Interpretation of images

Daniel74 · Oct 31, 2012

I think this is an interesting discussion and to keep it grounded maybe we should discuss some images? Some have already been mentioned.

I'd really like to hear from the more educated folk about their appreciation of specific modern pieces. I am open-minded and willing to learn (seriously).

For instance "the Shorts".

Paul20 · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

RaajS said:

Daniel74 wrote:

To me, art (including photography) should supply the context - it should be self-contained. If I write a book with only one word "Drop. Drop, drop, drop, drop...." written on all pages, I don't expect people to do their research and find that I was a prisoner in China who was subjected to water torture for 20 years (I wasn't) nor would that be a masterpiece, though a page or a paragraph of "Drop. Drop, drop,..." may work well in an autobiography that supplies the context.

Modern visual art deems itself exempt from such requirements. It no longer requires great skill or craftsmanship. It no longer need to be self-contained or compelling. I expect a good book to challenge me, to educate me, to open my eyes to a new way of experiencing the world, etc. I expect a good photo to show me a way of seeing the world that is compelling that will prompt me to look at things differently, to notice what I had not noticed before, to think of things differently, challenge me, enrich me. It should compel me to seek out more context like when I saw a self-portrait of Rembrandt, Goya or Van Gogh or even Richard Gerstl, I wanted to find out more about the men, because I had caught a glimpse of their inner world and that was a powerful experience. Or when you see a painting by Egon Shiele, it is compelling both in its intensity and the mastery. You may not like it, but it haunts you. Or Rene Magritte or Dali, not realist of course, but what incredible worlds they constructed!

I don't think great photography needs to be liked by everyone. I don't know what great photography needs to be like. But I hope it doesn't totally disappear up its own backside like a lot of modern art has done.

Click to expand...

Daniel, couldn't agree with you more. Well said!

Cheers,

-raaj

RaajS · Oct 31, 2012

Paul20 said:
Paul20 wrote:

Daniel,

You nailed it with your use of the words 'self contained', that is really what this discussion is all about.

But is any work of art ever totally free of its context? Perhaps what we are talking about is the degree to which a piece of work relies on the viewer having knowledge of the artist's context and intentions and our patience to find out.

Paul

HansAlbert · Oct 31, 2012

answer to absentaneous, concerning the first photo in http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980

This analysis, though detailed, remains on only one level – the geometrical elements of the construction – and comes forth, accordingly, with an "idea behind the image" on that level: the "visual disturbance beween these elements".

That this idea is presented as "what the photographer actually saw" is my first point of criticism. The object to be analyzed is the photo, not the thoughts or the mental state of the photographer. How the photo can be read, abstracting even from its creator, is the domineering issue.

My second point of criticism is that for me there is no "visual disturbance" in the photo, rather clarity in the opposition of horizontal and vertical lines.

My third point is the most important. Where the proposed idea of the photo ends the true reading begins in the first place. What to make of these dominant geometrical lines? Sense must be added to sensibility, the omnipresent metaphorical way of our thinking needs nourishment, otherwise there is no satisfaction for the viewer's mind. What, then, is the subject of the photo?

In four of the five rectangles we see always one kid playing alone, whereas the one in the center, forming an obvious contrast, has three kids playing together. This firmly established tidy world with its strong horizontal and vertical lines, with its solid buildings has even prespecified rectangular boxes for the kids to play separately. Additionally the young tree, the symbol of youth, is fenced in, thus mirroring this urban misrepresentation of a sheltered childhood. But there is hope: the three kids in the center disregard the provided separation. In this reading the subject of the photo is the child education to social isolation by the adult world.

Paul20 · Oct 31, 2012

Daniel74 said:
Daniel74 wrote:

I think this is an interesting discussion and to keep it grounded maybe we should discuss some images? Some have already been mentioned.

I'd really like to hear from the more educated folk about their appreciation of specific modern pieces. I am open-minded and willing to learn (seriously).

For instance "the Shorts".

Daniel,

I do not profess to be 'educated' but I will give you an example of what I have been prattling on about.

Here is a landscape from Thomas Ruff:

Loading…

www.guardian.co.uk

The image its self is not that compelling but I think when you understand it in the context of his other projects like Mars and Nudes, the ideas he is exploring are really interesting.

