Fox Talbot Appreciation

[koraks]

Please define this Englishness of the image in question.

I suspect @awty's reference to 'Englishness' is more to do with the way Fox Talbot's image is appreciated for who (and when) he was.

 

[awty]

I'd say dank and dreary, that's how I associate England. Is it not, that's the way the expatriates have described it to me. Maybe with a bit of darkroom magic it could be fixed up.

 

[cliveh]

I'd say dank and dreary, that's how I associate England. Is it not, that's the way the expatriates have described it to me. Maybe with a bit of darkroom magic it could be fixed up.

England is the most beautiful country in the world. We have a dynamic climate that makes us appreciate all the seasons from snow in winter, a beautiful spring, glorious summers and a divine autumn.

 

[Truzi]

England is the most beautiful country in the world. We have a dynamic climate that makes us appreciate all the seasons from snow in winter, a beautiful spring, glorious summers and a divine autumn.

In the United States, North East Ohio area, we have the same thing... often happening all in one day

 

[MTGseattle]

Compositionally, I can see what you mean, but the digital reproductions on that page are so appallingly bad that I find it hard to appreciate the photography. Her own website is marginally better, but also a mixed bag. Impressive photography (I think!), but the online presentation doesn't quite convince. Well, goes to show - prints are just overall nicer to look at.

I agree. There was a documentary on trees (HBO I think) where it showed her having a PT/PL print coming up on the paper. I would love to see a few of her prints in person.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have read this same sort of comment from people who viewed images by Eugene Atget. Look harder.

This is so unreasonable, Clive, given that you asked the question in the first place. If you see something that others do not, please point it out.

FWIW, I tend to agree with @Don_ih: I understand how revelatory this image must have been at the time, but as a photo seen with today’s wearied eyes, it is an unimaginative composition with a lot of ‘noise/atmosphere’ added by technical shortcomings. Please persuade me otherwise if you can.

With tree photos, there’s always the issue of who should have the credit: the photographer for capturing its beauty, or the tree for growing so beautiful in the first place?

 

[cliveh]

I suppose seeing is all in the mind of the beholder.

 

[snusmumriken]

I suppose seeing is all in the mind of the beholder.

Of course it is, although there’s generally quite a lot of agreement among beholders. Then again, sometimes we do need our eyes opening as to what we are missing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the United States, North East Ohio area, we have the same thing... often happening all in one day

As one who lived in Rochester New York, I can relate to the reason that George Eastman founded Kodak in Rochester was because Rochester is the World's Largest Natural Darkroom.

 

[cliveh]

Of course it is, although there’s generally quite a lot of agreement among beholders. Then again, sometimes we do need our eyes opening as to what we are missing.

I suppose for me this picture has a sense of presence. For a brief period of time, I am there, in that time, like looking out of a window into the past, on that winter's day. There aren't many photographs or works of art that do that. It's like when you're reading a good book and a sentence can capture your imagination and put you in that physical realm of time and space. I'm sure others can describe what I am trying to say in a better way. But does that help?

 

[snusmumriken]

I suppose for me this picture has a sense of presence. For a brief period of time, I am there, in that time, like looking out of a window into the past, on that winter's day. There aren't many photographs or works of art that do that. It's like when you're reading a good book and a sentence can capture your imagination and put you in that physical realm of time and space. I'm sure others can describe what I am trying to say in a better way. But does that help?

Yes it does, I get that. I've been to Lacock (of course, we're in the same county). To see Talbot's latticed window image in front of the exact same window is very moving. As for the tree, comparing photos of any tree as it was, with how it is now, is guaranteed to be moving. It's that sense of time.

But this seems a different issue from whether there is any artistry in the image, which is the debate one gets into about Atget's work.

 

[Truzi]

As one who lived in Rochester New York, I can relate to the reason that George Eastman founded Kodak in Rochester was because Rochester is the World's Largest Natural Darkroom.

I thought it was because the sky is always 18% gray.

 

[MattKing]

If one is aware of the historical significance of the photo, it is essentially impossible not to see it with that in mind. Its power comes from that combination.

 

[Arthurwg]

But this seems a different issue from whether there is any artistry in the image, which is the debate one gets into about Atget's work.

