Apparent Confusion about Artistic Expression

[Jeremy]

For me, I photograph with no notions of what I'm planning to do, but my mood affects my choice of subject, framing, etc., and when I look back at the prints I can see this.

I guess you can lump me in with those who photograph not because they have something to say, but who photograph because they want and sometimes need to.

 

[Will S]

I respectfully submit that subjects like this are better discussed with an intimate group and usually there needs to be alcohol involved.

While intimate groups and alchohol might be found on every corner in "beautiful wine country" here in flyover land they aren't so common. Last time I engaged in such a discussion the polka band was playing Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" very loudly. People were actually "polkaing" to it....

With that wonderful image in mind, I'm wondering if there is a way to avoid the inevitable conflict and still keep the value/content? Maybe something similar to an article submitted to a journal, but updated for the new medium? For example, someone could write a paper, publish it on Apug, then get responses from a select few invited participants. Those few of course, determined by a secret group appointed by the, er, King... Oh well, you know what I mean: moderated threads on certain topics with invited participants.

Thanks,

Will

 

[blansky]

Except for a couple of posts most people expressed themselves and stated their opinions.

We're all adults here (well some of us) and we should have a thick enough skin to be able to disagree on topics. We don't need babysitting.

If someone disagrees with our opinions, so what. Most of us change our opinions on a daily basis anyway.

Michael

 

[Will S]

Except for a couple of posts most people expressed themselves and stated their opinions.

We're all adults here (well some of us) and we should have a thick enough skin to be able to disagree on topics. We don't need babysitting.

If someone disagrees with our opinions, so what. Most of us change our opinions on a daily basis anyway.

I wasn't very clear. I wasn't suggesting moderated threads (even though that is what I said hah!), but something more akin to what is found in journals where any argument has to be carried out in letters to the editor...

For example, APUG asks for submissions of articles. Articles are submitted and selected. (yes, someone will have to edit) The article can then be posted and either everyone gets to comment on it, or certain selected "experts" are asked to comment.

Something akin to the way most community blogs these days are operating. Only certain folks can post topics, everyone can respond.

Maybe this is going on elsewhere and I'm just not aware of it, but I don't know of a publication that is filling the need that exists for discussion of photography as art in a serious and thoughtful manner. Where are the Minor White's of today publishing? And no, "EndNotes" in LensWork doesn't count.

Thanks,

Will

 

[DBP]

the polka band was playing Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" very loudly. People were actually "polkaing" to it....

Wow, that rivals the Muzak version of "Paint It Black".

 

[jd callow]

Threads like this one are similar to the chemistry or BTZS threads. There are many with strong, differing points of view and some who have an inflated opinion of their point of view.

What makes it different is that people who don't give a shit about the subject will come along and tell everyone this is a waste of time. You won't see those who could care less about BTZS or some other fetish tell those folks who do to stop obsessing and go make photographs.

Those who wish to discuss photography as art are welcome to those who don't get it, or don't want to are welcome to post elsewhere or ignore the thread.

 

[Andy K]

Threads like this one are similar to the chemistry or BTZS threads. There are many with strong, differing points of view and some who have an inflated opinion of their point of view.

What makes it different is that people who don't give a shit about the subject will come along and tell everyone this is a waste of time. You won't see those who could care less about BTZS or some other fetish tell those folks who do to stop obsessing and go make photographs.

Those who wish to discuss photography as art are welcome to those who don't get it or don't want to are welcome to post elsewhere or ignore the thread.

Some of us do give a poop though. When I read threads like this I question whether I'm wasting my time with photography, because I don't have a clue why I am compelled to make photographs or what I am trying to convey.

<edit> Just read that through and it sounds like a complaint, it isn't. I'm reading this thread to see if anything chimes, if that makes any sense to anyone.

 

[jd callow]

It makes sense to me.

 

[John McCallum]

Personally I think this can be an excellent environment for discussing the more abstruse topics of photography. We have a diverse range of experiences and opinions, and involved discussion can generate wonderful new directions for the critical thinker. But to make it work, and to gain that state of thought that can be so creative, it's vital to treat participants views as valid and valued. The intiator of the thread sets the tone, and should subsequently work to set the tone.

