| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2009 12:31:57 PM · #76 |
| Great story, Chromey. Sometimes we need to remember to let the picture tell the story without any additional embellishments. :-) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:31:58 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by lky623:
I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion. |
Ambulance needed!! Quick over here please someone , anyone!!! Medical help required...
Who has the straight jacket? ;)
Only jesting Jeb :D |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:33:04 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by lky623:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents... |
if you are trained, art tastes entirely differently. I domp have much words but its simply delicious. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:34:48 PM · #79 |
Now see, I can be trained to realize that Jacques-Louis David was a masterful painter of linen folds, and that his work was beyond most painters of his time, but that doesn't mean that I have any more or less right to ENJOY his paintings than anyone else.
Learning why something is what it is might cause some people to go, "oh, my god, you're right, I DO like it now!" but I'm not one of those people, nor are many, I suspect.
Perhaps it'll let me appreciate the talent and effort that went into a creation, but that doesn't automatically make me a better appreciator of anything, except in the heads of those that created it.
For instance, I understand many aspects of David's 'Napolean at the Saint-Bernard Pass'. The triangular composition of strength, the attention to detail, the false action pose, the intentional construction to make Napolean larger than he was... etc. etc. etc., but I still really, really don't like the painting. Why? Because I don't. No other reason.
I just don't buy into this crap that 'training' affords anyone a more acceptable pass to judgment. All it is is a lie. A fantasy we create, as creators, to feel better about what people are saying about our work. "What do you mean you don't like it? You are a heathen, you have no schooling." *turn nose up in the air*. Whatever man, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your work, then by all means, stick to whatever circles you need to stick to in order to feel that way. Truth is, everyone on this earth is inherently qualified to judge 'art'. Simply by being human.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:37:24 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement.
A two-year-old is likely to prefer candy to broccoli, yet we both know which of the two holds more nutritional value. |
Well put. As the two year old, the concept of nutritional value is a foreign one much like the notion of art to many people. In such situations it's common to try and explain art by relating it to other less nebulous concepts such as commercial photography. However, applying commercial standards or your own standards for that matter as the basis for judging someone else's art would be a mistake as the goals and purpose are not the same. |
It's a flawed analogy from the start. The difference between candy and vegetables is objective. The difference in taste in art is subjective.
Thus the flaw.
Disingenuous at best, horribly pretentious and misguided at worst. |
I wasn't a) talking about tastes and thus b) the subsequent contention went south.
Talking about flaws! |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:42:20 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I wasn't a) talking about tastes and thus b) the subsequent contention went south.
Talking about flaws! |
It might be an idea to explain why the 2 year old prefers the candy over the broccoli because I guess it isn't that it simply looks nicer? But even if it was isn't that a form of taste? ;)
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:44:03 PM · #82 |
my 2 cents.. I LOVE Cartier-Bresson..
I think this horse has been beaten to death.. time to bury it. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:45:16 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by lky623:
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents... |
It IS an interesting polarity between those two points of view, isn't it? Though I don't think they're as far apart as people think they are.
There's a tendency of the "common man" to think those that are trying to "educate" him about "art" are trying to brainwash him into accepting that something as alien to his experience as, say, the Piss Christ should be respected as a work of art, and he resists that. He resists being "told" that Jackson Pollack, throwing paint at canvas, was a great artist. Her resists being told that Christo, wrapping buildings in fabric, is a great artist producing relevant work. And so forth and so on.
And that gap is always going to exist, absolutely.
But. coming at it from the other perspective, it's just as arguable that a lot, if not most, of what passes for "art" these days is just an exercise in academic masturbation. *I* certainly think that, and *I'VE* been "trained" in the arts.
But, nevertheless, there's a lot going on, always has been, that one needs a certain vocabulary in order to decode and understand. This is clearly true in the field of literature, we can all agree on that. If you have no classical education at all, if you're not familiar with Homer, say, then Tennyson's "Ulysses" doesn't mean much, really. And the you come to something like the George Clooney film "Brother, Where Art Thou?" and it is SO much richer of an experience if one understands how every element of the film is a direct transcription into modern times of the travails of Ulysses.
And art, in general, draws on the reservoirs of our common past for its metaphorical and allusive vocabulary. So, to a great extent, the better "educated" you are, or the more "experienced" you are, in the viewing of art, the more it begins to mean to you. And this isn't about brainwashing you into thinking it's "my way or the highway", it's more like providing markers, points of reference, increased commonality with the maker of the art.
