Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,172   Online: 1077
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Even more ironic - it was primarily Browning 50 caliber machine guns, the standard armament on US and many British aircraft of the time, that shot Goerring's Luftwaffe out of the skies.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  2. #12
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,348
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by rhphoto

    My theory is simply that what we respond to viscerally in photographs is processed on the right side of the brain, and as such transcends verbal or purely rational thought. Stieglitz developed an aesthetic called "equivalence" which meant that he desired to create in a photograph the "equivalent" of certain feelings or impressions. No words, no title, are involved - just the communication from the artist to the viewer, and utilizing only the non-verbal side of the brain. In this way, I think photography, and all art, is "subversive". This might go a long way to explaining the otherwise irrational response of law enforcement and such toward photographers setting up tripods. Something about people wanting to create pictures threatens the authorities.
    Well your theory is pretty much the same thing Nietzsche exposed in the "Birth of Tragedy" or what Antonin Artaud wrote in "Theater and its Double" (Le théâtre et son double). For these two guys, European civilization was essentially sclerosed by too much "civilization," too much psychology (for Artaud), too much logic, too much Socratism (for Nietzsche), and they were pining for a way to be reunited with a "primal unity."

    Nietzsche argues that Greek tragedy was an instance of such unity with the primordial, amoral substance of life, whereas the introduction of Socratic thought linking virtue with knowledge was essentially "driving music out of art." Nietzsche was after trying to render conscious to his contemporaries the possibility of a metaphysics not predicated by the moral, i.e. that life was essentially amoral, that it had no good or bad purpose, but even though it was cruel it was to be celebrated as such. Joyce has an interesting word for that: "jocoserious." Of course Nietzsche is more torrid in his exposition, but the essential idea is that reason shields us from "the real thing" and pessimism, cruelty, rage, irrationality, can be a far more worthy window on the world than positivism. Everyone who ever read Comte may feel favorable to Nietzsche on that point.

    Ditto for Artaud: he abhorred the idea of a theater based on character. Fascinated by the Balinese theater, but also completely ignorant of what it meant, he fashioned the idea of a theater (which he called the Theater of Cruelty) in which mise en scène, not dialogue, was the important item. For him, the impossibility to repeat a gesture was the true expression of unalienated life, compared to the repetitive potential of dialogue and language. He favored sound, the voice not as speech but as a concrete entity, movement, the body, etc. 20thC theater is hugely indebted to him in reconsidering the approach to the spectacle. When you think of it, even a Metallica concert or a Pink Floyd show is a kind of Theater of Cruelty: your senses are attacked from everywhere, the distinction between peroformance and audience is lost, etc.

    What I want to point out to you after this lengthy exposé is where your theory stands from a historical perspective. You're grosso modo coming from a critique of the Enlightenments that started with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and that continues today with post-modernity or whatever the hell it's called now, embodiement theory (in cognitive science and cultural studies), performance art, etc. We've been dissatisfied with rationality since the late 19thC for its role in tyranny, global war, class subjugation, and we show growing dissatisfaction with it.

    However i don't think we can get rid of it, even if we wanted, even if that would perhaps avoid disasters if that was possible at all. It goes the same with art: the Western world is in a situation where it's sick of its rationalism, and it fetishizes the East or the past for models of non-rationality. I would warn you that interest in Eastern philosophy and its emphasis on the void (Buddhism), the emotions (Indian rasa theory), or the non-verbal may open you up more to your OWN preconceptions than to salvation and de-alienation. Have a look maybe at Edward Said's "Orientalism," it's the summa on the fancy that the West created of the East.