This thread started out poorly. The title is bad and the first post worse. Miller's subsequent posts would be an insult to anyone who thought they could possibly be about them. His abilities to discuss art in photography extend to preaching to the converted at a very shallow level whilst trying to invalidate any opposing views. This is what bothered me. I think it would help if the initiator of a thread like this had genuine intentions.

I don't consider myself a novice, and I am always trying to learn. Welcomed the opportunity to read the well thought out posts and rue the lost opportunity of the rest. Ah well, maybe next time.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Deleted because a Moderator asked me to. I'll send my post, with an explanation, as a PM to Donald. It really wasn't all that harsh!!!!

Murray

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Some of us do give a poop though. When I read threads like this I question whether I'm wasting my time with photography, because I don't have a clue why I am compelled to make photographs or what I am trying to convey.

But if you enjoy what you do, why worry? If one thing has emerged from this thread, it's that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do.

For what it's worth, I had a period of quite a few years in my life where I was far too busy to do photography "properly". The only camera I owned was a Konica C35 - when this broke, I bought a Pentax MG (automatic exposure only) and one lens and did pure snapshots on color neg film, which I sent to the drugstore. At the time, I quite enjoyed doing this, my main need for was relaxation and distraction, and photography in this form provided this. If you are an amateur (in the best sense), your inalienable right is to DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU LIKE!

As regards the title (as another poster asks):
Should it have been [Total And Irredeemable] Confusion About Artistic Expression [In The Minds Of Some People]?

Regards,

David

 

[blansky]

David;

Your argument that the work of a sand artist is not really "art" kind of troubled me.

Now I'm the same person that said that "art" had reached a point where the word has no meaning and I certainly am no artist, but when I thought about your point, it disturbed me.

A sand painting, by definition has no "legs". It is a pure act of "being here now" for both the artist and the audience. It has no ego since it will be gone in the wind in a matter of hours. So what it is, is a slice of life creation, in a moment in time, that can not be polluted by the artist, curators, galleries or rich people who care nothing more about it than that someone says it has value.

It is so absolutely pure to me that it sort of transcends every definition of "art" that we use today.

To me the purity is so perfect and profound that it is what all "art" only dreams it could be.


Michael

 

[John McCallum]

Glad you made that point. Saying it was not art because of the medium or whatever, dismissed it too quickly for me. The "sand painter" must have spent a vast amount of time perfecting the craft.

Maybe I'm only simplifying Michael's point, but the act of the performance and was clever and unique, and for me was art itself. The subjects were kitsch, but to me they had secondary importance to the skill of the performance. In a way, it was at the other end of the commercial art spectrum from greeting cards.

It did have that pureness about it.

 

[jd callow]

The sad truth about Greeting cards (and many other forms we all take lightly) is that many an artist or creative person winds up creating them so that they don't have to live in a van down by the river.

 

[Donald Miller]

Personally I think this can be an excellent environment for discussing the more abstruse topics of photography. We have a diverse range of experiences and opinions, and involved discussion can generate wonderful new directions for the critical thinker. But to make it work, and to gain that state of thought that can be so creative, it's vital to treat participants views as valid and valued. The intiator of the thread sets the tone, and should subsequently work to set the tone.

This thread started out poorly. The title is bad and the first post worse. Miller's subsequent posts would be an insult to anyone who thought they could possibly be about them. His abilities to discuss art in photography extend to preaching to the converted at a very shallow level whilst trying to invalidate any opposing views. This is what bothered me. I think it would help if the initiator of a thread like this had genuine intentions.

I don't consider myself a novice, and I am always trying to learn. Welcomed the opportunity to read the well thought out posts and rue the lost opportunity of the rest. Ah well, maybe next time.

What is really interesting to me is that there were a very select few that drew from my title or the first post the inference that others do not share.

I simply was trying to initiate a discussion of things apart from the technical in the are of creative self expression. So who is the difficulty with? Is it with me or is it with that select few.

I have had more then a few private messages and phone calls that have expressed the dismay over the name calling and harsh interpertation that was evident by Bill Schwab, John McCallum, Murray, Darr and others. Just because I failed to engage in the childishness is probably the greatest simple indicator of my lack of ego investment in this matter.

Where did I try to initiate control? I did not. Where did I fail to discuss what I experience within myself when I photograph and when did I fail to speak to this matter from my own personal experience as it applies to my life? The fact is that I have laid myself totally open to you in ways that very few have.

