Is photography reality? No.

[snusmumriken]

Not necessarily art history or appreciation, just the rudimentary skill to look at a piece of art or a photo and be able to understand what is happening composition-wise and what the artist may be trying to communicate. You know, how some were taught to read literature.

There is a code, though, which has to be shared by writer and reader, artist and viewer. For example, there may be subtle signals to indicate that sarcasm is intended, otherwise the reader will take a text at face value.

Art inspires the viewer. Who cares or even knows what the artist's intent was?

Among photos, one that springs to mind is Koudelka's photo of his lunch one day in September 1976. Today, food photography is commonplace and boring, and this too is pretty mundane at face value; but in the context of Koudelka's itinerant life it takes on a special meaning. Exactly what the artist's intent was I don't know, but I do care what it was.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't have enough aspirin to read through this whole thread, but addressing the title I would say that no representation is reality, except for the reality of itself. As I stated in an earlier post, what is severely lacking today is visual literacy. Not necessarily art history or appreciation, just the rudimentary skill to look at a piece of art or a photo and be able to understand what is happening composition-wise and what the artist may be trying to communicate. You know, how some were taught to read literature.

If you have to delve into what the artist is saying to enjoy the work, the work has failed. It should be simple and straightforward. It should inspire the viewer. Making it into an academic course of work is boring and draining for most.

 

[chuckroast]

Art inspires the viewer. Who cares or even knows what the artist's intent was?

The artist.

 

[chuckroast]

What if the artists intent is to sell a pretty picture that would help pay his rent?

Then that's their intent and that's what matters to them . If it happens to resonate with you, that's a sign they've made very good art. A good example of this is G.F. Handel's "Messiah" which he more-or-less wrote for the money but has become a beloved part of the canon of classical music.

It's certainly the case that art is a triangle: Artist, Artifact, Consumer. But my specific objection to the postmodern/poststructural academic schools is that make it entirely about the consumer how they see the artifact, and what "personal truth" they find in it - or, more often, personal offense.

They also bowdlerize the original artist and their intent. It's one thing to understand an artist in their time to get context for their work. It's quite another to shove modern sensibilities onto old work and the criticize the artist for not being sensitive enough, indifferent to human rights, blah, blah, blah. Ancient classics are now apparently all guilty of something-phobia and something-ism.

This might seem to be some very arcane academic fight with little relevance to the rest of us, but unfortunately this stuff has been peddled long enough in the Academy that now we see the results in popular culture. For instance, pretty much every training session I got to professionally starts out with "be sure to tell us Your Truth". I want to scream. There is my opinion, my values, my beliefs, my hopes, and my dreams, but there is no such thing as "my truth". If something is true, it true for everyone. THAT is what the post<fill in the blank> schools destroyed.

Why does it matter? Because what an artist is trying to convey - in their time and context - is important to fully grasping their intent, not what some academic thinks they should have said, written, or painted to suit today's feels ...

 

[VinceInMT]

Through the years philosophers have proposed that we cannot directly experience the world outside our minds (if it exists), but only our mental representations of it…..

Sort of the lesson of Plato’s Cave.

 

[VinceInMT]

…….And in philosophy asking the right questions is often more important than evaluating the answers.…

I believe that Douglas Adams made that point when the philosophers found that the answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything was 42.

 

[chuckroast]

I believe that Douglas Adams made that point when the philosophers found that the answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything was 42.

Well, that, and we need to promptly export the B Ark folks ...

 

[koraks]

What if the artists intent is to sell a pretty picture that would help pay his rent?

That's fine, but the discussion of such is offtopic in a debate about art.

 

[VinceInMT]

I'm interested in a very basic question: Why do humans need pictures? This includes painting and photography as well as other images on the wall. Must be something primeval here.

There are probably as many answers as there are humans who create pictures. And within each human who creates pictures there could be different reasons for doing so. With photography I am sometimes drawn to the process, other times a desire to preserve a scene/memory, and other times to have an image that serves as a seed for further image creating. When it comes to my non-photographic picture-making, I have some kind of internal need to pick up a pencil, pen, brush, or other tool and create. Those latter images rarely have much to do with reality except how I may interpret it at the moment.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That's all well and good if that's what's done. But far too often, current DIE pieties (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) are imposed on those old pieces of art, architecture, et al and given standing as fair critique of the work. Old things are a product of their time, just as we are of ours, and assessing the old thing with contemporary filters is almost always dishonest and misleading.


Herein we disagree pretty fundamentally. It is my view that the only thing of significance is artistic intent and how the artist themselves interacts/responds to the resulting artifact. They are making the art for themselves. When they get it right, the viewer has much the same response. The artist has somehow tapped into common aesthetic ground and brought it to the viewer who responds because there is something inherent in how we're all wired. There is a reason that, say, Japanese music lovers are deeply drawn to American Blues or Mozart, even though there is almost no direct cultural connection between those societies - there is inherent wiring that gets people there.

