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 1

Sharpness and Resolution are not Art ?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 2:17 PM

"Too many people spend too much money on rubbish, because they've been told it is Art."

Discuss! Grin

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
27 Apr 2012 - 2:17 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
27 Apr 2012 - 2:25 PM

ah...A whiff of a new thread....define "rubbish"...seriously though I think there is a degree of truth in that statement but in all my years of amateur dealing in antiques, bric a brac and collectables there was always one great truth...any object is only worth what you can get for it the day you come to sell it...I should also say it is not worth the amount the bank will lend you against it as this is what got us in the brown stuff in the first place....stuart

Last Modified By User_Removed at 27 Apr 2012 - 2:28 PM
digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 2:28 PM


Quote: "Too many people spend too much money on rubbish, because they've been told it is Art."

What's to discuss, it's a fact. Smile

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 3:35 PM


Quote: there was always one great truth...any object is only worth what you can get for it the day you come to sell it

Common sense surely, rather than intuitively revealed knowledge? Wink


Quote: What's to discuss, it's a fact.

Fair enough - end of discussion! Grin

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
27 Apr 2012 - 7:55 PM


Quote: I think that pictures need to work on their own.

I used to think that - but don't any more. What changed my mind was an exhibition that showed photos of African women - They weren't anything amazing really as individual images. But the text that accompanied each of them put them into context and they took on a whole new meaning and power. They were images of women who had been subject to rape by soldiers. Sometimes I feel it is needed to explain the image.

Strobe
Strobe  71254 forum posts United States
27 Apr 2012 - 8:25 PM


Quote: "Too many people spend too much money on rubbish, because they've been told it is Art."

Discuss! Grin

Depends on your definition of Art, your appreciation of Art and your wealth.

On a small scale I have paid too much for Art because I have enjoyed the artist, their effort and I wanted to support them.

rayme330
rayme330 e2 Member 2rayme330 vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 8:58 PM

The only qualification that art needs is that it exists anything after that is subjective.

monstersnowman
27 Apr 2012 - 10:34 PM


Quote: I think that pictures need to work on their own.

I used to think that - but don't any more. What changed my mind was an exhibition that showed photos of African women - They weren't anything amazing really as individual images. But the text that accompanied each of them put them into context and they took on a whole new meaning and power. They were images of women who had been subject to rape by soldiers. Sometimes I feel it is needed to explain the image.

But surely the image is not actually succeeding as an image in this case but only as part of a documentary or journalistic work. The images are photographs but they do not succeed or have any power or impact on that level and only gain any meaning when accompanied by the story - the whole power comes with and is derived from the story but the images then enhance the story by giving you a face to empahise with, a victim to associate the horrors of the stories with, humanising and personalising the stories. Its like seeing an ordinary image of one of Mira Hindley's child victims. The image is memorable and captures your gaze, you look into the child's eyes and can imagine a fraction of the horror that would have later befallen them but that is not because the image is powerful or indeed in any way a good image. The images of the African women do work with the text but in a different way than a photograph should work on its own, telling its own story, having signifiers, narrative, interesting textures, shapes, contrast, evoking emotion etc.

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 27 Apr 2012 - 10:39 PM
Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41195 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 11:06 PM

Then I would say the pictures don't work on their own. If you need the narrative to conjure in your head the images of what the women went through, then you didn't get it from the prints. It would seem that the exhibition was more along the lines of a photo-essay - like you would have found in the sunday sups and magazines such as Picture Post, Life etc than a set of discrete images.
Compare this with images like Don McCullin's images of war and famine - most tell a story of the individuals concerned, but they were intended as a narrative for a photo-essay.

monstersnowman
27 Apr 2012 - 11:22 PM


Quote: They were images of women who had been subject to rape by soldiers. Sometimes I feel it is needed to explain the image.

I would say the text is not explaining the image. Quite the other way round and the image whilst secondary in importance is enhancing the text. As I said before, humanising and enhancing it.

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 27 Apr 2012 - 11:22 PM
Overread
Overread  63746 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
27 Apr 2012 - 11:28 PM

On the other hand isn't part of our respect for photography (as opposed to just drawn or painted scenes) isn't just beauty or awe at the image itself; but also an understanding (however small or large) of what is being presented before us.

Photography kind of stands on the middle ground I feel - its capable of photos which are, totally without justification or explanation, impressive on a totally artistic level. However its also capable of showing us things that, whilst we might have to understand a little of what we see, convey something to us beyond what is possible with a simply artistic view.

Take that photo of a guy standing before a line of tanks (I think he's holding his shopping bag). Pretty dull, not that amazing and honestly could be a total setup. Give it context, even small, and suddenly the impact is far different.

This is what differs photography to many other art forms - that ability to visually share impacts from the world with others.



That said I'm certainly not in the camp where art becomes artistic and great when given an essay with it. In photography I'd call it a different kind of appreciation - not lesser nor greater, just different to pure artistic appreciation.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Apr 2012 - 9:38 AM

Some good points above and I canít respond to them all, most of which I would just say I can see the points being made and agree.

Maybe for a photo to be considered art it has to stand on it's own - without a narrative? Maybe that is the first criteria that has to be met.

I donít really know the symbolism used in painting but I understand that the apple is used to represent sin and I am sure there are many others. I even think the direction people are looking means something. This isnít a narrative that accompanies the paintings but is required information for the viewer to fully understand the art they are viewing.

Are there any photographers who use symbolism in their work?

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318442 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
28 Apr 2012 - 9:46 AM


Quote: Are there any photographers who use symbolism in their work?

Would you include this series?: Time in a Landscape
From outside ePHOTOzine I can immediately think of Robert Mapplethorpe and Duane Michals

Last Modified By Pete at 28 Apr 2012 - 9:48 AM
779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
28 Apr 2012 - 10:10 AM

Iím not sure about the Time in Landscape Ė I really donít know enough about art to know if the use of a clock has a specific meaning. DalŪ of course used them in his work. I guess weíd need to know what Adamís intension is with the images. You all may know this already as he looks to be doing a project on the subject.

The other two you mention I havenít heard of but have Googled and will read up on a little later Ė they look interesting.

Iíd love to see some work that uses symbolism to tell a story Ė like church windows and paintings do. Maybe I should research the subject and give it a go. Really putting me outside any comfort zone I might have!

monstersnowman
28 Apr 2012 - 10:29 PM

An excellent place to look for symbolism in photography are advertisement shots ... they, perhaps more than any other images, are very very carefully constructed and rammed to the gills with semiotics. They arent always that subtle either and if you sat and 'read' an image that was well done you could construct a list of perhaps dozens of signifiers quite easily. I remember an image (not an advert) that I analysed for my degree by photographer Jeff Wall, entitled 'Mimic'. At first glance I thought I would see a few signifiers but it is full of them. Some maybe intended and some you see yourself. Its all interesting stuff.

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 28 Apr 2012 - 10:34 PM

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.