But that is one of the wonders things about art in general...the ability to elicit different emotions and interpretations from different people. I would even posit that one should start the study of art with the abstract expressionists, removing obvious subject matter from the equations and allowing composition, color, texture to dominate.
I did read this many years ago in collage. Took it very seriously and still do.
Since we're engaged in interpretation, I'll add something many find important, stimulating, and especially relevant, Susan Sontag's "against interpretation". As many know, Sontag was married to a famous professional photographer, Annie Leibovitz.
There is a danger in reading in too much meaning into a photograph or a collection of photographs. That danger including projecting ones own experiences and prejudices.
I spent hours with about 50 of their medium-sized prints at Dia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia_Beacon
Take your time with them. As a project (not a mere series) the whole is a monumental, quiet work of art.
Dia (the gallery itself, on the Hudson) is itself monumental.
It is interesting to note that the essay dates from 1964. It must not have gone over very well with artists at the time who, as an act of revenge, invented conceptual art. Of course, these new conceptual artists thought the art critics and academics were ignoramuses, so instead of leaving it to art critics and academics to come up with interpretations, the artists wrote treatises about what their art works meant so there would be no misunderstandings. (Now they do lengthy interviews on YouTube.) Actually, the artists were afraid that the art critics and academics, who by this time were well versed in psychoanalytics, would interpret them in a light unfavorable to the artist, generally along the lines of some neuroses, and wanted to get out ahead of them with a rebuttal. I'm with Sontag on this, which is why, beside the fact I am not from Vancouver, I am not a big fan of Jeff Wall and progeny.
One should not over think things.
Some things should be appreciated for just what they are. Others can and should be pondered.
"Overthinking" is a word that has always fascinated me. It does not exist in French, nor, as far as I can tell—please correct me if I'm wrong—, in any language other than English. I find it interesting that you could put a limit on the amount of thinking that one could do about something, as if it were measurable, and its consequences akin to those of speeding on the highway.
Moreover, if one does admit that "overthinking" is a thing, wouldn't it still be better than "underthinking"?
OK, but who is to decide which?
Over thinking is working to find meanings or thoughts that are not there.
I spent considerable time enjoying their work, don’t remember where. Wasn’t hours because I never have that much time. I felt myself imagining climbing into a station wagon for the drive to the next town after town, on the hunt for another intriguing tower
But they may come up in the viewers mind. And then they might be intended by the artist, or they might not.
Who is to decide what the viewer makes out of it?
Maybe a artist protests, saying that it was not what he intended, being misunderstood. But this is the inherent risk of an artist bringing his work to the world.
Over thinking is working to find meanings or thoughts that are not there. An extreme example would be a two year old child dumps his or her food on the floor one time:
- The child has deep seated hate for its parents
- The child has psychological issues with the counties political policies
- The child is extremely aware of the impending meteor impact that will wipe out all life on earth except for hard shell insects
So we'll said BRAVO!There is a danger in reading in too much meaning into a photograph or a collection of photographs. That danger including projecting ones own experiences and prejudices.
Hilla and Bernd Beacher produced a body of work of architectural pieces that were disappearing. They used a methodical systematic approach to photograph each one in a manner that allows one to view it as art, a design study or structural study. The work stands on its own and is not a metaphor for something it was never meant to be. They achieved what they set out to do as a lifetime work which they completed. View it for what it was meant to be, not for what one would have liked it to be or how one would like to inject into it.
But isn't that the wonder of art (and literature)? If you chose to see some personal meaning in it, go for it. Just don't assume the artist meant it that way. Roland Barthes' punctum theory comes to mind.One should not over think things. Some things should be appreciated for just what they are. Others can and should be pondered. I remember the college dormitory discussions that when on endlessly about the meaning of the lyrics of a particular song and how that time could have been used better in many other ways.
