Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,933   Posts: 1,585,480   Online: 921
      
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 92

Thread: Sherrie Levine

  1. #51

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'd offer up the notion that cultural evolution, not unlike biological evolution, produces a lot of cul de sacs. Dead ends are dead ends but they're only known to be so because someone ventured there. All exploration has value.
    Allow me to return the compliment: your observation is blindingly obvious -- once you've realized it. The difficult bit is always seeing the blindingly obvious for the first time, and you have certainly enlightened me with that one.

    I suspect we'd agree that this particular niche has been over-explored by Ms. Levine.

    Cheers,

    R.

  2. #52
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Allow me to return the compliment: your observation is blindingly obvious -- once you've realized it. The difficult bit is always seeing the blindingly obvious for the first time, and you have certainly enlightened me with that one.

    I suspect we'd agree that this particular niche has been over-explored by Ms. Levine.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Thank you. Whether or not she's over-explored it, our examination of her exploration is probably rather quickly exhausted. Yes, I think we'd agree. As you described with the book titles. Sometimes the conceptual has true aesthetic, visceral merit. Sometimes you're through with it as soon as you 'get it.' For me, Levine took about ninety seconds.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    this post has gotten me to think about something ...
    is plagiarism only the act of making a direct copy of something
    and passing it off as one's own, or something else.
    while i understand where ms levine is coming from, and "get it" sort of ..

    can it be drawn out a bit further and say that photographers that look for
    ansel adam's ( or anyone's for that matter ) tripod holes to re-take
    someone else's photographs could that be called plagiarism as well.
    yes, i know weather changes, nature grows, stones/mountains erode &C
    as time passes, but the "idea" has not changed ...

    just wonderin'

  4. #54
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    photographers that look for
    ansel adam's ( or anyone's for that matter ) tripod holes to re-take
    someone else's photographs could that be called plagiarism as well
    or maybe it's just a profound lack of imagination
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I don't think there is anything wrong with using someone elses "tripod holes" as long as it is in the pursuit of learning and understanding how someone worked in order to grow. I have read accounts of how various artists would look at the cubist works of Picasso and make as close as possible copies to try to understand his thinking in order to then be able to go beyond or at least not subconsciously copy his technique in later works.

    If all you do is try to emulate someone else down to the same scene all the time, I think you cheat yourself as an artist. You might be better served just buying the originals in book form.

    But copying or repeating subject matter and technique is common and accepted. For instance, the latest issue of Lenswork has a portoflio of abstracts by Brooks Jensen. Yo may or not like them but there is nothing original there. He is just repeating an idea that I first saw done by Aron Siskind, who got his idea from his painter friend Franz Kline and made them as an homage to his friend who passed away. But that does not mean his version of the idea does not have value and merit to a certain audience.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  6. #56

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Chinn View Post
    I don't think there is anything wrong with using someone elses "tripod holes" as long as it is in the pursuit of learning and understanding how someone worked in order to grow.
    Dear Jim,

    Sure, and we come back to the 'obeying Rules without recognizing them'. The cover picture of the American edition of 'Medium and Large Format Photography' (Hicks & Schultz, Amphoto 2001) is a bit of a 'tripod holes' image, but I didn't know that when I shot it. The simple truth is that there are at most half a dozen 'honey pot' pictures in Honfleur (where I took the picture) and most people shoot the same things.

    I'd completely agree that it's an excellent idea to try to reproduce the images of people whose work you admire -- and that it's a LEARNING experience, not the creation of art.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    I'd completely agree that it's an excellent idea to try to reproduce the images of people whose work you admire -- and that it's a LEARNING experience, not the creation of art.
    So do I, when the person goes to the same location and tries to emulate it, that is the learning experience and I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..

    A painter, sculptor, photographer, etc… can take an idea of other and use it to create something for themselves, but with this work, she takes the actual image ( and not by going to the scene the artist went to, but actually re-photographing the photograph that is not hers to begins with ), then uses a spin to call it her work, sell it and call it art.

    How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

    And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.

  8. #58
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    S I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..
    I don't mean to start in on you again, Kevin - but that's really NOT, IMO, what she was trying to do. The strength of her work has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the aesthetic merits of the original work. You could, in fact, replace it with any other VERY WELL KNOWN work (that is important that it be a known, existing recognizable work) - and the net effect would be the very SAME. It's not about the original image. Therefore it is not stealing. using- maybe - but not stealing.

    If she's engaged in stealing - then we are all engaging in stealing when we take a photograph of something 'in the environment'. This is precisely what she was trying to do. Just at a different level of discourse perhaps.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

    And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.
    I'm with Sparky here. It's not even theft. It's a feeble apology for an idea. The idea was at first interesting (Duchamps/Mutt, then Warhol) but by the time it had been appropriated by Levine for this purpose it was so over-intellectualized that it didn't need to be realized: verbally stating the intention (the book title idea) was more than enough.

    The solid bronze replical of the Mutt urinal was amusing (I have to admit I was not aware of this one), and so was was arguably Art, but from my extremely limited acquaintance with Levine's work (this thread has increased my knowledge by at least one order of magnitude) it has nothing of what jstraw called visceral content. I also agree with him that our collective analysis has probably said all that any of us really has to say about it -- but it's so interesting to see what others say!

    Cheers,

    Roger

  10. #60
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    So do I, when the person goes to the same location and tries to emulate it, that is the learning experience and I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..

    A painter, sculptor, photographer, etc… can take an idea of other and use it to create something for themselves, but with this work, she takes the actual image ( and not by going to the scene the artist went to, but actually re-photographing the photograph that is not hers to begins with ), then uses a spin to call it her work, sell it and call it art.

    How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

    And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.
    So you've said. And you're asking rhetorical questions, not sincere ones...as they have been addressed and you cannot acknowledge the answers. For you, everything is black and white. That must be very comforting.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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