So if I have been formative to a long past due discussion then that will be a good thing to all. But for those who interpert things solely from the narrow egocentric and elevated position of the chosen few I am appalled to be linked to you in any way.

Darr made an observation...pretty harsh as I read it in which she said that I just don't get it...that I am asking questions that no one else asks. Is that a terrible thing? Am I subject to the review of the "chosen" disciples as to the questions that can be posed? I would hope the hell that is not the case for photography's sake.

So find yourself another whipping boy...face your own insecurities rather then trying and failing miserably at laying them at my door...Face yourselves for a change and for God's sake recognize that something inspires us to create. Discuss it, learn from it, and go out and make photographs that are not simply copies of things that have been photographed to death already. Learn to speak from your heart and not only the thin technical construct of your minds.

That being said. I am outta this discussion.

 

[John McCallum]

This directed at no specific individual so let me say that at the outset. After a couple of days on this subject and several dust ups, I am really surprised that very few people actually spoke to the matter of what motivates or drives their personal creative expression. I may have missed some one but my memory indicates about four people out of almost 3000 views. So the viewers were either coming to witness the bare knuckles or they were coming to learn something and got a very limited menu. In either case because of the limited participation those who have questions probably came away wanting.

That leaves me to wonder does everyone have this figured out for themselves and are just reluctant to talk about it? Or have very few given any thought to it and for that reason they are reluctant to talk about it?

There has been the usual transference of technical speak into this topic and attempts at giving advice and views...but very few people talk about where they live on this subject. Not surprising since this site seems to be long on technical and short on artistic expression or at least discussion of it.

Interesting...

Donald. According to your previous the post above, I thought you were interested to know why there was little topical discussion of this subject that you chose (one close to my own heart btw). I was responding to that, with my opinion, my reasons for missing motivation.

When you say

...face your own insecurities rather then trying and failing miserably at laying them at my door...Face yourselves for a change and for God's sake recognize that something inspires us to create. Discuss it, learn from it, and go out and make photographs that are not simply copies of things that have been photographed to death already. Learn to speak from your heart and not only the thin technical construct of your minds.

you speak with an assumption. The assumption is that none of the participants of this thread (if not APUG entirely) think about these things. This is a backhanded criticism of the highest order, which does nothing to motivate me into having any dialogue with you about it, personally.
I was once told, criticise only when yours' or the recipients' life depends upon it, and this is a mantra I've always remembered and endeavoured to follow carefully. Critiqueing is an entirely different ballgame of course .

So I suppose I owe an apology. My post above did criticise your approach to the discussion. I guess I thought the life of this type of discussion was under threat.

Best, John.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

That being said. I am outta this discussion.

Maybe there is a God.

Donald should definitely think about a career in academia, where pretension, condescension and narcissism are held in high esteem.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Glad you made that point. Saying it was not art because of the medium or whatever, dismissed it too quickly for me. The "sand painter" must have spent a vast amount of time perfecting the craft.

Maybe I'm only simplifying Michael's point, but the act of the performance and was clever and unique, and for me was art itself. The subjects were kitsch, but to me they had secondary importance to the skill of the performance. In a way, it was at the other end of the commercial art spectrum from greeting cards.

It did have that pureness about it.

To make my standpoint clearer: I am not dismissing the ACT of creating the sand picture as trivial - I called it an act of religious devotion, and as such it has an undeniable quality of spiritual purity about it. To reach the point where you can produce images of this kind obviously takes dedication and a long journey of the mind. However, if I then contrast this with the casual way in which the artist herself obliterates her own work after allowing it to be visible for just a few seconds, I feel justified in concluding that for the artist it is the mental process of REACHING the displayed skill level which is important, whereas IN THE ARTIST'S OWN VIEW the actual physical product of this skill, the picture, is trivial, secondary and in fact almost totally unimportant. The same applies to the Buddhist monks - they actually take longer to make their paintings, allow them to be viewed for longer, but then also destroy them. As such, I would not call this art, since an artwork in the sense that I usually use the word is an object created explicitly to communicate something to somebody who was not present at the moment of creation of the work and therefore intended to have a life of its own (Andy Warhol et alia apart, most artists do select high-quality materials with the obvious intention of making their artwork last as long as possible). If anything, the sand paintings are more like performance art.

In passing - a word of thanks to Andy for raising the subject of these paintings - quite fascinating!

