No, I don't think an observer should have to research the motives of an artist to appreciate his work. There should be some immediately emotional impact whether it was the intended emotion the artist wished to impart or a completely different one. I am afraid the subject's work displayed in the link did nothing for me either.
Originally Posted by Jorge
Why should it be necessary for a person to study the artist to appreciate the art? I hate it when music appreciation pseudo-intellects say that one must work hard to appreciate music - any music. I am an operatic tenor, but I love the Beatles and ZZ-Top as well as Mozart and Puccini. It is interesting to know the background of a composition and its composer, but it is not necessary for pure enjoyment – if the composition and performance excel.
As to the subject’s work, it gives me little emotion of any kind and I wont go out of my way to observe any more – sorry.
David, As an artist it's very frustrating to see work taking wall space, magazine space or simply recieving accolades for immediate gratification art. In theory it's an artists responsibility to have instinks for a subject above and beyond the norm, something that seduces a veiwer to hang out and explore the concept. As visual artists we don't have the luxury of a prolog. In my mind this person has a mental block for creativity and has not done the work necessary to break through with a voice that combines tecknical competance and independant thought. Had I seen this on a wall Or published somewhere I would have walked right past it.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!
I agree that the attraction of this sort of thing is more conceptual than visual. It's art that's about art, and that's a fair amount of what's on the contemporary scene. As such it requires knowledge of a certain amount of context to appreciate, limiting its real audience. I'm not that enthusiastic, really, about this work in particular (mainly because I think it isn't really that original, even if one is well disposed toward it), but I can see where it's coming from, and there is a place for it.
I also don't think this work is terribly effective in a solo show. Unless it is exhibited next to the works it may be responding to--say as part of a show on the history of landscape--it is hard to see why it is so challenging. One often reads on internet discussion lists that people are tired of St. Ansel and his imitators. Well, this is the response, and I wouldn't be surprised if it sent a few of Adams' detractors running back to Half Dome.
All art requires some effort on the part of the viewer to appreciate it fully, and I think there's something to be gained, as Jorge said, in trying to figure out why something I don't necessarily like has a certain kind of appeal to others.
Well, I'll check in on this.
I hadn't heard of Mr. Cooke till today and traditionally his photography isn't what I prefer. However looking over the selection of his work I found a lot to like.
(With a couple exceptions)
Good large scale composition
Good sense of rythm and counterpoint.
I really like the way you roam around one of his photos. The unorthodox composition may make it seem almost like a snapshot but careful assesment of the photos reveals (at least to me) a pretty careful mind at work.
However, I can't see having one on my wall
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
After I looked at his site I found myself asking, along the same vien as Jorge "why!" . The pictures have no impact , no emotion. I can honestly say that I did not get an ounce of inspiration from any of the pictures and thought that this was dull work done well. No impact, no emotion .....No Sale!
It is not tradition that secures the survival of our craft, its the craft that secures the survival of our traditions.
Who said anything about it being new?
Originally Posted by dr bob
Originally Posted by Sean
If they were lightjet type prints I think they would be chromagenic prints.
C-prints are chromogenic prints, and LightJets are C-prints. I'd like to see them identified as "digital C-prints," but I don't regard "C-print" as misleading, because LightJet prints are chemically and physically no different from conventional enlargements. It's the same Crystal Archive RA-4 paper whether it is exposed in an enlarger or by a laser.