I could go on and on with this, but I'll stop now...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:45:43 PM · #84 |
| Bring out another horse! There's still plenty of life left in this rant yet! :D |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:46:08 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement.
A two-year-old is likely to prefer candy to broccoli, yet we both know which of the two holds more nutritional value. |
Well put. As the two year old, the concept of nutritional value is a foreign one much like the notion of art to many people. In such situations it's common to try and explain art by relating it to other less nebulous concepts such as commercial photography. However, applying commercial standards or your own standards for that matter as the basis for judging someone else's art would be a mistake as the goals and purpose are not the same. |
It's a flawed analogy from the start. The difference between candy and vegetables is objective. The difference in taste in art is subjective.
Thus the flaw.
Disingenuous at best, horribly pretentious and misguided at worst. |
I wasn't a) talking about tastes and thus b) the subsequent contention went south.
Talking about flaws! |
My contention remains valid. There is no objectivity in art to TRAIN people about that would give them more 'nutritional' value.
If I enjoy black velvet paintings of old mexicans smoking cigarettes, and fill my house with them, I'm not going to lose all my teeth, and while a lot of people might recoil in horror at my choice of art, it doesn't make it BAD. It just makes me different. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:48:05 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Now see, I can be trained to realize that Jacques-Louis David was a masterful painter of linen folds, and that his work was beyond most painters of his time, but that doesn't mean that I have any more or less right to ENJOY his paintings than anyone else.
Learning why something is what it is might cause some people to go, "oh, my god, you're right, I DO like it now!" but I'm not one of those people, nor are many, I suspect.
Perhaps it'll let me appreciate the talent and effort that went into a creation, but that doesn't automatically make me a better appreciator of anything, except in the heads of those that created it.
For instance, I understand many aspects of David's 'Napolean at the Saint-Bernard Pass'. The triangular composition of strength, the attention to detail, the false action pose, the intentional construction to make Napolean larger than he was... etc. etc. etc., but I still really, really don't like the painting. Why? Because I don't. No other reason.
I just don't buy into this crap that 'training' affords anyone a more acceptable pass to judgment. All it is is a lie. A fantasy we create, as creators, to feel better about what people are saying about our work. "What do you mean you don't like it? You are a heathen, you have no schooling." *turn nose up in the air*. Whatever man, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your work, then by all means, stick to whatever circles you need to stick to in order to feel that way. Truth is, everyone on this earth is inherently qualified to judge 'art'. Simply by being human. |
if it is in response to what i said - i will clarify, i said it tastes differently. and i did not say that untrained person can not enjoy it.
take my painting example, having studied it for 15 years or more, i understand what is difficult and what is not. How it is done etc etc.
while my wife likes eye candies, i get all hooked up on mundane looking paintings who are difficult to paint.
while my wife enjoys her eye candy and moves to another, i am still on one and keep savouring it. If you understand that art the way you enjoy also changes.
Nobody is stopped from enjoying anything, its that experience is entirely different.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:50:37 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by lky623:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents... |
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. In such a case you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 16:53:52.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:52:29 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. Either way you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
this I can agree with, but then that falls under communication with the artist themselves, not really under being trained formally in any real way.
After all, one of the first things you learn after learning the 'rules' is how to break them.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 16:52:38. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:52:49 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. Either way you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
Cn that not be applied to any photographer of any level though Richard? |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:54:00 PM · #90 |
old sprint cellphone radio commercial:
Arteeest: "Zey call me ze 'veeeshualeeest' because I must to see zings veeeeeshually, witt my eyes"
Narrator: "So, you see things with your eyes......." |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:55:29 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. In such a case you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
yepp this is what i was saying few pages back.
like or dislike is okey, as long as you do not force others to make art the way you percieve.
this is main point. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:55:36 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
old sprint cellphone radio commercial:
Arteeest: "Zey call me ze 'veeeshualeeest' because I must to see zings veeeeeshually, witt my eyes"
Narrator: "So, you see things with your eyes......." |
Old German Coast Guard commercial:
"Vhat are you SIIINNKKKIINGG?!" (ok, so I paraphrased it for humor)
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 16:56:58. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:57:27 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by yanko:
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. In such a case you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
yepp this is what i was saying few pages back.
like or dislike is okey, as long as you do not force others to make art the way you percieve.
this is main point. |
I think this is pretty much everyone's point, lol. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:03:02 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by yanko:
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. Either way you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
Cn that not be applied to any photographer of any level though Richard? |
I should hope so.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:03:07 PM · #95 |
i joke a lot and with almost every one.
i remember when i was in college. I gave one painting exhibition. it was three day exhibition.
anyway i played a joke. i put a very famous JacksonPollock painting just at the entrance.
