Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Famous photographers

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
27 Jul 2013 - 9:59 PM


Quote: Image attributed to Edward Weston.

Genius ...


Sarcasm? Easier to mock than try to understand?

The point of the picture isn't really that hard to see once you get past the superficial...

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
27 Jul 2013 - 9:59 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

monstersnowman
27 Jul 2013 - 11:05 PM

You presume I am mocking
You presume I have decided to mock because it is easier for me to do that than to try to understand
You presume there is something there and I have failed to understand

Which of these is correct is unimportant. I selected the image not because i liked or disliked it but because had I posted an image almost identical I can guarantee without any shadow of a doubt that you would have not posted any of the above in its defence or even taken time to search for an understanding of the image (a presumption by me). This was the point of this thread that an image like this by an unknown is given scant consideration but by a 'name' is decoded at any cost and often differently by many people in order to ensure some artistic weight is attributed and significant meaning discovered.

http://www.macobo.com/essays/essays1.html

This essay is interesting and shows the meaning is not so straight forward or simple. The point though is would you have even looked or been sure a meaning was there and worth seeing had joe bloggs with his iphone photographed his toilet? The OP suggests we automatically attribute more to images by famous people than joe bloggs, to the point where if we simply attached an unknown name to the very same image it would be passed by with little or no acclaim whatsoever, and I do agree.

monstersnowman
27 Jul 2013 - 11:16 PM


Quote: Sarcasm? Easier to mock than try to understand?

One other point .. This is a typical reaction, mentioned earlier, to people who have a negative response to art ...... Immediate belittling or patronising suggestion that they can only mock or do not get it because trying to understand is beyond them.

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 27 Jul 2013 - 11:19 PM
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
28 Jul 2013 - 12:02 PM

I wasn't presuming, hence the question marks, so no need to get your knickers in a twist.

To be honest, it's more about context than who took the photograph (and in any case Weston was only copying Duchamp). If I saw this on Facebook with the caption 'I spent half the night throwing up in this loo' I wouldn't have given this a second glance. If I saw this on a photography site, or in a gallery, I'd ask myself why somebody thought it significant enough to photograph - and, more importantly, photograph well. Then I'd look more closely at the loo in question and see it has quite an aesthetically pleasing shape, more so than any modern loo. I don't give a stuff about who the photographer was but I do consider myself visually literate enough to look past the obvious.

As to whether it's a 'good' photograph or not, that's a different question. It made me look at something ordinary in a different way so in that sense it achieved what the photographer intended.

Last Modified By joolsb at 28 Jul 2013 - 12:04 PM
thewilliam
28 Jul 2013 - 12:23 PM

The lavatory pan shot can't be "art" because there's no famous-name signature!

lemmy
lemmy  71831 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Jul 2013 - 1:23 PM


Quote: The lavatory pan shot can't be "art" because there's no famous-name signature!

Yes there is. I've seen the original pan and it says Thomas Crapper on the back. He's famous, so it definitely is art.

monstersnowman
28 Jul 2013 - 1:28 PM


Quote: I wasn't presuming, hence the question marks, so no need to get your knickers in a twist.

I wasn't jools. Quite calm here just making a point :0) Have a good day.

thewilliam
28 Jul 2013 - 9:26 PM


Quote: The lavatory pan shot can't be "art" because there's no famous-name signature!

Yes there is. I've seen the original pan and it says Thomas Crapper on the back. He's famous, so it definitely is art.

Sorry, I was unaware of its provenance!

lemmy
lemmy  71831 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Jul 2013 - 11:28 PM


Quote: [Sorry, I was unaware of its provenance!

No need to apologise, squire. Easy mistake, know what I mean. The Crapper piece is gone but I have a toilet signed by the famous name Ceramic. Yours for 10 grand, no questions asked.

Can't say fairer than that. I'm robbing myself at that price but it's you or the Tate Modern and I'd prefer it goes to somewhere where it does the business rather than just be looked at, if you get my drift. Take it or leave it, my son.

Last Modified By Moderator Team at 29 Jul 2013 - 8:00 AM
monstersnowman
29 Jul 2013 - 3:45 AM


Quote: To be honest, it's more about context than who took the photograph (and in any case Weston was only copying Duchamp).

