ive seen your photos, they look very good.
tell about your works, u can dio it as a comment in one of my posted pics if u want, i dont mind, or just post it.
any way.. u say : relax and shoot the film.
and we talk here about the art and the artist or somebody somehow calls himself artist etc.
u want to tell me that u just put the film and shoot. cause my impression is that in your imagies there is a lot of knowledge in composition, exposure, printing etc etc. i dont know if there are some "higher meaning" (it is not necessary to have high meanings, this is not the only way to make arts). i was talking in my posts here that there are many people that very eassely come and call themselves artists without having an accaptable technique and an acaptable knowledge in art. im talking about ppl that think that they can paint without technique and telling that it is ok cause egon schiele was not painting and drawing realistically like rembrandt.
yes i agree with u, that schools are not the best place, but it only makes it more difficult to study.
i am amazed sometimes when i get to the art department. i see students enlarge their 35mm negatives that were taken with wide-tele-zooms to 20/24", and many of them dont even get that it looks bad. most of them are not even focused well enough to withstand 8/10". i dont elarge my negatives more than x15 usually, with far better glasses and much better technique, pushing their qualities towards their best. i think u understand what i say. u cant just do art, not in terms of techique and not in terms of what is there behind your photos. one must study and work, and then, making "artistic statements" and gallery quality will come as intuition in the process of making and creating.
Damn, I'm glad I never went to art school.
i had not either. i was stiding my 1st degree in philosophy and politics and i hated it. all that i know is from my own studies and from my friendship with some philosophers that thought that i am gifted anf guided me to study.
on the phd things were more accaptable - lol
Quite the opposite. To retreat into what's so glibly described as "true" art -- that is, self-involved art and "self-expression" -- is to fail. As Grosz writes: "No answer is an answer." Or:
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
The initial post in this thread, by focussing primarily on the perceived "status" of art and artists among themselves, belies an inherently bourgeois notion about the function of art -- as a verification of a fixed social hierarchy and as a mechanism to satisfy desire for status. Not the notion, as Michael Smith says, of creating from their need to create, but art (and even art creation) as merely a sort of investment.
- [The artist of today] must choose... Either way, he must give up 'pure art.' Either he joins the ranks of engineers, architects, and ad men whom the industrial powers employ and the world exploits, or he becomes a depicter and critic who critques the face of our time...
This is all fine, actually. Art workers need to eat too. But to put on airs about it, whether of the beret-wearing above-the-social order type, or the radically indignant sandinista, is to be pointlessly sidetracked by words.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thank you victor but I have yet to post to this forum. I do not have regular access to a scanner.
Of course I compose. What I mean is go take pictures instead of worrying about what others are doing or saying. Their little fantacies about who they are and how good their own stuff is, is mental masterbation: fun for them but no one really wants to watch.
There are those who think that you should just shoot to get past the block. Like those writing mindless strings of words to get past writer's block. for 35mm and MF this works pretty good for me LF is too expensive per sheet. In fact I will be taking my own advice this weekend and burning some film through my cameras.
Composition is part of the seeing for me, as it is for many. I have an idea of what something will look like then I try to get the picture there. Sometimes I get it sometimes I don't but at least I feel better about life. Things are super stressful here (Graduate degree work, teaching a hundred something kids a day, a wife and child I want to spend time with more than the rest) so I am feeling a lot like Mr. Fugazzi, pissed at everything and needing a break so I will burn film, get it processed and see what I get. Focusing on the beauty around me should clear my head. Just like it does for most people. We would not shoot if it was not the case.
Shoot film and have a good day(okay cheesy but I am trying to be more positive.
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
can u express yourself in your own words... u make here intresting points that i would like to comment but im too expirienced not to hold useful discussion with constant referances. i can talk with u about what u think, i can talk with u about grosz or benjamine, but i cannot talk to ctosz
mark.. u see
u r positive and u have fun, and im sure u dont call each of your pics masterpiece, actually u are very aware as u say that something gone rite and sometimes not so rite. besides, u know that u have past at least the basic studing in order to create good stuff. u r not one of whom we r talking about... those whome we are talking about are almost antichrist to u, and i think that the original post was talking about this kind as well.
by the way even if the cost per frame is not high as in your case, that doesnt mean firing the roll without consciousness.
I printed out the entire article, from the .pdf file.