    Regarding subversion, I will admit that while I think it's important, I am growing more and more frightened by the ease with which it gets co-opted. Abstract art, subversive in the early 20thC (because people were still extremely gung-ho on rationality, so the contrast was strong), has become worst than musak in terms of flaccid impact. I think the critique of rationality has been done, and that we can't be subversive anymore just by going for the non-verbal, the immediate, or the Dionysiac. The Dionysiac is on the page of People Magazine when Paris Hilton exposes her new antics every other week. I watched the "Yes Men" the other day, which shows a pair of smart guys posing as WTO members, and actually going in congresses and delivering the most insane speech with a straight face. Well, guess what? No uproar from the WTO itself. Instead, they manage to be featured in the "hoax" section of the newspapers.

    Corporations are the EXACT opposite of rationality: they behave insanely, almost schizoidly if you follow the thesis put forth in The Corporation, and I think THEY are the totalitarian regimes of today. You can put them down with rationality, legal proofs, tv reporting, blogging, critique, whatever. You can also play their own logic against themselves, use their craziness and turn it around, but you'll need also good old logic and proof of fact. If you must be subversive today, in art or in politics, I'm afraid you'll need at least SOME rationality.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Oh, my.

    Zhenya, if I were in the mood for bombast, I'd find a recording of A Soviet Artist's Reply To Just Criticism and play it. I believe I have one.

    Um, about rationality. Much over-rated, because of the difficulty in practice of acquiring and using all relevant information. Naturally one should try, but failure is almost guaranteed.

    Gosplan's downfall, eh, Zhenya? Some very bright hungarians worked the math out, but their russian peers didn't have the means to reduce the ideas to practice. At the time there wasn't enough data acquisition, transmission, and processing capacity in the known universe. The closest thing to a Gosplan that actually works these days is Walmart, and Walmart doesn't work all that well.

    About discussions between intellectuals. Interesting, sometimes, but this one doesn't seem to be well-anchored in empirical reality. Doing sociological or anthropological fieldwork is time-consuming, expensive, not always easy. And it doesn't always lead to solid conclusions. Much, much easier to sit in an armchair and make pronouncements about what something or other really means or reveals about how the world is. Not obvious, though, why the assertions should be believed.

    We ignorant barbarians are such skeptics. What a pity that I was a student of the late Karl Brunner, whose greatest contribution to knowledge probably came from insisting that his students ask "why should I believe THAT" more than possible.

    Cheers, and a mighty raspberry to all,

    Dan

  4. #14
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by rhphoto
    I think that one of the reasons art is so powerful, and hence so threatening to fascist regimes (where intellectuals and artists are the first to be rounded up), is because it reaches poeple in a way no other form of communication can.
    M.
    Art is always, in all societies part of the culture, because the culture of a society is nothing else than the sum of the details of a certain way of living
    Culture is the superstructure on a economical, geographical and climatic base and depends on the evolution of those elemnts.

    So if art reaches poeple in a way no other form of communication can (I agree), it is logic that totalitarian regimes always "clean" the definition of art as long as it tells THEIR story only in a way no other form of communication can indeed. ( Eisenstein) For the Nazis it was easy to do because the very most top artists had been jewish and so they had a perfect excuse to chase them outta the country or kill them and to burn their work. Guys like Arnold Breker and his esthical trash took their place.

    Leaving aside the totalitarian non democratic societies we can observe that ALL societies practise a certain kind of political control when it comes to art,
    there happens censorship in many ways, more or less subtle to all who produce anything which is considered to be "correct" by those who control the money and the power and try to take care that everything runs as they want it to run.

    Just remember the incredible disgusting public campaign against the first Impessionists in Paris beginning arond 1860, which lasted almost 30 years and made Impressionism beeing a banned art, also called "entartet" like the Nazis called all kind of art which did not contribute to the general mental and esthetical coma in those days.

    The almost unlimited artistic freedom we have in central Europe nowadays is very young, actually my generation had to fight hard for it in the 60s and the 70s, in Germany trying to get rid of a kind of correctness which was still much more influenced by a Nazi attitude than the society was willing to realize.

    A camera can be a weapon indeed for the fight for freedom , yes, and therefore it is often regarded as beeing subversive in principle by the power of government.
    And the worse the crimials are which rule a country the more they are afraid of cameras, especially of those which produce art. The history of the 20th century proves it.