Paul

Daniel74 · Oct 31, 2012

HansAlbert said:
HansAlbert wrote:

answer to absentaneous, concerning the first photo in http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980

This analysis, though detailed, remains on only one level – the geometrical elements of the construction – and comes forth, accordingly, with an "idea behind the image" on that level: the "visual disturbance beween these elements".

That this idea is presented as "what the photographer actually saw" is my first point of criticism. The object to be analyzed is the photo, not the thoughts or the mental state of the photographer. How the photo can be read, abstracting even from its creator, is the domineering issue.

My second point of criticism is that for me there is no "visual disturbance" in the photo, rather clarity in the opposition of horizontal and vertical lines.

My third point is the most important. Where the proposed idea of the photo ends the true reading begins in the first place. What to make of these dominant geometrical lines? Sense must be added to sensibility, the omnipresent metaphorical way of our thinking needs nourishment, otherwise there is no satisfaction for the viewer's mind. What, then, is the subject of the photo?

In four of the five rectangles we see always one kid playing alone, whereas the one in the center, forming an obvious contrast, has three kids playing together. This firmly established tidy world with its strong horizontal and vertical lines, with its solid buildings has even prespecified rectangular boxes for the kids to play separately. Additionally the young tree, the symbol of youth, is fenced in, thus mirroring this urban misrepresentation of a sheltered childhood. But there is hope: the three kids in the center disregard the provided separation. In this reading the subject of the photo is the child education to social isolation by the adult world.

Thank you, Hans.

Prosophos · Oct 31, 2012

Daniel74 said:
Daniel74 wrote:

To me, art (including photography) should supply the context - it should be self-contained. If I write a book with only one word "Drop. Drop, drop, drop, drop...." written on all pages, I don't expect people to do their research and find that I was a prisoner in China who was subjected to water torture for 20 years (I wasn't) nor would that be a masterpiece, though a page or a paragraph of "Drop. Drop, drop,..." may work well in an autobiography that supplies the context.

Modern visual art deems itself exempt from such requirements. It no longer requires great skill or craftsmanship. It no longer need to be self-contained or compelling. I expect a good book to challenge me, to educate me, to open my eyes to a new way of experiencing the world, etc. I expect a good photo to show me a way of seeing the world that is compelling that will prompt me to look at things differently, to notice what I had not noticed before, to think of things differently, challenge me, enrich me. It should compel me to seek out more context like when I saw a self-portrait of Rembrandt, Goya or Van Gogh or even Richard Gerstl, I wanted to find out more about the men, because I had caught a glimpse of their inner world and that was a powerful experience. Or when you see a painting by Egon Shiele, it is compelling both in its intensity and the mastery. You may not like it, but it haunts you. Or Rene Magritte or Dali, not realist of course, but what incredible worlds they constructed!

I don't think great photography needs to be liked by everyone. I don't know what great photography needs to be like. But I hope it doesn't totally disappear up its own backside like a lot of modern art has done.

Daniel, you understand.

Kudos to you for articulating your thoughts efficiently and with eloquence.

Peter.

www.prosophos.com

Daniel74 · Oct 31, 2012

Paul20 said:
Paul20 wrote:

Paul20 said:

Daniel74 wrote:

I think this is an interesting discussion and to keep it grounded maybe we should discuss some images? Some have already been mentioned.

I'd really like to hear from the more educated folk about their appreciation of specific modern pieces. I am open-minded and willing to learn (seriously).

For instance "the Shorts".

Click to expand...

Daniel,

I do not profess to be 'educated' but I will give you an example of what I have been prattling on about.

Here is a landscape from Thomas Ruff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/jun/11/my-best-shot-thomas-ruff#

The image its self is not that compelling but I think when you understand it in the context of his other projects like Mars and Nudes, the ideas he is exploring are really interesting.

Paul

Paul20 · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

RaajS said:

Paul20 wrote:

Daniel,

You nailed it with your use of the words 'self contained', that is really what this discussion is all about.

But is any work of art ever totally free of its context? Perhaps what we are talking about is the degree to which a piece of work relies on the viewer having knowledge of the artist's context and intentions and our patience to find out.

Paul

Click to expand...

Daniel74 · Oct 31, 2012

Sorry there was a negative missing there - I was trying to say "I couldn't have come up with Van Gogh or Mapplethorpe". Back to the grind.

