Interpretation of images

Started Oct 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
Paul20 Senior Member • Posts: 2,596
Re: Daniel

RaajS wrote:

Paul20 wrote:


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.



You're right in that the *creation* of an image is never free of context. The problem begins, imho, when you're required to believe that it's only the context that matters - whether the artist's reputation, previous body of work, whatever - and that the image does not have to meet any stand-alone criteria for excellence. That is a very slippery slope, no?



I suppose we are moving into the realms of conceptual art where the idea is more important than the final piece of work. But I still don't think that we should let that determine our understanding of the 'success' of the image. As an aside I heard on the radio this morning that someone bought Damian Hurst's shark in formaldehyde for stupid amounts of money but then the shark began to decompose. So Damien replaced the shark. Has the work been diminished because of that?

I'm off to sleep on it. Cheers for now,


nly one way in which we can asses

It comes back to the point I made to Peter, what is the work for? what is the intention?


 Paul20's gear list:Paul20's gear list
Leica M9 Sony Alpha 7R II Leica Summicron-M 28mm f/2 ASPH Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow