One of the things you learn as you study art is that "meaning" is invariably tightly coupled with language and words. It is very very difficult to create intelligible meaning in pictures alone. A visual language of photographs that attempt to articulate specific meaning is subject to widely variant interpretation ... and those interpretations might or might not have anything to do with the intent of the photographer-artist who made them and presents them. However, there is a long tradition in photography of the 20th Century that the pictures should be able to tell their story by themselves ... the basis of the photojournalism that built Look and Life magazines rests on this type of imagic story telling. So there is a contention, a tension in this desire to have the images speak for themselves and the desire to understand the artist-photographer's intent in a meaningful way, which needs words and symbols to be conveyed.
Emotional expression, on the other hand ... pictures/photographs/ paintings/sculpture are very good at conveying emotional messages, based on the common psychology of human consciousness. "Oh, a beautiful sunset" reminds us of that warm evening with golden light in our own experiences. "What a funny little boy that is" reminds us of the goofyness when we played with our siblings, our cousins in the snow or the backyard as children. "Oh my god, the horror" that signal photograph of the My Lai Massacre from the Vietnam War so long ago resonates in our horror at man taking another man's live, cruelty and injustice, evil. "Wow, look at that ball!" in frank's recent photograph from the soccer field reveals to us the feeling of a sport, of activity and play. And so on. Images are emotional messengers triggering memory, feeling, sun, taste, touch ... all the things that words and meaning are so remote and abstract about. So we combine some words to articulate an intent, an artist's interest, and show some photos that codify the emotion of their vision. I look at this set of pieces of "neglected spaces" and I feel the sad moment of dissolution, of memories of grand times now gone, of furniture and rooms that people enjoyed, had arguments in, trysted in, and have left behind. They are static Things, locked in their existential time and space, a mute record of something that was and is passing if we let the soft sunlight and shadow of their dissolution affect us with an open emotion. Is the piece successful? did it raise an emotive moment for you, personally? or was it opaque, mute, unapproachable in your current state of mind? The set, right now, seems a little lacking in force and magnitude to me, but then looking at tiny representations on a low resolution screen is miles apart from what the prints, hung carefully with attention to the metre of the visual language and coupled with the spoken intent in words, might do. It might take more work, more effort, for me to become open enough to hear, feel what the photographer's intent was. Art is many things, but only rarely easy. One must become attuned to the metre of work, open to the messages it attempts, and it often needs work to translate the experience into substance, meaning, emotion and finally understanding: a shared experience with the artist. At that point you can say, "ah hah, I get it, the artist was successful" or "no, this one missed." Godfrey On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:51 PM, Fernando wrote: > To add some context: an example of what I think of when I say > conceptual photography, http://aperture.org/store/s06pick-fisher.aspx > (found it in another discussion) > > On 8/22/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You are making strong points here Godfrey, and I agree with the fact >> that without intention there is no art, in the end all this >> discussion >> is about the process of how this intention is communicated from the >> artist to its audience. At least from me the critic goes to part of >> what is considered art photography (specifically part of conceptual >> photography) that demands the viewer to "read" the concept from a >> textbook, not read the concept from the piece of art (photos) because >> is not there, not even in a cryptic way, you have to read it from >> somewhere else. The critic was no to art in general, not from me, I'm >> not that extreme ;-) >> >> On 8/21/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Making art photography is an exercise that is not related to >>> accessibility or like-ability. Most people can master a technically >>> good photograph with today's cameras. Many people can make a good >>> photograph in a compositional sense. Not many produce art. >>> >>> It is the intent, the expression, and the interpretation together >>> that define a piece as art, and also provide a meter as to >>> whether it >>> succeeds or fails in the context of the artist's intent. Without >>> intent, no photograph is art ... they're all just pretty pictures or >>> documentary recordings of a scene. >>> >>> To look at photographs purely as pretty pictures and insist that >>> they >>> must be accessible to all is to miss the vast majority of the ideas, >>> emotions, expressions that photographers might wish to convey. This >>> saddens me. >>> >>> There is room for pretty pictures and art photographs in the >>> world to >>> coexist. It is not necessary that every photograph be a pretty >>> picture, or be a piece of art. And it is also not necessary that >>> every piece of art be accessible to every person's appreciation, or >>> even if it is, be liked by every person who appreciates it. >>> >>> If you see a photograph that you don't "get", you can comment, or >>> not, as seems fitting. If you want to try to understand it (or more >>> specifically, understand the photographer's intent behind it...) and >>> expand your ability to appreciate such work, commenting and/or >>> asking >>> a question is the only way to go. >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ >> > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