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
Please. Let's not draw lines and somehow relate them to a work of Mondrian's. There be dragons and tarpits on that path.

why? because you can't understand the point of it? mondrian was in essence doing nothing but trying to construct a perfect composition, visual balance. on the other hand photographers have to look for a composition in what already exists. this search for composition, balance is basically as old as art it's basically the essence of both art or design. whether is done by a mondrian or some dpreview photographer is really of no importance.

RaajS said:
I rest my case. You claim that you have knowledge of what was in the photographer's head, his *intent* behind creating that specific image. One doesn't have to live at 221B Baker Street to deduce from that one of three possibilities:

not at all. I claim I can recognize visual language the photographer applied, used. I don't know why is that so difficult to understand. if I can understand the words you type here does it mean I need to be you?

RaajS said:
In any case, nowhere in my original thesis did I assert that the artist's intent matters. In fact I'm asserting exactly the opposite - that the image MUST stand on it's own.

which is a ridiculous assertion. why? who took the image? did the image took itself to be able to stand on it's own?! if it's not taken on it's own then it will never stand on it's own but it will always exist in reference to the reasons it was taken.

RaajS said:
It doesn't matter if Tillman or my son created it. It's still a crappy image of some dude in boxers.

yes, for you it is. for me it's not. for many others neither. but most importantly for the person who created it was not a crappy image of some dude in boxers but an idea he tried to communicate. that's what art is about. and as some people don't understand atomic physics (I for example) some other people don't understand (at least some form of) art (you for example). no big deal.

RaajS said:
It shouldn't matter if the artist has a long body of work that somehow grants that photographic image some credibility. I am asserting that no matter what the photographer has produced in the past, if s/he produces a bad image, it's bad. Period.

but again you are missing the point. he's presenting you an idea not an image. you are only able to see an image yet fail to interpret it, understand it. his image is not meant to look good (to your eyes or anyone else's eyes) but to communicate an idea. and you seem not to understand the difference. for you photography is just an image that is supposed to please our sight. for tillmans photography is a medium with which he communicates ideas not pleasant looking images. the role of the image is to convey an idea not to look good or pleasant or well crafted. that's his intention yet you keep ignoring it.

RaajS said:
This sort of logic, btw, leads to concepts like the divine rights of royalty and other far more troubling things.

this sort of logic leads to art. art is an idea. the idea is then expressed using a certain medium in the way that one is able to perceive it as the intention of the author.

RaajS said:
I strongly believe that when we start ascribing motive and intent, the drivers, behind an artist's creative urge in judging his/her work we've moved into the realm of what my friend Daniel so eloquently terms the wankery of the cognoscenti.

I think your friend daniel wrongly presumes that all people must be as shallow as he is and if they claim they are not they are simply pretending it. all human activity is based on motives and intent. all. we are thinking creatures. we operate with meaning on a daily basis without even realizing it. we function on ideas, concepts. as soon as we are conscious we function based on motifs, intent, ideas etc. when I take a picture I took it based on an idea no matter how much this fact irritate your friend daniel. it's still a fact. for example I might come up with an idea to create an image that would confront two objects that are visually similar yet they mean very different things. and then I take such an image. there is a clear fact that the image was taken with a clear idea behind it. there is no way you can deny it because it happened that way. you can't say there was no idea if there was. you can't say it's all wankery if there was a clear idea. it's not something I made up later. it's something that made me take the picture. without that idea there would be no picture at all. and it would be really ignorant then to say all that matters is that the image doesn't look good to me.

RaajS said:
Leave my belief aside, as I am admittedly a philistine. If we begin to judge photographs by what we believe was the photographer's intent, we've moved into the realms of voodoo - there is no repeatability, no common language and therefore no communication.

not really. if we don't do that we simply discard their true value. and that would be an act of ignorance. there is always a photographer's intent behind every image taken. trying to deny that would be denying an obvious fact. if there was no intent there would be no image taken. the only thing we need to ad is that photographers might have different intentions, different reasons for taking a picture. which is again something too obvious a common sense could deny. repetability is an illusion because human beings are creative beings. the art history is a proof of that. and if you get stuck with your ideas you are left behind. people keep creating new ideas for thousands of years. if we kept repeating ourselves then art today will still look like this:

http://floridaufsd.org/463170524215346/lib/463170524215346/Cave_Paintings.jpg

RaajS said:
Which brings us to the question my friend Daedalus asked you - what is the role of the audience in your art? If they are all philistines like me, as we say here in Detroit, you're foooked, homey.

an art audience is like a customer. you create a product and you offer it to the customer. and if you are convincing enough the customer will buy it if not they will stick with what they already know. and there has always been people who were happy to welcome new ideas as there were those who preferred to live in the past. and it's of course self obvious who we need to thank that we are where we are today. surely not thanks to those who thought leaving the caves was a bad idea.

