Discuss shock vs. documentary

[Les McLean]

I have followed this thread with a lot of interest and learned a lot along the way. I cannot match the depth of knowledge that many of you have about the wide variety of artists already mentioned so I am gratefull for the views and information shared thus far. My own views seem to match edbuffaloe's although some of my strongest influences are the same Rothko works that Ed thinks are garbage. Neither of us is wrong we just see things differently. I agree with his views on porn too for some of the most beautiful photographic prints I have seen are those of Mapplethorpe, though perhaps Tom Baril sould get the credit and I am being seduced by the printing rather than the image.

When I view a piece deemed to be art I always ask myself a question about communication for I believe that is what it is all about. If the image speaks to me then it has succeeded no matter how abhorant I find the subject to be. For example, the British photographer Don McCullin has made some quite exquisite images of appalling things that happen in war and famine, in my opinion.

On the other hand paintings by Monet and Turner explore light and atmosphere
are more restful and welcoming to the viewer but still communicate, but only if the viewer is receptive to their particular vision.

 

[blansky]

Interesting topic. An intellectual discussion on a subject that cannot be resolved.

Art, pornography, politics, religion, wonderful topics. Debating them is fun but they only define the peope debating and not the topic themselves. We live in a free society, free exchange of ideas, for adults. Let's keep it that way. If you see something you like you can call it what you like. If you wish to hang it on your wall go ahead. If you don't, don't. As long as you don't tell me what I can like, we will all be happy.

Some people hang their childrens "art" on their refrigerator, is this any less "art" than what they could buy for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it any less precious to them? Is the confusion of old or antique compared to new and original part of the problem. Old equals good, new equals maybe, we'll see in a few years.

It's all a part of what makes life interesting. Lighten up.

Just an opinion.

Michael McBlane

 

[Eric Rose]

Check out this link. It's an interview with Witkin. Quite the sick puppy in my estimation. But then again there have been quite a few quite mad creators of exquisite art thru time. I don't feel he was trying to be shocking, but rather was trying to satisfy his own cravings. The use of a camera and the "respectability" it brought just gave him easier access to the dead and decaying he seemed to need to be around and fondle in his own way.

As far as his art is concerned, it's not for me. But that doesn't make it art in some peoples eyes. I would classify this type of image making as satisfying some sort of fetish. Many of the Betty Page pictures were created to satisfy various fetish needs of the publishers customers. Some of those images are now considered "art". Those that truly appreciate them as art probably don't derive the same sexual kick that the original intended audience did.

So this begs the question, how does something transform itself from fetish/shock/schlock imagery to art? Is it because we are now able to appreciate it on a higher level? Are we now seeing past the originators demons and into their souls. Are we now recognizing the contribution of that part of the creators persona that is/was connected to a higher plan?

Or is it because we have become so jaded we are no longer moved by the original message and reduce everything to lines, tonality, focus and S curves?

http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotog...jpwdefault.html

 

[Tom Duffy]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ed Sukach @ Feb 10 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm trying to understand the concept of &quot;non-subjective art&quot;. Is this meant to describe works that are devoid of the emotional influences and human biases of the artist?...

Or am I misunderstanding the idea of &quot;non-subjective art&quot;? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ed,
Sorry you had trouble with my term non-subjective art, I had trouble using it!

Certainly, I didn't mean devoid of emotional influences on the part of the artist or the viewer; I was trying to coin a term that provided some universal or "objective" evaluation of the object being considered as art, meant to be appreciated beyond a temporary societal, or cultural perception in reaction to a given event.

Let me give three examples of photographs that had a profound impact on me and continue to do so. There was the Dorothea Lange's portrait of the migrant farm woman with two childern. There was a Vietnam war photo (taken by a Japanese photographer whose name I don't recall) of a women with two children crossing a raging stream and obviously in dire straits. There was Eugene Smith's photo of the child, disabled by mercury posioning, being bathed by his/her mother.

Each of these pictures were documentary in origin, showing what is. But the each transcend that purpose and speak of certain universals in the human condition. they will be great pictures and great art for as long as people see them. It doesn't matter if you know the stories behind the pictures, or not.

Take care,
Tom

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Shock is for selling.
That's far from best documentary work.
Far from best photography.
Far from art.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just an irrelevant observation here but I don't think I have ever come across another thread that has as many early joiners and sadly early leavers of what was still APUG

This thread seems to have even caught Les McLean's earliest post. Today is certainly "All our yesterdays" day

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just an irrelevant observation here but I don't think I have ever come across another thread that has as many early joiners and sadly early leavers of what was still APUG

This thread seems to have even caught Les McLean's earliest post. Today is certainly "All our yesterdays" day

pentaxuser

Yes, my first thoughts when I saw this old thread. These early Apuggers are not here anymore. People come. People go. Les is still subscribing, but hasn't commented in years...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I enjoyed the discussions with those member. It would be nice if they still participated.

 

[MattKing]

I enjoyed the discussions with those member. It would be nice if they still participated.

Particularly those who are no longer on this earth.

 

[Sirius Glass]

[Quote: MattKing] Particularly those who are no longer on this earth.[/Quote]

I think they would like it to be different, too.