And that is why I object to how postmodernism and poststructuralism treat thought - it denies any possibility of an objective grounding for aesthetics. Everything is relativized to the in-the-moment existential encounter between the arts consumer and artifact. I think it's the death of beauty.

I have many other objections, but like I said, those are not for here ...

It is entirely fair to make criticism of artwork, be it contemporary or ancient. That doesn't mean we HAVE to give that criticism equal weight, or that we have to agree with it. But to try and arrest criticism of past judgments is to try and arrest the course of civilization. It will happen whether we like it or not, and to refuse to listen to critique is as counterproductive as is standing at the low tide line and telling the ocean not to return to the high tide mark. We can and should pass judgment on decisions of the past - things like slavery being acceptable are rightfully condemned by the world of today. That is an entirely separate, political not philosophical, debate, and in the interest of keeping the peace on this forum I won't go further into it - it just serves as an incredibly obvious example of a past moral that has been supplanted.

I also think you're missing the point on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) - the majority of advocates for it are NOT arguing for erasure of the past but rather the expansion of opportunity. If we look at it from an aesthetics perspective, why should beauty (which is something like truth, or religion) have one and only one standard? EVERYONE has their own experience of what is beautiful to them - there are people who think Thomas Kinkade is the greatest painter who ever lived. There are people who find ritual scarification to be aesthetically pleasing. There are people who find a completely hairless body to be attractive, and there are people who find men who look like a sheep from the neck down to be attractive. Horses for courses. The argument is not to say that you should be required to find everything equally aesthetically pleasing, but rather just because you don't find X aesthetically pleasing, X should not be excluded from the marketplace of aesthetics. Enough with the gatekeeping.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What if the artists intent is to sell a pretty picture that would help pay his rent?

If that is their intent, and they succeed at doing so, more power to them. But what then distinguishes their output from an IKEA sofa or an inspirational quote poster? The work is disposable and banal.

 

[Arthurwg]

Concur. Nothing did more damage to human knowledge IMHO than desconstructionism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism. In less than 50 years, these "thinkers" managed to wipe out 5000 years of developed human thought, not to mention aesthetics and ethics ...

Yes, we are living in the Age of Deconstruction. Something like Alice in Wonderland.

 

[chuckroast]

It is entirely fair to make criticism of artwork, be it contemporary or ancient. That doesn't mean we HAVE to give that criticism equal weight, or that we have to agree with it. But to try and arrest criticism of past judgments is to try and arrest the course of civilization. It will happen whether we like it or not, and to refuse to listen to critique is as counterproductive as is standing at the low tide line and telling the ocean not to return to the high tide mark. We can and should pass judgment on decisions of the past - things like slavery being acceptable are rightfully condemned by the world of today. That is an entirely separate, political not philosophical, debate, and in the interest of keeping the peace on this forum I won't go further into it - it just serves as an incredibly obvious example of a past moral that has been supplanted.

Right, but in doing this, we replace a discussion about the merits of the art as art, with a postfacto discussion of politics, culture, and other stuff unrelated to aesthetics imposed upon the art. So much so, that the aesthetics get lost in the culture wars.

There is an enormous difference between having a discussion about contemporary values and dismissing or deriding a piece of art that does not comply with them. As just one example, look at the many important and great statues that have torn down of late. This is reminiscent of the various 20th Century totalitarian states that removed "degenerate art".

I also think you're missing the point on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) - the majority of advocates for it are NOT arguing for erasure of the past but rather the expansion of opportunity. If we look at it from an aesthetics perspective, why should beauty (which is something like truth, or religion) have one and only one standard? EVERYONE has their own experience of what is beautiful to them - there are people who think Thomas Kinkade is the greatest painter who ever lived. There are people who find ritual scarification to be aesthetically pleasing. There are people who find a completely hairless body to be attractive, and there are people who find men who look like a sheep from the neck down to be attractive. Horses for courses. The argument is not to say that you should be required to find everything equally aesthetically pleasing, but rather just because you don't find X aesthetically pleasing, X should not be excluded from the marketplace of aesthetics. Enough with the gatekeeping.

I will decline to go down this particular branch of discussion beyond saying that I am reasonably certain that'd not actually what's driving DEI but explaining why I think this would enter into the socio-political realm and away from aesthetics and photography.

I do appreciate the civility of tone exhibited by all here.

 

[Arthurwg]

Because we are all trying to achieve some level of immortality.

I was thinking more about the human need to look at pictures rather than making them. We seem to live in a cave staring at painting on the wall.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Right, but in doing this, we replace a discussion about the merits of the art as art, with a postfacto discussion of politics, culture, and other stuff unrelated to aesthetics imposed upon the art. So much so, that the aesthetics get lost in the culture wars.