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

HansAlbert said:
That this idea is presented as "what the photographer actually saw" is my first point of criticism. The object to be analyzed is the photo, not the thoughts or the mental state of the photographer. How the photo can be read, abstracting even from its creator, is the domineering issue.

a photo is a mental state of the photographer since it's the photographer who took it. and that's the first thing to consider. why was the photo taken. what was the intent, idea behind it. abstracting the photo from its creator means to strip it of the meaning. the photo exists because someone took it. if you ignore that someone then you ignore the existence of the photo as a meaningful object itself.

HansAlbert said:
My second point of criticism is that for me there is no "visual disturbance" in the photo, rather clarity in the opposition of horizontal and vertical lines.

opposition = disturbance

HansAlbert said:
My third point is the most important. Where the proposed idea of the photo ends the true reading begins in the first place. What to make of these dominant geometrical lines? Sense must be added to sensibility, the omnipresent metaphorical way of our thinking needs nourishment, otherwise there is no satisfaction for the viewer's mind. What, then, is the subject of the photo?

the subject of the photo is an abstract idea. every creative photographer is able to develop a personal preference. to put it simple we take pictures of what is able to catch the attention of our mind. these personal preference can be also called an artistic style and it exists as an idea inside our mind.

as far as your further interpretation is concerned I just didn't go in such details. I only pointed out to what was obvious to me.

RaajS · Oct 31, 2012

absentaneous said:
absentaneous wrote:

absentaneous said:

Please. Let's not draw lines and somehow relate them to a work of Mondrian's. There be dragons and tarpits on that path.

Click to expand...

why? because you can't understand the point of it? mondrian was in essence doing nothing but trying to construct a perfect composition, visual balance. on the other hand photographers have to look for a composition in what already exists. this search for composition, balance is basically as old as art it's basically the essence of both art or design. whether is done by a mondrian or some dpreview photographer is really of no importance.

Oh, I understand it just fine. It's a specious practice. Look up via google a mathematical technique called identification. You can fit all sorts of things into images after the fact and that is what I am afraid you are doing in your previous point about relating the composition in one of Misha's images to Mondrian. Nowhere did I say anything about the what Mondrian was or was not trying to do. You state the obvious about the search for compositions in visual design. That even an ignoramus like me knows.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

I rest my case. You claim that you have knowledge of what was in the photographer's head, his *intent* behind creating that specific image. One doesn't have to live at 221B Baker Street to deduce from that one of three possibilities:

Click to expand...

not at all. I claim I can recognize visual language the photographer applied, used. I don't know why is that so difficult to understand. if I can understand the words you type here does it mean I need to be you?

You claim to understand it yes. But you specifically asserted that you divined the photographer's thinking - that makes you Misha, or a telepath. Or deluded. There are no other logical alternatives. But then it is clear that logic isn't what you're interested in.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

In any case, nowhere in my original thesis did I assert that the artist's intent matters. In fact I'm asserting exactly the opposite - that the image MUST stand on it's own.

Click to expand...

which is a ridiculous assertion. why? who took the image? did the image took itself to be able to stand on it's own?! if it's not taken on it's own then it will never stand on it's own but it will always exist in reference to the reasons it was taken.

You're kidding me right? Either that or you had trouble understanding what I said.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

It doesn't matter if Tillman or my son created it. It's still a crappy image of some dude in boxers.

Click to expand...

yes, for you it is. for me it's not. for many others neither. but most importantly for the person who created it was not a crappy image of some dude in boxers but an idea he tried to communicate. that's what art is about. and as some people don't understand atomic physics (I for example) some other people don't understand (at least some form of) art (you for example). no big deal.

That I can accept - that you think that image is high art. More power to you.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

It shouldn't matter if the artist has a long body of work that somehow grants that photographic image some credibility. I am asserting that no matter what the photographer has produced in the past, if s/he produces a bad image, it's bad. Period.

Click to expand...

but again you are missing the point. he's presenting you an idea not an image. you are only able to see an image yet fail to interpret it, understand it. his image is not meant to look good (to your eyes or anyone else's eyes) but to communicate an idea. and you seem not to understand the difference. for you photography is just an image that is supposed to please our sight. for tillmans photography is a medium with which he communicates ideas not pleasant looking images. the role of the image is to convey an idea not to look good or pleasant or well crafted. that's his intention yet you keep ignoring it.

