More political BS. Just what the world needs, another screaming idiot with an agenda. His photos are excellent but I could care less about his political position or "message".
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
Every act is a political act -- including the denial that a given act is political.
My politics is that of the denial of politics.
Originally Posted by Simon Norfolk
The thing that pisses me off about so much modern art is that it carries no politics – it has nothing that it wants to say about the world. Without that passion, that political drive, to a piece of work – and I mean politics here very broadly – how can you ever really evaluate it? At the end of the day, I don't think my politics are very popular right now, but what I would like to hear is what are your politics? Because if you're not going to tell me, how can we ever possibly have an argument about whether you're a clever person, your work is great, your work is crap, your art is profound, your art is trivial...?
Stalin and Hitler might have approved of Simon Norfolk -- if his politics agreed with theirs. Photographs can have lyrical, historical, sensuous, political, and many other values. For most people, family portraits and snapshots are the most treasured. Evaluating photographs by one limited standard may be appropriate in limited circumstances. These circumstances shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us. Fortunately, we can usually ignore them. Photograpy at its best, like the other arts, can be an end unto itself, not a means to lesser ends.
Seems to me, he has the view of a horse with blinders on. There is so much more to the world than politics; so much more to artistic expression.
What Jim Said.
Last edited by mark; 03-18-2007 at 12:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Others said it better than I did
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Please, come up with a definition of art that is not about "forcing an opinion." Isn't the most basic of artistic urges: "look at this!"?
Originally Posted by Ray Heath
So... you think he ought not to express them?
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
If you are not able to see the absurd combination of both calling other people "idiots" and their opinions "BS" while at the same time declaring yourself above politics.... well, nothing anyone here has to say has any hope of crossing the desolate idealess desert that is your consciousness.
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
Historically, the track record of those who deny political content in art has not been good, whether it be Italian church fathers of the 1500's criticizing costumes in paintings for looking "too German," or committees and leaders decreeing that all art must express the 'Social Realism' that celbrates the ideals of Communism, or even simply with the stated desire for conversation and art that won't offend the investors or scare the children. Such declarations of being apolitical have inevitably been just a mask for a regressive, strongly-censorious political agenda that prefers not to be shone in direct light.
However, being true to my nature as a bleeding heart pinko elitist touchy-feeling blue state artspeaking tree hugger idiot, I'll ask you to declare your own genuine ideas as they relate to anything other than name-calling -- maybe with respect to photography, or at the very least art in general?
Maybe idealized romantic art
is more your speed?
And how does that not embed a profound
Originally Posted by mark
Originally Posted by Samuel Johnson
Last edited by bjorke; 03-18-2007 at 01:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
The title of this thread is
It would be polite not to assume that there is anything at all political about a photographers work
Politeness versus Photography
It would be polite to not expect a photographer to share their political opinions
Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, it is polite to not express any political opinions at all
Sometimes a photograph is just a photograph
A bit less politics/political meddling and a bit more minding our business and maybe we wouldn't need as many war photographers ...
That's my point, and why politeness is a crappy metric to apply to art. Photography is an excercise in choices. Choosing what to photograph, how to photograph it, how to print it, what to print, how and to whom to present it. Since it is an interaction between persons, there is always at least some element of politics in it, if only to the degree of saying (by the photographer) "I think that you should spend some of your time looking at this" and the expression of trust and effort on the part of the viewer.
Originally Posted by John Bartley
"Discussion about Art," 1946
Here we see all the values of lyrical sensuousness so valued by the detractors of this thread, and not the slightest whiff of acknowledgement of the world surrounding the artist -- indeed, check out the costumes, more at home in 1846 than 1946. I hear this Vasili Yakolev's painting was one of Stalin's favorites.
But hey, a picture is just a picture, right? So suppressing ideas about them is politically neutral.... right? It's not like you're dealing with real ideas or the right of people to express themselves. It's just whiffleball, a game as polite as The Minister's Cat, where pesky notions like values can be safely ignored and blanketed under one dully pleasing cliche after another.
I have no use for this idiot. He wants to know my politics so he can argue with me. How in the word I have made it this far without his approval I can only wonder. What a pompous ass. As a combat vet I detest armchair warriors. If you want to be that charged up about an issue, put down the camera, pick up a gun and fight for the cause. He could care less about YOUR photography. He is only looking for validation of his own views. Only when he leaves the third person perspective will he QUALIFY to ask my views on war.
It seems no matter how you try to avoid it, some dufus has to push politics on you. I'm no longer sure what "politics" means anymore. It's become a religion to those who feel they have to proseletize their beliefs at the expense of rational thought or logic--and the more in-your-face, the better. It's sad enough to have to put up with the nightly venom spewing forth from the cable news network scream-fests, now it has to invade the cultural arenas as well.
Here we have someone who photographs ruins and produces very nice photographs that are worth seeing just for the value of the photography alone. Then he has to toss a handful of excrement on his work by proclaiming it to be political. I don't even know what his political position is because I don't care and I didn't read the whole narrative. In my eyes, he has cheapened the value of his work by saying, in effect, that it is there to push an agenda.
Some of you might remember the 1960's when western culture was suspect and all the institutions of government, religion, art and philosophy were thought to be in the midst of a revolution. The world was changing and it was for the better. Didn't work out like that. Those revolutionaries in the 60's are now in charge of those institutions and they're screwing things up just as badly or worse. Now they're also apparently also teaching art history in schools the world over and interpreting art in political terms. That says more about the narrow-mindedness totalitarionism of the interpreter than the art.
I'm sure my words will be dissected and each statement will be contradicted with antedotal evidence of how all art is politics and all artists are political. I call horseshit on that concept. Only those who have a political agenda themselves would try to politicize every work of art and every artist who created it.
What utter drivel!