Best regards,

David

 

[Andy K]

The whole thing to me was art. Performance art perhaps, but the seemless transitions from artistic image to artistic image were, to me, art. The destruction of each image by the succeeding image, leaving just a memory, made it all the more artistic... just as much art as the work of pavement chalk artists. The period of time between creation and destruction are not important. As I said previously, dance is also art, but it is not permanent.

If I remember correctly the KLF (aka The Justified Ancients of Mumu, The JAMs) deliberately destroyed, by burning, one million pounds cash in £50 notes, as art. The actual act of burning the money is what is remembered. The fact that they made a single brick from the ashes is not.
More recently I remember an artist destroying his entire worldly belongings as art, where the act of destruction was the art and not the remains.

As Blansky said, the only difference between this and what is commonly perceived as art, is that the sand paintings are not permanent and therefore cannot be bought and sold.

 

[gr82bart]

A very interesting point - I think I'd have to say craft again, because the painting is done as a formal act of religious devotion rather than an act of personal expression or exploration (I'd regard the architecture of medieval cathedrals as craft by the same reasoning). I admire the monks' mindset - I could not bring myself to work on something for 6 days and then destroy it for any reason at all!

Is not an act of religious devotion also an act of personal expression? I don't necessarily see the two as mutually exclusive.

Your last statement reminds me of the those two Buddhist statutes that were destroyed by the Tailban. I don't know why, but it disturbed deeply me to see that. Even more so than scenes of human death.

Art.

 

[gr82bart]

The sad truth about Greeting cards (and many other forms we all take lightly) is that many an artist or creative person winds up creating them so that they don't have to live in a van down by the river.

I wonder that if my place were burning down and I had a chance to save one thing, would it be my box of personal yet kitsch greeting cards/postcards/photos I have received from/of friends, family and loved ones or the gorgeous gum bichromate over palladium print I just bought and framed?

Art.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

My spontaneous response to an number of interesting comments:

a) Religious devotion versus art. The world is of course full of finely-crafted objects and other works (cathedrals, paintings, the music of Bach, etc., etc.) which have been dedicated to the glory of God (and as a Jewish atheist, I am the last person in the world to claim to be an expert on religions), but I have the feeling that for most religions, art in the contemporary senses has too much emphasis on the self to qualify as being devotional. Example: Blues versus gospel music. Gospel is of course devotional, blues was traditionally decried by black churches as the "Devil's Music."

b) The KLF money-burning struck me as an act of obscene egotism by a pair of emotionally-retarded ***holes. If anyone really has £1 million that they don't know what to do with, there are SO many charities who do know. I would even accept the cash myself if necessary!

c) Given a choice between personal momentos (irreplaceable) and a finely-crafted print which was less personal and probably could be replaced, given enough cash, I'd go for the momentos too - but it would be the associations with friends and loved ones that I'd be going for, the fact that the messages etc. were written on greetings cards would be incidental.

Hope to read further postings - this thread may turn into a classic yet!

Regards,

David

 

[gr82bart]

The KLF money-burning struck me as an act of obscene egotism by a pair of emotionally-retarded ***holes. If anyone really has £1 million that they don't know what to do with, there are SO many charities who do know. I would even accept the cash myself if necessary!

This is my reaction as well. Plus my doubts the money was real in the first place.

Maybe intent does matter in the end to defining art. If it's for publicity, then is it art?

Art.

 

[Andy K]

b) The KLF money-burning struck me as an act of obscene egotism by a pair of emotionally-retarded ***holes. If anyone really has £1 million that they don't know what to do with, there are SO many charities who do know. I would even accept the cash myself if necessary!

But isn't that the purpose of art, to provoke a reaction in the viewer? It does not say anywhere that that reaction has to be positive.
I could say the same for the millions the Saatchis have wasted on crap from Emin and Hurst.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

If I remember correctly the KLF (aka The Justified Ancients of Mumu, The JAMs) deliberately destroyed, by burning, one million pounds cash in £50 notes, as art.

Over here in the USA, I don't think anyone knows about the KLF, but I love them. I'm suspicous about the motivations of most all performance art, but the KLF sure knew how to make a good record. Even the the cheesy Dr. Who / Timelords one.

Kick out the JAMS, mother*#ckers!!

But I did find the sandpainting to be interesting.