I'm always astonished by this debate. To me, the artistry in Atget seems more than obvious.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'm always astonished by this debate. To me, the artistry in Atget seems more than obvious.

And yet the debate continues. No need to reopen it here. You would need to follow the sequence of posts in this thread to understand why Atget’s name appears here at all.

Funny how different people see the same thing differently. Personally, I can’t see anything in the Mona Lisa.

 

[Don_ih]

I can’t see anything in the Mona Lisa.

I think maybe that particular image is so ubiquitous, it has essentially become like wallpaper.

As for seeing the artistry of Fox-Talbot or Atget or anyone, many people don't think a photograph is art or can be artistic at all. They consider a photo like a window - maybe perfectly clear, maybe cracked or dirty - but nothing in itself and only a view. That's not worth arguing about, since it's a fundamental difference in understanding. And many people don't appreciate being re-educated.

 

[koraks]

I think maybe that particular image is so ubiquitous, it has essentially become like wallpaper.

Moreover, I personally find it difficult to reconcile the different concepts of 'art' when we discuss old works vs. contemporary work. I'm not an art historian and I'm sure much has been published on the subject, but I strongly suspect we have (at least) a double standard when it comes to appreciating something as 'art'. Maybe part of the 'problem' with Atget is that he's a bit on the dividing line (grey area) where classical art transitioned into what we now see as contemporary art. Is it an early example of documentary photography, and not art, per se? Or does it have the same kind of historical significance that 'old' art is almost inherently imbued with?

All this, in my view, is mostly relevant in the context of defining what 'art' is. When it comes to appreciating the work for what it is...call it art, beautiful, engaging, provoking or call it whatever you want. It doesn't really matter, does it? You like it or you don't. Spend time with the stuff you like; leave the rest for others to appreciate.

 

[Don_ih]

I personally find it difficult to reconcile the different concepts of 'art' when we discuss old works vs. contemporary work

Art is appreciated in its context and that context is always changing. So, with old artwork, the generative context (which brought about the work) is natively inaccessible - we are bound to appreciate it in its present context. Furthermore, with what could be called a great work (such as Mona Lisa), the artwork itself has embedded into the domain so fully, it is part of the overall context (another way to say that: everyone is aware of it). Great works become part of the lexicon for the discourse and therefore become harder to objectively assess. They are more than points of reference: from our point of view, they are part of a prime definition of what can be art. So it's interesting in itself that, when Mona Lisa was painted, it had no such power, and the appreciation of it that led to it becoming a great artwork is just plain impossible for anyone to access.

 

[koraks]

What I think follows from your argument, is that the Mona Lisa being art is in a way a tautological statement. Works like the Mona Lisa have shaped how we define 'art' - at least, 'old' art as I referred to it in #67, which perhaps in your terms would be 'art for which the generative context is no longer accessible to us today'. I think that horizon is not distinct and it's also ever floating, which has implications for works that are in the grey area of that horizon. Btw, how the Mona Lisa was interpreted in the era of its creation, I really don't know, and I think it's subject to the statement of inaccessibility of context. Maybe it was deemed just another portrait. Maybe it was considered great by those who knew it. What we do know for sure is that the audience aware of it must have been infinitesimally small in comparison to its recognition today.

When discussing this, it always feels to me like shooting a rapidly moving target with a gun made of neoprene and bullets made of molten chocolate. For one thing, it's hard to tell whether what comes is or is not poo.

 

[snusmumriken]

When it comes to appreciating the work for what it is...call it art, beautiful, engaging, provoking or call it whatever you want. It doesn't really matter, does it? You like it or you don't. Spend time with the stuff you like; leave the rest for others to appreciate.

But you can have your eyes opened by someone more appreciative, and learn to like what you previously dismissed. That’s why I challenged @cliveh when he said ‘look harder’. Those who appreciate can pass on what they perceive.

For me, that worked for the Arnolfini portrait, but not for the Mona Lisa.

 

[koraks]

Sure. Allow yourself to be dragged to a different kind of museum, performance etc. once in a while. Definitely worth it.

 

[Arthurwg]

Funny how different people see the same thing differently. Personally, I can’t see anything in the Mona Lisa.

Yes, it really is funny. And I must agree. I'm not sure I would hang it on my wall.