a museum or gallery? There are limits to what can be called art. Take for example John Cage's 4'33". Four minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Is it music? Of course not. It is the work of a pretentious buffoon, in my opinion. And anybody who claims it is music is equally pretentious. Is it art? Well, it certainly is a performance (on stage at least), so it could be called performance art. If somebody claimed it to be art I would have to agree, but is is not music. So does that mean that any pre-planned performance is art? When does it stop? Is streaking art?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So does that mean that any pre-planned performance is art? When does it stop? Is streaking art?

Kris,

The art I refer to is generally art that can be transported and re-experienced. I need to study more about performance art to discriminate between the arrogant and empty and that which actually transmits something of value that we want to cherish.

So indeed I too am perplexed by some pre-planned "performance art".

When I was on my recent tour of Europe to visit OPF photographers, in Munich I visited an open day exhibition at the Polytechnik (I think that's the name, if it's wrong I'll correct it) and enjoyed meeting the student artists and photographers.

While looking at some impressive lithographs, someone burst into the room asking, "Why was everyone running around naked?"

I was most disturbed that she used the word, "was" and that the opportunity for me to embed myself in this experience was lost for ever.

Then I hypothesized that indeed I was in the performance since we were moved to react, respond, be shocked and discuss the nature of artistic values. Now at this very moment, I am re-experiencing the whole event and still trying to figure out it's significence.

So what art is, like what man is will always be a question we can easily ask but but struggle to answer.

That's why, for my own sanity, I offered myself an hypothesis of an Arc if Intent to bind the artist's visions and feelings to those who receive it, completing my "Arc" arc by replaying those same and or other hopefully related feelings. The arc can of course be merely entertaining and that's that. However almost no art is socially neutral one might argue.

The Arc once completed, I posit, can spawn further art, yielding families of engaging and even challenging ideas, thoughts. The latter can alter cultural landscape, testing and moving the very boundries of our depest held values, belifs and ssocial arrangements.

These works can become emblematic and inspiring like the "Last Supper" by Leonardo Da Vinci the Crucifix itself, National Anthems, Amazing Grace and other important cultural icons.
 
Last edited:
Top