Is photography reality? No.

[chuckroast]

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

Only in the torture chambers ...

 

[koraks]

Only in the torture chambers ...

Well, that's where we had to keep you most of the time as you know. You left us very little choice.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

Add to that the fact that on the sole page of the newspaper that is shown, you see China, Vietnam, Argentina, Britain and South Africa mentioned. This is not an accident. Koudelka could have put his lunch on anything other than a newspaper. This is not only about his itinerant life. It's about his relationship with, and curiosity about, the world.

It's a very simple metaphor, but like most metaphors, it's evocative power comes from its simplicity. But you have to stop and look.

 

[chuckroast]

Well, that's where we had to keep you most of the time as you know. You left us very little choice.

Well I DO feel so much better reeducated. Gulags for everyone I say...

 

[Arthurwg]

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 Weimaraners.

I ran into those Weimaraners and their walker in NYC some years ago. He assured me that the dogs were real but he wasn't sure about Wegman.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

It's not off-topic. If an artist's intent is to sell a picture to a subject of the subject, and that's his only intent, how is that off-topic?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Most of Van Gogh's paintings were to get him some money for rent. Are his pictures banal and disposable or do they inspire you or others? That's why I always judge whether a work is art from the viewer's perspective. If it has meaning to the viewer and creates mental, aesthetic, or spiritual value to them, then it's art. What the artist thought about it is irrelevant to most viewers. Of course, delving into his reasoning may be a nice exercise. But knowing that or not does not detract from its value as art to the viewer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...
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.

They're afraid their post will be deleted as being political.

 

[koraks]

It's not off-topic. If an artist's intent is to sell a picture to a subject of the subject, and that's his only intent, how is that off-topic?

The same way as an artist who decides to unclog his neighbor's toilet for $50. It's unrelated to him/them being an artist.

Most of Van Gogh's paintings were to get him some money for rent

No, they weren't. He didn't sell anything. He tried, but failed. He apparently failed mostly because he made what he though he had to make, regardless if there was demand for his art. There wasn't, and this surely upset and disappointed him, but it never stopped him from following his artistic impulse. Van Gogh is perhaps the most extreme example in history of the exact opposite of what you argue.

He would have been much better able to make rent if he had done some plumbing on the side.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Add to that the fact that on the sole page of the newspaper that is shown, you see China, Vietnam, Argentina, Britain and South Africa mentioned. This is not an accident. Koudelka could have put his lunch on anything other than a newspaper. This is not only about his itinerant life. It's about his relationship with, and curiosity about, the world.

It's a very simple metaphor, but like most metaphors, it's evocative power comes from its simplicity. But you have to stop and look.

Five countries? Well, it is the International Herald Tribune. It would have more meaning if he put his lunch on the Food and Restuarant section.

 

[chuckroast]

They're afraid their post will be deleted as being political.

Although I can get very spicy on political and social matters, I think mods have a point. Those kinds of conversations never really end well.

Also, while I was in the mod gulag, I was taught what to say...

 

[warden]

Most of Van Gogh's paintings were to get him some money for rent.

What?

 

[Pieter12]

Add to that the fact that on the sole page of the newspaper that is shown, you see China, Vietnam, Argentina, Britain and South Africa mentioned. This is not an accident. Koudelka could have put his lunch on anything other than a newspaper. This is not only about his itinerant life. It's about his relationship with, and curiosity about, the world.

It's a very simple metaphor, but like most metaphors, it's evocative power comes from its simplicity. But you have to stop and look.

Context and knowledge of the photographer add to the appreciation of this photograph. I'm not sure, but I believe it is from his book, Exils and makes a statement about his own exile from his home country, wandering Europe, the meager lunch of cheap processed French cheese, an apple and some bread spread on a copy of the International Herald Tribune, shot in Paris.

 

[MattKing]

Although I can get very spicy on political and social matters, I think mods have a point. Those kinds of conversations never really end well.

Also, while I was in the mod gulag, I was taught what to say...

Some lessons work for some students, while others?????

 

[runswithsizzers]

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.

Perhaps to distract ourselves from the reality of what is happening on this little shop of horrors we call Earth - with wars near and far, starvation around every corner, illness behind every tree, death under every bed -- not to mention the fact that we share our only planet with organisms that want to eat our living brains?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'm interested in a very basic question: Why do humans need pictures?

You're not the only one:

 

[Ivo Stunga]

...because one gets a decent kick out of it?

 

[koraks]

...because one gets a decent kick out of it?

Works for me.

"Image-making. Dispensing decent kicks to humanity since 20,000BC."

 

[Ivo Stunga]

: D

Exactly. And leaving a footprint is a happy accident

 

[jvo]

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 ...

well said.....

 

[jvo]

.... 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 ...

i guess New Zealand hasn't outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment"... there may be a very profitable book in it for you!

oh, nevermind... it's been done...

 

[chuckroast]

i guess New Zealand hasn't outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment"... there may be a very profitable book in it for you!

oh, nevermind... it's been done...

There are large gaps in my memory from this time. My brain couldn't process being forced to read Susan Sontag out loud whilst in a room of "Dogs Playing Poker" paintings on velour...