As I said, I reject the idea of presenting ideas in crappy images. That gives photography a bad name.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

This sort of logic, btw, leads to concepts like the divine rights of royalty and other far more troubling things.

Click to expand...

this sort of logic leads to art. art is an idea. the idea is then expressed using a certain medium in the way that one is able to perceive it as the intention of the author.

By that argument the holocaust was art? That certainly was the intent of the Third Reich. And a lot of people agreed with the concept.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

I strongly believe that when we start ascribing motive and intent, the drivers, behind an artist's creative urge in judging his/her work we've moved into the realm of what my friend Daniel so eloquently terms the wankery of the cognoscenti.

Click to expand...

I think your friend daniel wrongly presumes that all people must be as shallow as he is and if they claim they are not they are simply pretending it. all human activity is based on motives and intent. all. we are thinking creatures. we operate with meaning on a daily basis without even realizing it. we function on ideas, concepts. as soon as we are conscious we function based on motifs, intent, ideas etc. when I take a picture I took it based on an idea no matter how much this fact irritate your friend daniel. it's still a fact. for example I might come up with an idea to create an image that would confront two objects that are visually similar yet they mean very different things. and then I take such an image. there is a clear fact that the image was taken with a clear idea behind it. there is no way you can deny it because it happened that way. you can't say there was no idea if there was. you can't say it's all wankery if there was a clear idea. it's not something I made up later. it's something that made me take the picture. without that idea there would be no picture at all. and it would be really ignorant then to say all that matters is that the image doesn't look good to me.

Please, your arrogance is out of bounds and certainly neither your ability to communicate nor your inability to think clearly, as evidenced by your fanciful bounds of logic, give you the right to call Daniel or anyone else shallow.

absentaneous said:
absentaneous said:

Leave my belief aside, as I am admittedly a philistine. If we begin to judge photographs by what we believe was the photographer's intent, we've moved into the realms of voodoo - there is no repeatability, no common language and therefore no communication.

Click to expand...

not really. if we don't do that we simply discard their true value. and that would be an act of ignorance. there is always a photographer's intent behind every image taken. trying to deny that would be denying an obvious fact. if there was no intent there would be no image taken. the only thing we need to ad is that photographers might have different intentions, different reasons for taking a picture. which is again something too obvious a common sense could deny. repetability is an illusion because human beings are creative beings. the art history is a proof of that. and if you get stuck with your ideas you are left behind. people keep creating new ideas for thousands of years. if we kept repeating ourselves then art today will still look like this:

This is clearly your not understanding what I said. Repeatability not in the creative process but in the process of interpretation and communication, hence the reference to a common language. You did say English was not your native language, so I assume that's the root of this issue.

absentaneous said:
http://floridaufsd.org/463170524215346/lib/463170524215346/Cave_Paintings.jpg

absentaneous said:

Which brings us to the question my friend Daedalus asked you - what is the role of the audience in your art? If they are all philistines like me, as we say here in Detroit, you're foooked, homey.

Click to expand...

an art audience is like a customer. you create a product and you offer it to the customer. and if you are convincing enough the customer will buy it if not they will stick with what they already know. and there has always been people who were happy to welcome new ideas as there were those who preferred to live in the past. and it's of course self obvious who we need to thank that we are where we are today. surely not thanks to those who thought leaving the caves was a bad idea.

See point above.

I believe we've now exhausted any meaningful debate. You've started calling people names without really any basis for doing so. Live long and prosper.

Cheers!

-raaj

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

Daedalus2000 said:
(1) you avoided the deeper question and only answered the second part.

no, I didn't. the answer is implied in the answer to the second part. what defines the audience is its interest in accepting what is offered to it.

Daedalus2000 said:
In (3) your answer makes no sense. Everyone thinks when they take a picture unless they press the button randomly.

they think even then. and yes, that was my point.

Daedalus2000 said:
This is not what I asked.

then what did you ask?

Daedalus2000 said:
BTW, here is a picture I thought carefully about when I took it. Do you like it?

Best Regards

D

it makes sense to me and obviously you had to think before taking it. unfortunately for you there are people around here that would say even their 11 years old kid could take it because they don't believe one can actually carefully think before taking a picture.