    Regards,
    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vermont
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    348
    Images
    5
    Love to see how a topic evolves. I guess I'm not that interested personally in historical philosophy as much as a more "Jungian" approach, hence my curiosity about the subliminal, archetypal processing the brain does upon viewing photographs. Some of you guys are obviously way ahead of me in how this has developed in the Western philosophical tradition, especially in the context of recent European history. For me, the subversive nature of photographs is about this common recognition of an abstract, two dimensional surface (a photograph) and the possibility that it can convey something deeply felt between artist and audience, without resorting to rational, verbal communication. I'm not trashing the Enlightenment or rational thought -- to the contrary, I hate watching the slide our (American) culture is making back into the dark ages where we distrust science and reason in favor of our parochial belief systems.

    I just think that alongside reason there flows another, complimentary consciousness that cannot be communicated any other way than from one person's right brain to another's, and as that can't be verbal, it must be, what, symbolic? Irrational? Emotional? It's a balance. I think I'm opting for the whole, the totality of consciousness, not favoring one over the other. Maybe it means that art is a way to deal with the resident Fascist in my mind. (Or the resident Totalitarian)
    Robert Hunt

  6. #16
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,348
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by rfshootist
    Just remember the incredible disgusting public campaign against the first Impessionists in Paris beginning arond 1860, which lasted almost 30 years and made Impressionism beeing a banned art, also called "entartet" like the Nazis called all kind of art which did not contribute to the general mental and esthetical coma in those days.
    I swear I have a picture somehwhere of a poster from that era that advertise an upcoming show in which the superiority of "normal" art will be asserted by bringing such tableaux to an impressionist exhibition, and showing them side by side so that the "decadence" of the Impressionists will be made visible. I'll try to scan it when I have some time on my hands.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    768
    Images
    36
    Uh-oh, am I mising something? Did I say a single word about both Soviet Artists and Gosplan?? Both topics are indeed huge, self-standing and nice to discuss, but what I am to do with these in this thread?

    And the Russian peers of Hungarian brothers were quick to adopt things, as we know... at least in case of A-bomb The Gosplan idea was not as attractive, so it was a bit in shade

    Zhenya

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Oh, my.

    Zhenya, if I were in the mood for bombast, I'd find a recording of A Soviet Artist's Reply To Just Criticism and play it. I believe I have one.

    Gosplan's downfall, eh, Zhenya? Some very bright hungarians worked the math out, but their russian peers didn't have the means to reduce the ideas to practice. At the time there wasn't enough data acquisition, transmission, and processing capacity in the known universe. The closest thing to a Gosplan that actually works these days is Walmart, and Walmart doesn't work all that well.

  8. #18
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    I swear I have a picture somehwhere of a poster from that era that advertise an upcoming show in which the superiority of "normal" art will be asserted by bringing such tableaux to an impressionist exhibition, and showing them side by side so that the "decadence" of the Impressionists will be made visible. I'll try to scan it when I have some time on my hands.
    I heard of it but have never seen it, would be interesting to watch it now. One of the very few who were willing to defend the impressionist was Emile Zola, did not make him popular tho in the Bougeois circles of "art experts".

    Considering that there was no really subversive political message in this kind of painting one is blown away by that exploding hate and that shit storm in the newspapers in those days.
    Taking painting out of the studios into the nature and developing a new style of painting based on a different understanding of the human perception was subversive enuff to justify the worst insults and personal attacks.

    Bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  9. #19
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,368
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    154
    Couple of thoughts: while I have experienced that kind of "shunt to the soul" on rare occasion with visual arts, good music can get there faster and more often. Sadly, I don't think my pile of "art" will get me rounded up. Probably don't have a thing to worry over.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Each person to their own thoughts and methods is what i be;ieve to be best. Should I am bothered enough by anothers way of culture or expression to reach for a gun I would choose to reach for their gun. My gun is busy showing others my ideas.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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