There is an enormous difference between having a discussion about contemporary values and dismissing or deriding a piece of art that does not comply with them. As just one example, look at the many important and great statues that have torn down of late. This is reminiscent of the various 20th Century totalitarian states that removed "degenerate art".



I will decline to go down this particular branch of discussion beyond saying that I am reasonably certain that'd not actually what's driving DIE but explaining why I think this would enter into the socio-political realm and away from aesthetics and photography.

I do appreciate the civility of tone exhibited by all here.

To say that removal of certain statues that had aesthetic value because of contemporary politics is ignoring the fact that they were erected for highly political reasons in many cases. By that logic, you could argue that Arno Breker's Nazi statuary should still be on display in public venues (I'm considering museums distinct from public venues) because it had aesthetic merit beyond the political message. Or that the innumerable statues of Lenin and Stalin, or the big bronze of Saddam Hussein, should be preserved in public because they had aesthetic value. But I don't think you'd make that argument; their removal doesn't clash with your personal political sensibilities, so it's ok.

Oh, and you are baiting a political discussion by referring to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as DIE. But I will agree with you to not further debate that here because it would inevitably turn into a flame war and get us both on the moderator's naughty list.

 

[bluechromis]

I believe that Douglas Adams made that point when the philosophers found that the answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything was 42.

Ha. Some would say the answer is 1/137.

Roger Penrose says it is imaginary numbers
https://aeon.co/essays/how-imaginary-numbers-describe-the-fundamental-shape-of-nature

 

[VinceInMT]

Well, that, and we need to promptly export the B Ark folks ...

Yes, especially the telephone sanitizers. Do we really need them anymore?

 

[Arthurwg]

Interesting that Caravaggio and a Leica 111F figure prominently in "Ripley," a mini series about a psychopathic con man now showing on Netflix.

 

[chuckroast]

To say that removal of certain statues that had aesthetic value because of contemporary politics is ignoring the fact that they were erected for highly political reasons in many cases. By that logic, you could argue that Arno Breker's Nazi statuary should still be on display in public venues (I'm considering museums distinct from public venues) because it had aesthetic merit beyond the political message. Or that the innumerable statues of Lenin and Stalin, or the big bronze of Saddam Hussein, should be preserved in public because they had aesthetic value. But I don't think you'd make that argument; their removal doesn't clash with your personal political sensibilities, so it's ok.

For me, the line would be drawn as to whether any of the aforementioned had aesthetic value in their own right. If they did, they should remain in public view. I am pretty much a free speech absolutist which similarly leads me to be a freely available art absolutist. I can think of nothing more corrosive than having some Ministry Of Proper Thinking decide what you should- or should not be able to see. I feel this way even though that means things I find offensive on other grounds would be in view.
Again, my rationale' for this absolutist stance is partly about letting art be art, and partly "other reasons" not for airing here.

Oh, and you are baiting a political discussion by referring to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as DIE. But I will agree with you to not further debate that here because it would inevitably turn into a flame war and get us both on the moderator's naughty list.

Having been on the mod's naughty list I don't want to repeat the process. They have this Photrio gulag you get sent to where you have to use Instamatics and enlarge the results to 20x24 prints and then you get yelled at for having grainy, out of focus images. It was really awful ...

 

[bluechromis]

Sort of the lesson of Plato’s Cave.

Yes, and the concept no doubt goes back earlier than Plato. But in all of human history until today, other scholars, such as Aristotle, could say to such philosophers that their proposals were just speculation, that they had no proof, and that others had a better explanation of perception.

But now we have empirical evidence that the world we experience is not what it seems and does not accurately depict the actual state of things outside of us. We are also learning not that this is the way perception operates, but about the specific neural mechanisms of how it works. This is a historic paradigm shift.

This is why it is impossible to create a true and accurate representation of the world as it is that humans can experience. But cannot unbiased machines do it? The problem is that whatever output or measurement machines produce must eventually be filtered through the skewed human perceptual system. So we still have the problem.

 

[koraks]

They have this Photrio gulag you get sent to where you have to use Instamatics and enlarge the results to 20x24 prints and then you get yelled at for having grainy, out of focus images.

We appreciate your input and may use your ideas to enhance our Secret Photrio Walled Garden Resort for Incurable Fuzzyshooters (TM).

 

[MattKing]

We appreciate your input and may use your ideas to enhance our Secret Photrio Walled Garden Resort for Incurable Fuzzyshooters (TM).

Is that the Resort which has Thomas Kinkade and Anne Geddes work on every wall?

 

[koraks]

Is that the Resort which has Thomas Kinkade and Anne Geddes work on every wall?

And their spirits emanating from the central Ouija board, yes.

 

[Pieter12]

And their spirits emanating from the central Ouija board, yes.

With some Keane paintings thrown in.

 

[MattKing]

I think we can all agree that Keane, Kincade and Geddes are reality, and the rest of what we do isn't.
I'm on the fence about William Wegman and those Weimaranens.