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

KFoisy said:
Perhaps you should start looking at some real art instead of studying boys in boxers.

KF

if that will make you feel better...

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
Oh, I understand it just fine. It's a specious practice. Look up via google a mathematical technique called identification. You can fit all sorts of things into images after the fact and that is what I am afraid you are doing in your previous point about relating the composition in one of Misha's images to Mondrian. Nowhere did I say anything about the what Mondrian was or was not trying to do. You state the obvious about the search for compositions in visual design. That even an ignoramus like me knows.

if you know it why are you objecting to the comparison so much? I used mondrian simply as an example how a human mind is able to structure the space. I didn't want to imply that the guy who took the picture had mondrian on his mind or something. just a similar idea. I just used it to help you visualize what I was talking about.

RaajS said:
You claim to understand it yes. But you specifically asserted that you divined the photographer's thinking - that makes you Misha, or a telepath. Or deluded. There are no other logical alternatives. But then it is clear that logic isn't what you're interested in.

no. I only claimed to recognize the visual language that was applied. not what he was thinking. god knows what he was thinking. but the composition he chose is there. one can see that. and it's surely not something that can happens randomly or by mistake. that I can tell based on my experience.

RaajS said:
You're kidding me right? Either that or you had trouble understanding what I said.

I would say that same for you but unlike you I explained my point, you didn't. and I know why you didn't. because you can't. it's obvious to everyone, even to your son I guess, that no picture is taken on its own. no picture takes its own picture. they didn't develop that far yet. it takes a human mind to take a picture.

RaajS said:
That I can accept - that you think that image is high art. More power to you.

well, that I think it's high art it doesn't even matter. nor it does that all major art institution do the same. or that all major art critics do. what does matter though is how the picture was created. and it surely wasn't created on its own as you seem to like to believe. that's what does matter

RaajS said:
As I said, I reject the idea of presenting ideas in crappy images. That gives photography a bad name.

well, if you only reject the idea of presenting ideas in crappy images but not reject the idea of presenting ideas in images then you can have a problem. of course you can't really deny the idea of presenting ideas in images because that's what people do and it's not something you can deny. if you can't deny that then it's also pretty much ignorant to deny the possibility that certain ideas can only be presented in crappy images. that's again a fact.

RaajS said:
By that argument the holocaust was art? That certainly was the intent of the Third Reich. And a lot of people agreed with the concept.

it could be if hitler and other nacists did have it in mind as an art project. but we all know that wasn't the case.

RaajS said:
Please, your arrogance is out of bounds and certainly neither your ability to communicate nor your inability to think clearly, as evidenced by your fanciful bounds of logic, give you the right to call Daniel or anyone else shallow.

again, I explained why I think daniel's position is shallow. if you have anything to say about it then say it with arguments. I haven't seen any in those 3 lines of text above.

RaajS said:
This is clearly your not understanding what I said. Repeatability not in the creative process but in the process of interpretation and communication, hence the reference to a common language. You did say English was not your native language, so I assume that's the root of this issue.

even now you need to explain me is how to you imagine you can interpret for example ancient egyptian art and impressionism using the same language. or for example try to use the same language for interpreting the da vinci's mona lisa and picasso's weeping woman or maybe some painting from pollock. what is this common language you'd use in this case?

RaajS said:
I believe we've now exhausted any meaningful debate. You've started calling people names without really any basis for doing so. Live long and prosper.

it's actually you who did that. it took me 11 lines of text to back up a claim based on which you concluded I call people names. you called me arrogant without explaining that claim not even with a single sentence.

Daniel74 · Oct 31, 2012

I think you misunderstand my position. Because I don't have one. I just have misgivings mostly due to my experience in the fine arts world. I am open to the notion of a photograph as an idea, to the viewer doing some thinking and exploration. A series of photos as clues may work too. But I think it is very tricky to make something like this that is compelling and speaks to a universal human condition. Because if it is nothing but an incidental belch of the artists turbulent psyche, that does not quite make it a work of art. A thought behind the image does not make it a great work of art, does it? Surely there needs to be more?

As for the "wankery of the connoscenti" there has been plenty of that in the art world, philosophy, criticism, etc and all that is well-documented. This is not meant to dismiss all critique and all photography that may not immediately appeal. We had a case in point here - I liked Misha's Copenhagen photos, Raaj didn't. And that's OK.