Originally Posted by bjorke
Fortunately, I have access to someone who majored in English, is 'way more intelligent than I, and spends her days deciphering intensely complex legal documents (written with the express intent of causing confusion) for the Law Firm where she works. She happens to be my youngest daughter.
Her verdict? "Not a clue to what is going on here. Too many "inside terms" with meanings known only to a select few, and no indication of any possible "key" to what they do mean."
Uh huh. "... Goethe under bombardment, Nietzche in rucksack, Jesus in the trenches ..." and ... under "No Answer is Also an Answer" ... "When such artists enter the service of industry and applied art, there can be as little objection raised as when a politician engages himself as a craftsman. A matter of talent. When this art of literary attraction is pursued for its own sake, decidedly blase' indifference and irresponsible individualistic feelings are propagated."
What the **#$#! are they talking about when they say, "... they finally arrived at the task of overpainting the with beauty and interesting features the face of Anno 13, which daily unmasked itself more and more."?
Possibly we must interpret all this in the light of the atmosphere of Berlin, Germany in 1925.
Grosz was a proponent of "Dada", and this article was written in support of that movement:
Dada, n. - a movement in modern art and literature rejecting the standards and values of society by proposing unrestrained expression in behavior and artistic form. Dadaism got it start in Zurich, Switzerland, during World War I with a group of rebellious young artists who thought the world was going nowhere...
Dada, n. - a movement in art and literature, occurring especially in France, Switzerland about 1916 - 1920, that declared a program of protest against civilization and violently satirized all previous art."
Possibly, I got it all wrong ... but it sure sounds like, "Do your own thing", to me.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
(tangential rant continuing...) It is unfortunate that the PDF is so clipped -- we get the last two pages of the entire "Art is in Danger" book (and an odd translation, at that).
Ed, the dictionary definition of anything in art, past perhaps simple nouns like "paintbrush" or "stop bath," is likely to be wrong, if for no other reason than its isolated brevity. The Dadaists had reasons for their objection to the existing art world, which they saw as a validation mechanism for the bourgois classes that had in the years previous ("Anno 13") brought great ruin onto the German people; a people whom the Dadaists (notably the Red Group like Grosz et al, members of the KDP) felt had been dragged into the war by the forces of industry that ruled the press (much as many Americans feel that the Iraq war was partly perpetrated to keep Fox News & Halliburton busy). By the 1920s, the war was over, but the problems remained and the same people were mostly still in the same seats of power. "The Kaiser is gone, but the generals are all still in place," or so the saying went. Without those underlying purposes, there would be no Dada.
The term "tendency" (used above, & in the PDF a fair bit) to the art world of the time meant "art compelled by a larger purpose," such as a social one (e.g., Goya's book of war atrocities); it's dialectic opposite was "formalism," where art is executed purely for the sake of "beauty," "form," and so forth. In other words, "do your own thing." (In the modern world, one aspect of formalism is an absurd emphasis on the technical processes of photography, rather than the content and potential meaning of the pictures. Thus we have varying camps of fetishism: compact digitals, Leicas, toy cameras, Cyanotypists -- all with their own micro-sized Academy subcultures.)
The Dadaists declared that the criteria of art formalism were inherently corrupt, created and maintained by the elites and merchant classes for the sake of Keeping The People Down -- to dismiss the rising proletarian society as tasteless and without culture (see their companion essay "The Art Scab," which riffs mercilessly on this theme). So they declared art formalism as corrupt and pushed themselves and their art to find something different, something that could be as quickly-executed and changeable as the events unfolding around them in those years, and used satire and seemingly-random assemblage as a means to attack the previous aesthetics. By the 1930's, they would themselves be denounced as "corrupt, degenerate," and "broken apart" by the new Ministers of Culture; the local art world had moved to a clean, designer-driven and formalized corporate asthetic which proclaimed itself in the nationalistic service of "the unification of the people" instead of so much (as the accepted critics of the day put it) "jewishness."
[/list:u:8f8775417b]Interpreting "Dada" as "do your own thing" is a modern perspective that ignores all but the formal aspects of that art. As such it is the antithesis of Dada's purpose. Such a reading is not surprising, though -- modern art, IMO, went to hell with the ascendancy of abstract expressionism -- a sort of art that could make claims to be free, new, and vibrant while being so devoid of any social meaning that it was always safe to hang on the wall of any bank.