No it's not. In the world of art, it's provenance and attribution that is king. I've seen amazing images by unknowns go totally unrecognised that couldnt beg a space in a gallery because the author is unknown & sell for much less than 100 and daubings, scrawls and scribbles by names sell for a fortune and receive widespread critical acclaim. I couldn't compile a mass of bog standard passport photographs or curate a collection of everyday family snapshots taken by other people and display them with widespread recognition and appeal, unless I had a name - if you think name doesnt matter more than work in the rarified atmosphere of the art world you are delusional. With the aforementioned I wouldnt get past our local gallery who have their own hierachical view of who is capable of showing what. And personally the fact that Duchamp's urinal simply has a similar subject as Weston's does not necessarily justify the bold claim that one is just a copy of the other. That's my opinion anyway from my experience of degree studies, many gallery visits, art appreciation and holding my own exhibitions. Why not try taking an image of a toilet or some other exceptionally mundane everyday object and see how it is accepted without credibility and provenance then come back to me ;0)

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 29 Jul 2013 - 4:17 AM
joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
29 Jul 2013 - 8:23 AM


Quote: No it's not. In the world of art, it's provenance and attribution that is king.

I think we're talking about two different things. The problem with the art world is that people buying into an artist need some reassurance that what they are buying is going to increase in value so provenance and attribution are important. Therefore if you are an unknown the only way to get exhibited is to have come through the 'correct' art schools - which is no real guarantee of quality but it's the only one they've got so...

However, appreciation of an artwork by any ordinary viewer is more dependent on the visual literacy of that person. With the Weston picture above, it's the fact that it has obviously been photographed with care that was the cue for me to look at it a little more closely. Somebody obviously went to the trouble of making an image of something ordinary so it must have been significant to them in some way. To be honest, it didn't matter to me who made the image and had you not mentioned the photographer I would have found it just as intriguing. Because I know a little of Weston's artistic concerns, I was able to place this in the context of his 'pepper' images. That helped but wasn't key.

As for me making an image of a toilet or other everyday object, I'm sure I could do that and get a reasonable response from the online community - at least those who appreciate that sort of thing. Of course, I'm under no illusion that the hard-nosed commercial art world would be at all interested (which is where we agree, I think) but it might be good for a few stock sales...

monstersnowman
29 Jul 2013 - 10:02 AM


Quote: The problem with the art world is that people buying into an artist need some reassurance that what they are buying is going to increase in value so provenance and attribution are important. Therefore if you are an unknown the only way to get exhibited is to have come through the 'correct' art schools - which is no real guarantee of quality but it's the only one they've got so ....

Exactly .. Just like the name, is the schooling, which as you say does not mean a better image .. But people will be reassured the image has validity and is worth considering because the person who produced it is known and was schooled in the right place ... How many people will see an image and maybe like it but only decide to commit to its artistic value purely because the person who produced it has been recognised by others and was schooled in the right place .. You make my point very well.

SteveCharles
29 Jul 2013 - 10:14 AM


Quote: I couldn't compile a mass of bog standard passport photographs or curate a collection of everyday family snapshots taken by other people and display them with widespread recognition and appeal, unless I had a name

...but you could make a name for yourself doing it if it was done well, was original, and you worked at getting it seen and appreciated in the right places and by the right people.

lemmy
lemmy  71831 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Jul 2013 - 10:50 AM


Quote: How many people will see an image and maybe like it but only decide to commit to its artistic value purely because the person who produced it has been recognised by others and was schooled in the right place

The problem is that we have a tendency to want things like art and by extension the art market to be somehow consistent and 'fair'. But once art becomes an attribute in itself, inhabiting a work rather than being it, all the rules are off. Such a view of art is quite modern. It means that on top of the craftsmanship, artisan, value, it has another value floating about within it that is its 'art' value. Since there is no agreed system of judgement - and never could be - of this nebulous concept, essentially it is a matter of opinion. Is Weston's picture of a urinal art? I don't know. Do you? I could add that in my view the question is meangless and thus the answer doesn't matter.

I personally think it is a quite ordinary picture of a quite ordinary subject. Someone can argue with that but their argument doesn make it art or not any more than does my opinion. Given that there can be no agreement on that, the best area to test its value is the market. let the money decide. And that is what happens.

What really annoys me are the people who say 'I could do that'. The only reply is - 'well go right ahead then, no-one is stopping you'.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014786 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
29 Jul 2013 - 11:20 AM


Quote: What really annoys me are the people who say 'I could do that'. The only reply is - 'well go right ahead then, no-one is stopping you'.

rearrange the following....

the on head the nail hit

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.