With a note saying something like - This is from famous painter, and this has a speciality that if you stare at the center of painting, you will see face of person you love.
it was fun watching people spending their time staring at center of that modern art.
Some actually saw faces of person they loved. At least they claimed so.
:-D
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 17:03:44. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:03:11 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by lky623:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents... |
Expressing your likes/dislikes is one thing. Claiming mistakes were made or that the art should have been made differently is something else entirely. If you commented on one of my images and said I don't like it because it's too blurry that's perfectly reasonable. You're after all just stating what you didn't like about it so the statement is factual. You need no qualifications to make such a statement. Now had you said, it's too blurry, next time try and avoid camera shake. You're assuming I either intended to have a sharper image or the correct way to go about things would be to have a sharper image. In such a case you're in no way qualified to make such a claim unless you're more informed about my intentions at the very least. |
That's a reasonable statement, and I'll agree with you on this. As far as commenting on DPC, I normally qualify that it is just my opinion...
Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:09:40 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by lky623:
Wow, what a thread. How polarized we can be.
I'm just an average working joe, as such I tend to agree with Nikonjeb in that I know what I like and don't like.
So I need to be "trained" to appreciate "art"? Who will "train" me; some pretentious "my way or the highway-I know what art is-you don't" kind of person? I rather be trained by Nikonjeb... He seems to have more common sense about this whole discussion.
Just my 2 cents... |
It IS an interesting polarity between those two points of view, isn't it? Though I don't think they're as far apart as people think they are.
There's a tendency of the "common man" to think those that are trying to "educate" him about "art" are trying to brainwash him into accepting that something as alien to his experience as, say, the Piss Christ should be respected as a work of art, and he resists that. He resists being "told" that Jackson Pollack, throwing paint at canvas, was a great artist. Her resists being told that Christo, wrapping buildings in fabric, is a great artist producing relevant work. And so forth and so on.
And that gap is always going to exist, absolutely.
But. coming at it from the other perspective, it's just as arguable that a lot, if not most, of what passes for "art" these days is just an exercise in academic masturbation. *I* certainly think that, and *I'VE* been "trained" in the arts.
But, nevertheless, there's a lot going on, always has been, that one needs a certain vocabulary in order to decode and understand. This is clearly true in the field of literature, we can all agree on that. If you have no classical education at all, if you're not familiar with Homer, say, then Tennyson's "Ulysses" doesn't mean much, really. And the you come to something like the George Clooney film "Brother, Where Art Thou?" and it is SO much richer of an experience if one understands how every element of the film is a direct transcription into modern times of the travails of Ulysses.
And art, in general, draws on the reservoirs of our common past for its metaphorical and allusive vocabulary. So, to a great extent, the better "educated" you are, or the more "experienced" you are, in the viewing of art, the more it begins to mean to you. And this isn't about brainwashing you into thinking it's "my way or the highway", it's more like providing markers, points of reference, increased commonality with the maker of the art.
I could go on and on with this, but I'll stop now...
R. |
Bear,
I'll agree with you too. Your comments/discussion is not "abrasive", so I would tend to listen to your comments/discussion/opinions more so than some of the more "fanatical" posts...
You have a nice day too. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:22:44 PM · #98 |
I don't think anyone has been abrasive have they?
I think most people were actually aiming at the same target |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:22:50 PM · #99 |
Soylent Green was devoured by the masses as well. I understand it was composed of some higher quality artists too.
The marketing was great though. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 17:25:25. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:40:33 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
But subjective is as subjective does........ (somebody put that in latin, it will be so much more impressive! :-) |
thema est ut thema does |
lol. You wound up on the same latin translator page I did I guess, but I wasn't about to post that obvious grammatical frankenstein. lol. |
yeah, apparently it kicked back some latin sentence about Uma Thurman...go figure. |
|