We also weren't really creatively involved with the conceptual art movement but we somehow fit into it. We didn't contradict this association, we had nothing against that. Through that connection we were included in exhibitions which didn't deal only with photography and which showed our work in a different light. That was the nature of conceptual art, it didn't divide the media so strictly as before. It didn't matter if you painted or drew, rode a bicycle or tore up paper, everything was possible. The flood gates were opened. Since we made something that couldn't be easily categorized, we fit in perfectly. --HB
People say that a documentary approach is not artistic. But who decides? Ultimately it has to be posterity. There is no way to pinpoint the criteria. Everything connected with making pictures can be artistic. -- HB
That's the camels ****, under the edge of the famous "big tent". Its actively destructive to something to which the Bechers aspired.
a deeper dive into "conceptual" -- but a big swerve from the origin point of this thread, ie, to let people know something of the Bechers.
Consider that the mechanics of art expand quickly. Photography has become so intertwined with ideas beyond being "the pencil of nature" that conversations about them seems like an emulsion technologist talking to someone struggling with getting film into a holder.
conceptual art --
In 1968, the fusion of Fluxus and Pop had led to works such as Robert Morris's Card File (1962) and Ed Ruscha's Twenty-Six Gasoline Stations (1963),
photographic and textual strategies as they were being put in place in the mid-sixties by the first "official" generation of Conceptual artists: Lawrence Weiner (born 1940), Joseph Kosuth (1945), Robert Barry (1936), and Douglas Huebler (1924-77). These artists formed the group that was shown in January 1969 in New York by the art dealer Seth Siegelaub (1941-2013).
Notes that may help:
###
- Henry Flynt, "Concept Art", in An Anthology of Chance Operations, eds. La Monte Young and Jackson Mac Law, New York, self-published, 1963, ; revised in 2nd ed., New York: H. Friedrich, 1970.
- Joseph Kosuth, "Art After Philosophy", Studio International 178, no. 915 (Oct 1969), pp 134-137, no. 916 (Nov 1969), pp 160-161, no. 917 (Dec 1969), pp 212-213; Part I repr. in Art and Language, eds. Paul Maenz and Gerd de Vries, Cologne, 1972, pp 74-98; repr. in Kosuth, Art After Philosophy and After, MIT Press, 1991, pp 13-32.
- Sol LeWitt, Four Basic Kinds of Straight Lines, London: Studio International, 1969, 36 pp. Artist's book.
- Sol LeWitt, Four Basic Colours: Yellow, Black, Red, Blue, and Their Combinations, 1971.
- Joseph Kosuth, Art as Idea as Idea, 1967-1968, Brussels: Paul Maenz, Mar 1973, [12] pp. Catalogue.
- Sol LeWitt, Photo Grids, Paul David Press, 1977, 50 pp. Artist's book.
- Conceptual Art, ed. Ursula Meyer, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1972, xx+227 pp.
- Idea Art: A Critical Anthology, ed. Gregory Battcock, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973.
- Minimal & Earth & Concept Art, 2 vols., ed. Karel Srp, Prague: Jazzpetit, 1982.
- "Language and Concepts", ch 9 in Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art: A Sourcebook of Artists' Writings, eds. Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz, University of California Press, 1996; 2nd ed., 2012, pp 955-1070.
- Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology, eds. Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson, MIT Press, 1999, 623 pp
with that,
Well, I'm happy to be corrected.
Never actually used that expression before, but it's certainly useful...particularly when "the big tent" is used to suggest there's no difference between truth and ignorance .
Speaking of Lascaux (and similar cave paintings around the world) ... the hand prints may be first evidence of "conceptual art."
We've touched on two authors of fictional literature here (Umberto Eco, who I've not read, and James Joyce, who I've read quite a lot).
Since we're engaged in interpretation, I'll add something many find important, stimulating, and especially relevant, Susan Sontag's "against interpretation". As many know, Sontag was married to a famous professional photographer, Annie Leibovitz.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?