Here's my friend, John, image he recently took, for critique. Is this a banal tourist snap? Do you see the thought behind it? Does it work? Is it art? I would be interested in people's point of view.

PS. I take some credit since he was using my Contax G 21/2.8 to take it.

absentaneous · Nov 1, 2012

Daniel74 said:
I am open to the notion of a photograph as an idea, to the viewer doing some thinking and exploration. A series of photos as clues may work too. But I think it is very tricky to make something like this that is compelling and speaks to a universal human condition. Because if it is nothing but an incidental belch of the artists turbulent psyche, that does not quite make it a work of art. A thought behind the image does not make it a great work of art, does it? Surely there needs to be more?

a thought behind the image alone of course doesn't make something a great work of art. but an image without a thought behind it could never be art to begin with. not good nor bad art. you can't have art without having a human intent, idea. every artwork ever done was in some form or another a conscious decision performed by a human brain.

Daniel74 said:
As for the "wankery of the connoscenti" there has been plenty of that in the art world, philosophy, criticism, etc and all that is well-documented. This is not meant to dismiss all critique and all photography that may not immediately appeal. We had a case in point here - I liked Misha's Copenhagen photos, Raaj didn't. And that's OK.

art is not about liking something. there is a lot of artworks out there I don't like but I wouldn't go so far to claim that art is something that is based on what I like. I am not trying to convince anyone to like misha's photos but point out that those photos were taken with a conscious decision, reflection that can be observed in its outcome. they express the author's decision to create an image, a particular image and not a result of someone who didn't know what he was doing or what he wanted to do. of course you don't have to like the final result but just because an image doesn't look the way you can like it doesn't mean it can't hold a creative or artistic value.

Daniel74 said:
Here's my friend, John, image he recently took, for critique. Is this a banal tourist snap? Do you see the thought behind it? Does it work? Is it art? I would be interested in people's point of view.

PS. I take some credit since he was using my Contax G 21/2.8 to take it.

everything has a context. and without knowing the context or at least being able to presume it is hard to evaluate things. there is surely a thought behind it because he could frame the picture in many different ways but he chose to do it the way he did it. now one has to determine if his choice was random or did he have something in particular in mind. one could presume he did. here you have an example of what is called "framing" and since the use of "framing" is not something you can see often on pictures of those who don't know about "framing" one could presume he applied it consciously. you can also observe some obvious points of interests that probably triggered the creation of this photo such as that building in the distance, the mass of people in the square in front of it, the beggar in the dark corner... so, I would say it's a well crafted photo document. it's both informative and expressive. for it to be art it has to be part of a "larger picture", an idea that the photographer was consciously perusing. for example if this was an image in the series of images that were supposed to document the presence of beggars around popular touristic destinations then it could be art. or to put it simply if he took this picture with the intention of making art then we could consider it as art.

Joe Pineapples · Nov 1, 2012

I find more interest in a poor photograph taken by an inexperienced photographer who has passion and is trying to convey some meaning, or even in a poor snapshot taken by a parent trying to express their joy in a child, than a technically excellent photograph taken with high-quality equipment by someone who takes photographs like that because they believe that is how photographs are supposed to look...

Joe

HansAlbert · Nov 1, 2012

answer to absentaneous

You must have read a lot, but somehow not the right books.

In Terry Barrett's "Criticizing Photographs" e.g. you could have found a passage against the overestimation of the artist's intentions, the so-called "intentional fallacy" (p.56f. 4th ed.). Knowing something about the artist may help initially, but at the end of the day the artist's comments or self-interpretation must be verified by qualities of the work of art in the same way as other interpretations. Or, as Barrett puts it: "We should take an artist's interpretation as an argument and evaluate it on the same grounds as we do other interpretations that are offered. We should not consider an interpretation more privileged because it comes from the artist." (p.57f.)

The relative importance of the artist's words may help to concentrate on what there is in a photo, i.e. what you perceive as the subject matter, as the elements of the composition, as the subject; especially it may help to avoid psychologism or artsy-fartsy talk.

Let me remind of Irakly's reactions in this forum. He never influenced or censored our reading of his photos, though our ideas were sometimes quite different from his own. E.g. his last photo was to show Judith, a famous figure in the history of art, but for me it was not bloody enough and I found it more convincing to read it as an analysis of the Frog Prince (cf. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41506920). He is really a knowing artist, I would say.

Interpretation of images

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Joe Pineapples

Guest

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts