Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,767   Posts: 1,484,165   Online: 811
      
Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 59101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 172
  1. #141
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,990
    Images
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    But we can have a conversation about whether it does something well or poorly which is where the analogy lies. There is a standard.

    Michael, I firmly believe that there is a standard for these things. I don't think it exists within us or comes from us, but I think we are naturally aware of it. Both of these I think can, basically, be demonstrated. The first point, that it does not exist within us or by us is clear because we're not sure what the standard is, see discussions like the one we're having. The second, that it exists, I think is equally apparent, eyeless lobular deep-sea fish are not beautiful, song birds are beautiful. We automatically know this. Sometimes we're not sure why and so we question it and fight it, but it's a natural feeling.
    These two points explain why we can look at a child's drawing and at Claude Monet (I'm stuck on Monet for some reason) and tell the difference but why we have such a hard time comparing Claude Monet and Edward Degas. We know there is a standard and it's obvious at extremes, but because we don't know the standard well there is a huge gray area. Will the gray area ever go away? We can study and improve our understanding, certainly, but the standard won't ever be fully knowable because its source is not fully knowable.

    The fact is, though, that there is a standard. It's multi-faceted and complex, but Ansel Adams and Sebastio Salgado are not good artists because they randomly and subjectively triggered someone's gut feeling (though they may be popular for that reason), they are good artists because they make good art. Without a standard that doesn't make any sense.
    I respectfully disagree with you.

    I don't agree that there is a standard. If a work of art becomes successful it means that 'enough' people had a strong enough reaction to it that it became famous. The reasons they react favorably could be political, cultural, sheer beauty, emotional, etc etc etc. That still doesn't mean that everybody agrees.

    Only that a large proportion agrees they appreciate the work. Kind of like democracy.

    In the same breath, we must mention that less successful art is simply liked by fewer people.
    This brings us back to the single piece of art we observe, whichever piece it happens to be. Unless you are investing in art, or looking for bragging rights, the only thing that's important in appreciating a work of art is how you react to it, what you feel, how it aesthetically pleases you - to your standard.

    How a universal type of standard can come out of individual appreciation I do not understand. You will have to be very specific.

    Again, please don't take this as criticism. I'm only trying to argue my opinion based on my experience with the world, as respectfully as I can.
    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 02-19-2013 at 04:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #142

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,272
    Horace - interesting discussion - I'll have to respond more fully later (don't have time right now).
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    Michael, I firmly believe that there is a standard for these things. I don't think it exists within us or comes from us, but I think we are naturally aware of it. Both of these I think can, basically, be demonstrated. The first point, that it does not exist within us or by us is clear because we're not sure what the standard is, see discussions like the one we're having. The second, that it exists, I think is equally apparent, eyeless lobular deep-sea fish are not beautiful, song birds are beautiful. We automatically know this. Sometimes we're not sure why and so we question it and fight it, but it's a natural feeling.
    These two points explain why we can look at a child's drawing and at Claude Monet (I'm stuck on Monet for some reason) and tell the difference but why we have such a hard time comparing Claude Monet and Edward Degas. We know there is a standard and it's obvious at extremes, but because we don't know the standard well there is a huge gray area. Will the gray area ever go away? We can study and improve our understanding, certainly, but the standard won't ever be fully knowable because its source is not fully knowable.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 02-19-2013 at 03:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #143
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,309
    Images
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    ... eyeless lobular deep-sea fish are not beautiful, song birds are beautiful. We automatically know this.
    To a marine biologist, the fish may be beautiful, the bird less so. We can't "automatically know this" because our perception/appreciation is based on personal experience, surroundings, and biases. There can be no standard for "good" art because there are no two humans who will view/perceive/react to visual stimuli the same exact way. Even when you find a group of people who love a particular piece of art, most likely they'll love it for different reasons.

    Interesting discussion, BTW...

  4. #144

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I respectfully disagree with you.

    I don't agree that there is a standard. If a work of art becomes successful it means that 'enough' people had a strong enough reaction to it that it became famous. The reasons could be political, cultural, or just sheer beauty. That still doesn't mean that everybody agrees.

    ...

    how it aesthetically pleases you - to your standard.

    How a universal type of standard can come out of individual appreciation I do not understand. You will have to be very specific.

    Again, please don't take this as criticism. I'm only trying to argue my opinion based on my experience with the world, as respectfully as I can.
    Thanks, I appreciate your response. First off, I have to point out that your judging art based on success. You don't believe there is a standard, just personal opinion, so the only thing you have left to judge the goodness/greatness of an art in any way that reaches beyond yourself, is success.
    So conversations like this really shouldn't happen if you're correct that the only thing that should matter to me is what pleases me. Claude Monet is no greater than what I'm scribbling in front of me as I write, neither is Picasso, they are just more successful. On top of that there is no discussion if I think the box I scribbled onto my pad of paper is better art than your or Ansel Adam's photographs. And you can't say it isn't until you take a look at it for yourself.
    A lot of people agree with you, no doubt about that. I think this clearly goes against the way we talk about and the way we see the beauty and art around us. For instance, the deep-sea creature - eddie pointed out that a marine biologist might think it more beautiful than a songbird, but this is only because he's studied the creature and sees and understands facets that most people don't. It isn't a toss-up whether or not most people think a vampire squid or an eastern bluebird is prettier, if there was no standard, it should be.

    I don't exactly understand what you are saying about a universal standard coming out of individual appreciation. What I was saying is that there is a universal standard that exists outside of ourselves. That makes sense of that fact that we have conversations like this, and some people like stuff and some people don't, but also of the fact that we talk and act like there is a standard naturally. If there was no standard it would be odd to see so many cooking & photography & writing contests.

  5. #145

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    What I was saying is that there is a universal standard that exists outside of ourselves. That makes sense of that fact that we have conversations like this, and some people like stuff and some people don't, but also of the fact that we talk and act like there is a standard naturally. If there was no standard it would be odd to see so many cooking & photography & writing contests.
    I don't see how an universal standard can exist outside of ourselves... On top of that, this discussion is the clear demontration that there is no standard, just personal appreciation of different manifestation of art which closely depend on our experience.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  6. #146
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,990
    Images
    280
    For the record, I used the illustration of successful art simply as a way to depict collective appreciation for arts. Success = recognition, right? Well, it has to start with one person recognizing it, and more and more, and they're all individuals, like you and I. Some work is more recognized than others, for various reasons. Why all those individuals were drawn to that particular work of art is what is of interest, not some type of commercial success.

    I think we're at the point where it's best to agree to disagree and move on. There are other things that need my energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    Thanks, I appreciate your response. First off, I have to point out that your judging art based on success. You don't believe there is a standard, just personal opinion, so the only thing you have left to judge the goodness/greatness of an art in any way that reaches beyond yourself, is success.
    So conversations like this really shouldn't happen if you're correct that the only thing that should matter to me is what pleases me. Claude Monet is no greater than what I'm scribbling in front of me as I write, neither is Picasso, they are just more successful. On top of that there is no discussion if I think the box I scribbled onto my pad of paper is better art than your or Ansel Adam's photographs. And you can't say it isn't until you take a look at it for yourself.
    A lot of people agree with you, no doubt about that. I think this clearly goes against the way we talk about and the way we see the beauty and art around us. For instance, the deep-sea creature - eddie pointed out that a marine biologist might think it more beautiful than a songbird, but this is only because he's studied the creature and sees and understands facets that most people don't. It isn't a toss-up whether or not most people think a vampire squid or an eastern bluebird is prettier, if there was no standard, it should be.

    I don't exactly understand what you are saying about a universal standard coming out of individual appreciation. What I was saying is that there is a universal standard that exists outside of ourselves. That makes sense of that fact that we have conversations like this, and some people like stuff and some people don't, but also of the fact that we talk and act like there is a standard naturally. If there was no standard it would be odd to see so many cooking & photography & writing contests.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #147
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    A trend as of late where all artistic styles are indicted, tried and forever left to rebuild....

    The lith'r
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/1...nostalgia.html

    The Traditionalist
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/1...nostalgia.html

    The Paper Negative Tricker
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/1...kery-fake.html

    I guess this thread is the grain'r-blur'r

    Who's next? Someone going to take down the RVP-50-saturate'r, Polaroid'r, toy-camera'r, meniscus-lens'r, Minox'r, wet-plate'r, box-camera'r, shallow-DOF'r.....

    These kinds of threads, in my humble opinion, do more to stifle creative thinking and sharing of art than promote it.

    I see a pattern where abstraction is frowned upon.

    To the Nanian's, Eddie's, and all those who find a way for your artistic voice outside of the norm, keep it up! For those who shoot the norm, keep it up!

    As an artistic pacifist, we all win when we share. Why line item a style, technique so strong? Critique can be done so much better than some recent trends illustrate....
    Andy

  8. #148

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    After the perfection, the 'true" representation... Is it what attract you in a picture, being a "true" representation (assuming it can exist which I doubt. did you ever heard of a "false" representation?)?

    Sorry but I am bit lost in what you mean...

    Take care.

    This article showed up yesterday, great timing for this discussion!

    http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/20/...truth-matters/
    http://street-photos.net/ | http://felinik.com/ | http://www.facebook.com/jf.felinik

    "The one with the most stuff when he dies wins"

  9. #149

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,273
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Felinik View Post
    This article showed up yesterday, great timing for this discussion!

    http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/20/...truth-matters/


    an image generated by a camera is never the truth.

    i find it laughable that anyone would think a camera + lens shows the truth ...
    if anything it shows someone's version of some imaginary truth.

    cameras and people lie, all the time.

    and people wonder why "analog photographers" are nasty and condescending towards people who use sensors or electronic workflow ???
    i am wondering what the next non-straight photography style bashing thread will be all about and when it will be started.

  10. #150

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    an image generated by a camera is never the truth.

    cameras and people lie, all the time.
    With this reasoning one could draw the conclusion that according to you, there's no truth at all, ever.. ?
    http://street-photos.net/ | http://felinik.com/ | http://www.facebook.com/jf.felinik

    "The one with the most stuff when he dies wins"



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin