This is a perfect example where a title doesn't add anything to the image, neither yours or Magritte's original "Son of man"... Of course Magritte had an intent, in his words:
"At least it hides the face partly. Well, so you have the apparent face, the apple, hiding the visible but hidden, the face of the person. It's something that happens constantly. Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see. There is an interest in that which is hidden and which the visible does not show us. This interest can take the form of a quite intense feeling, a sort of conflict, one might say, between the visible that is hidden and the visible that is present".
Does the title "The son of man" convey anything like that? i-apple??? scratch
2. I can discuss the technical merits of a photograph, but I cannot assess its artistic merits without being made aware of the underlying intent.
Once again I have to ask, really? This suggests that one cannot separate a work of art from the artist. If that were so, art criticism as we know it would become the work of historians and biographers. We would be incapable of evaluating any work whose provenance is disputed or unknown, or about which there is no commentary by the artist. Even in those rare cases where there is adequate documentation, realizing the intent seems to be a weak criterion for assessment--what if the intent is trite or unoriginal? Apart from the (to me) obvious impracticality, relying on intent simply postpones the question--we would still need a means to evaluate the merits of the intent. Now if someone asks you for suggestions for improving a work in progress, it's perfectly proper to ask what the artist is trying to do, assuming it's not obvious. But surely that cannot be the cornerstone of art criticism.
This is a perfect example where a title doesn't add anything to the image, neither yours or Magritte's original "Son of man"... Of course Magritte had an intent, in his words:
"At least it hides the face partly. Well, so you have the apparent face, the apple, hiding the visible but hidden, the face of the person. It's something that happens constantly. Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see. There is an interest in that which is hidden and which the visible does not show us. This interest can take the form of a quite intense feeling, a sort of conflict, one might say, between the visible that is hidden and the visible that is present".
Does the title "The son of man" convey anything like that? i-apple??? scratch
Perfect! Thank you!
Magritte had a specific intent and selected a specific title. They are integral with the image itself. And changing the tile undermines the image itself by distorting the intent. So shall we remove the title altogether, thus hiding the intent, and let Magritte "stand on its own two feet"?
Exactly the point I wanted to make by tossing this Magritte deal into the wheel work.
Once again I have to ask, really? This suggests that one cannot separate a work of art from the artist. If that were so, art criticism as we know it would become the work of historians and biographers. We would be incapable of evaluating any work whose provenance is disputed or unknown, or about which there is no commentary by the artist. Even in those rare cases where there is adequate documentation, realizing the intent seems to be a weak criterion for assessment--what if the intent is trite or unoriginal? Apart from the (to me) obvious impracticality, relying on intent simply postpones the question--we would still need a means to evaluate the merits of the intent. Now if someone asks you for suggestions for improving a work in progress, it's perfectly proper to ask what the artist is trying to do, assuming it's not obvious. But surely that cannot be the cornerstone of art criticism.
I agree.
And yes, in the case of Magritte's painting, in my opinion we could do away with the title and even the intent too. I'm done.
Once again I have to ask, really? This suggests that one cannot separate a work of art from the artist. If that were so, art criticism as we know it would become the work of historians and biographers. We would be incapable of evaluating any work whose provenance is disputed or unknown, or about which there is no commentary by the artist. Even in those rare cases where there is adequate documentation, realizing the intent seems to be a weak criterion for assessment--what if the intent is trite or unoriginal? Apart from the (to me) obvious impracticality, relying on intent simply postpones the question--we would still need a means to evaluate the merits of the intent. Now if someone asks you for suggestions for improving a work in progress, it's perfectly proper to ask what the artist is trying to do, assuming it's not obvious. But surely that cannot be the cornerstone of art criticism.
1. Really. I can't offer anything constructive if the intent is unknown.
2. Of course one cannot separate a work of art from the artist! Absolutely! Moreover, I strongly suspect that every work of art is a self-portrait. On some deeper and more meaningful level than the likeness of the features.
3. Consider the importance the critics themselves place in discovering the personal and historical details surrounding every work of art they study. Of course the critics are also the historians and the biographers. And yes, it is to a very large extent the cornerstone of art criticism. You're welcome to prove me wrong by offering an art critique volume that omits biographical details and the context for the subject matter.
Richard, art is inseparable from life and context -- of the artist himself. I'd say, this notion requires a little more afterthought than a casual glance.
There's also a need to pause here, and to ask the question: what place do I want art to occupy in my life?
Some of the possible answers are:
a) Art is central to my life;
b) I shoot on weekends and go to a museum twice a year
-- clearly, these very different answers will result in totally different agendas when discussing, appraising, and enjoying art in general and photography in particular. It sets different standards and, I daresay, results in different quality of work.
I've read through this whole thread and have come to some conclusions.
You started off with one ideal, then continually bobbed and weaver whenever anyone gave a valid viewpoint that was counter to yours. You rudely brushed off people as you made the determination that they were not willing to participate in a serious discussion.
Let me make reference to one of your original statements:
"The title establishes the theme. To my personal taste – and let me reiterate this – to my personal taste a photograph without a theme is incomprehensible. For this reason, it is already perfect, and I have nothing to add or say about it. Nor do I particularly want to look at it."
I am somehow pleased that you consider ALL of my work perfect!
Hmm, wait a minute, how can anyone's opinion be taken seriously if they haven't even looked at my work? Oh, that's right, it's not worthy to be viewed by you because I didn't have a title, therefore a theme BEFORE I captured the image.
I have read what you've posted, therefore I assume it's what you believe. I've visited your website and have drawn conclusions about your work, or as you've stated, art.
It appears that this thread is intended to convince other people, or yourself, that your process is superior to most other photographers.
I will have to agree with you on one point; you are indeed an artist!
But, I also have to point out that a five year old little girl or boy that has dipped their finger in watercolor and smeared it on paper is also by definition, an ARTIST.
I believe, based on viewing your work, and reading your statements, that the real difference in opinions stems from your apparent very narrow scope of your photography experience. I'm not saying your not experienced at photography, just that all present indicators point in the direction that you have stayed within narrow confines of all that photography offers. Nothing wrong with that, until one tries to convince everyone they their methodology is the only viable method for success.
Let's say that I'm in the great outdoors, and I happen upon a majestic Grizzly bear. I take photographs of said bear. Of course, employing all my photography experience I try to create a compelling image of said bear.
Based on what you've stated in this thread, my image is incomprehensible and not not worthy of being viewed because I did not have a title, therefore a theme beforehand.
This simply put, makes no sense whatsoever!
I am personally interested in some background information on a photographer, (new to this forum), so that I can determine how much weight to give said photographers information.
Do you make 100% of you income from photography?
Are you, or your works famous?
What unique qualifiers do you possess about photography?
It's a two way street here, so for myself:
I am presently an amature photographer.
I did make 100% of my income as a photographer for three and a half years.
I am not famous, nor is any of my work.
I have been published several times in nationally distributed magazines.
I have several thousand post and images on this forum for research if you require more background on me or my work.
All this said for this:
You might want to consider the possibility that your methodology might not work for everyone else, nor be the best practice for others.
I've read through this whole thread and have come to some conclusions.
You started off with one ideal, then continually bobbed and weaver whenever anyone gave a valid viewpoint that was counter to yours. You rudely brushed off people as you made the determination that they were not willing to participate in a serious discussion.
Let me make reference to one of your original statements:
"The title establishes the theme. To my personal taste – and let me reiterate this – to my personal taste a photograph without a theme is incomprehensible. For this reason, it is already perfect, and I have nothing to add or say about it. Nor do I particularly want to look at it."
I am somehow pleased that you consider ALL of my work perfect!
Hmm, wait a minute, how can anyone's opinion be taken seriously if they haven't even looked at my work? Oh, that's right, it's not worthy to be viewed by you because I didn't have a title, therefore a theme BEFORE I captured the image.
I have read what you've posted, therefore I assume it's what you believe. I've visited your website and have drawn conclusions about your work, or as you've stated, art.
It appears that this thread is intended to convince other people, or yourself, that your process is superior to most other photographers.
I will have to agree with you on one point; you are indeed an artist!
But, I also have to point out that a five year old little girl or boy that has dipped their finger in watercolor and smeared it on paper is also by definition, an ARTIST.
I believe, based on viewing your work, and reading your statements, that the real difference in opinions stems from your apparent very narrow scope of your photography experience. I'm not saying your not experienced at photography, just that all present indicators point in the direction that you have stayed within narrow confines of all that photography offers. Nothing wrong with that, until one tries to convince everyone they their methodology is the only viable method for success.
Let's say that I'm in the great outdoors, and I happen upon a majestic Grizzly bear. I take photographs of said bear. Of course, employing all my photography experience I try to create a compelling image of said bear.
Based on what you've stated in this thread, my image is incomprehensible and not not worthy of being viewed because I did not have a title, therefore a theme beforehand.
This simply put, makes no sense whatsoever!
I am personally interested in some background information on a photographer, (new to this forum), so that I can determine how much weight to give said photographers information.
Do you make 100% of you income from photography?
Are you, or your works famous?
What unique qualifiers do you possess about photography?
It's a two way street here, so for myself:
I am presently an amature photographer.
I did make 100% of my income as a photographer for three and a half years.
I am not famous, nor is any of my work.
I have been published several times in nationally distributed magazines.
I have several thousand post and images on this forum for research if you require more background on me or my work.
All this said for this:
You might want to consider the possibility that your methodology might not work for everyone else, nor be the best practice for others.
All the best...
Randy, this isn't a post on the subject of thematic art, but rather a personal attack. Do rephrase it if you expect a reply.
and ALEXSHARK, my opinion on this is that your original premise is misguided and a bit confusing.
there are thousands of art pieces hanging in galleries around the world that have no 'title" so it isn't on;y a photography matter.
some of the most interesting photography throughout the history of the art, by some of the most distinguished of the field, are not "titled". a lack of title allows the viewer to establish his own appreciation for the work sans hints.
we, in this digital age, posting on website threads that require a subject / title to begin the thread have fallen victim to this need to identify intent.
I for one would just as soon see people title their threads "my latest" or some such innocuous fluff
edited. unacceptable personal attack Tom. Let's not go there.
And Randy - your contributions to the board are valuable and appreciated but your response to this OP was borderline!
.
I don't mind you zapping my post, Angelo, but you should at least edit my remarks in a fashion so as not to confuse folks as to whom I was attacking. It sure wasn't Randy. Thank you.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
I don't mind you zapping my post, Angelo, but you should at least edit my remarks in a fashion so as not to confuse folks as to whom I was attacking. It sure wasn't Randy. Thank you.
Tom
Yes, you're right. I corrected my post to reflect this.
and ALEXSHARK, my opinion on this is that your original premise is misguided and a bit confusing.
there are thousands of art pieces hanging in galleries around the world that have no 'title" so it isn't on;y a photography matter.
some of the most interesting photography throughout the history of the art, by some of the most distinguished of the field, are not "titled". a lack of title allows the viewer to establish his own appreciation for the work sans hints.
we, in this digital age, posting on website threads that require a subject / title to begin the thread have fallen victim to this need to identify intent.
I for one would just as soon see people title their threads "my latest" or some such innocuous fluff
.
Thank you for your comments.
I did look for these untitled ones. Google "famous untitled paintings" and there's piles of abstracts and sketches, one super Picasso portrait. Not much else. the very fact that one has to search for these exceptions is already telling.
That aside, it gets a little trickier with photography, simply because there's a lot of commercial and journalistic stuff, some of it is incredible, wall-hangers by any standard, but they were not conceived as works of art. A cool example of street work is Garry Winograd. Yeah, his work is mostly titled, but the titles are pretty standard: event name, place, year. That's not titles. Super work! Why? In part, because the intent is clear, the context is familiar to most viewers, there's nothing to add. But show it to someone who has never heard of these photographed people -- and the subject will elude them altogether.
Angelo, you are able to appreciate some works sans hints, because you already know the hints. You are familiar with the context. Take it away -- and you will not know what you're looking at. Take a trip to, I don't know, Split, Croatia. Walk around, enjoy the old town, take a bunch of photos. Do so without a guide. Now the context is no longer familiar to you. You won't be able to tell much about your own shots. Years later you might discover that this tiny little Roman-looking house is the actual birthplace of Jupiter. Would that not change the context? Would that not change the way you would have approached photographing it? Would that work not deserve a title?
I'll play along with the innocuous. My next thread will be called "Untitled fluff"! :ivar
I did look for these untitled ones. Google "famous untitled paintings" and there's piles of abstracts and sketches, one super Picasso portrait. Not much else. the very fact that one has to search for these exceptions is already telling.
That aside, it gets a little trickier with photography, simply because there's a lot of commercial and journalistic stuff, some of it is incredible, wall-hangers by any standard, but they were not conceived as works of art. A cool example of street work is Garry Winograd. Yeah, his work is mostly titled, but the titles are pretty standard: event name, place, year. That's not titles. Super work! Why? In part, because the intent is clear, the context is familiar to most viewers, there's nothing to add. But show it to someone who has never heard of these photographed people -- and the subject will elude them altogether.
Angelo, you are able to appreciate some works sans hints, because you already know the hints. You are familiar with the context. Take it away -- and you will not know what you're looking at. Take a trip to, I don't know, Split, Croatia. Walk around, enjoy the old town, take a bunch of photos. Do so without a guide. Now the context is no longer familiar to you. You won't be able to tell much about your own shots. Years later you might discover that this tiny little Roman-looking house is the actual birthplace of Jupiter. Would that not change the context? Would that not change the way you would have approached photographing it? Would that work not deserve a title?
I'll play along with the innocuous. My next thread will be called "Untitled fluff"! :ivar
Happy Rosh HaShana to those who celebrate!
all true but then some of the examples you offer fall under photo-journalism, even travelogue, so titles or descriptions would be necessary.
Either title or don't. But if you do, choose one that's accurate. Creating a title that's misleading is, in my opinion, worse than choosing whether or not to add a title.
I look at your title ("It's all about SEX!") and then the photo and I wonder why you chose that title.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
0
Options
black mambaRegistered UsersPosts: 8,321Major grins
edited September 26, 2014
There's no mystery at all to me why there have been no " takers " for the fluff stuff. I'm somehow not surprised that you don't know. A clue for you; it has nothing to do with the title, nor intent.
Tom
I always wanted to lie naked on a bearskin rug in front of a fireplace. Cracker Barrel didn't take kindly to it.
Comments
This is a perfect example where a title doesn't add anything to the image, neither yours or Magritte's original "Son of man"... Of course Magritte had an intent, in his words:
"At least it hides the face partly. Well, so you have the apparent face, the apple, hiding the visible but hidden, the face of the person. It's something that happens constantly. Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see. There is an interest in that which is hidden and which the visible does not show us. This interest can take the form of a quite intense feeling, a sort of conflict, one might say, between the visible that is hidden and the visible that is present".
Does the title "The son of man" convey anything like that?
www.mind-driftphoto.com
Perfect! Thank you!
Magritte had a specific intent and selected a specific title. They are integral with the image itself. And changing the tile undermines the image itself by distorting the intent. So shall we remove the title altogether, thus hiding the intent, and let Magritte "stand on its own two feet"?
Exactly the point I wanted to make by tossing this Magritte deal into the wheel work.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
I agree.
And yes, in the case of Magritte's painting, in my opinion we could do away with the title and even the intent too. I'm done.
www.mind-driftphoto.com
1. Really. I can't offer anything constructive if the intent is unknown.
2. Of course one cannot separate a work of art from the artist! Absolutely! Moreover, I strongly suspect that every work of art is a self-portrait. On some deeper and more meaningful level than the likeness of the features.
3. Consider the importance the critics themselves place in discovering the personal and historical details surrounding every work of art they study. Of course the critics are also the historians and the biographers. And yes, it is to a very large extent the cornerstone of art criticism. You're welcome to prove me wrong by offering an art critique volume that omits biographical details and the context for the subject matter.
Richard, art is inseparable from life and context -- of the artist himself. I'd say, this notion requires a little more afterthought than a casual glance.
There's also a need to pause here, and to ask the question: what place do I want art to occupy in my life?
Some of the possible answers are:
a) Art is central to my life;
b) I shoot on weekends and go to a museum twice a year
-- clearly, these very different answers will result in totally different agendas when discussing, appraising, and enjoying art in general and photography in particular. It sets different standards and, I daresay, results in different quality of work.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
I've read through this whole thread and have come to some conclusions.
You started off with one ideal, then continually bobbed and weaver whenever anyone gave a valid viewpoint that was counter to yours. You rudely brushed off people as you made the determination that they were not willing to participate in a serious discussion.
Let me make reference to one of your original statements:
"The title establishes the theme. To my personal taste – and let me reiterate this – to my personal taste a photograph without a theme is incomprehensible. For this reason, it is already perfect, and I have nothing to add or say about it. Nor do I particularly want to look at it."
I am somehow pleased that you consider ALL of my work perfect!
Hmm, wait a minute, how can anyone's opinion be taken seriously if they haven't even looked at my work? Oh, that's right, it's not worthy to be viewed by you because I didn't have a title, therefore a theme BEFORE I captured the image.
I have read what you've posted, therefore I assume it's what you believe. I've visited your website and have drawn conclusions about your work, or as you've stated, art.
It appears that this thread is intended to convince other people, or yourself, that your process is superior to most other photographers.
I will have to agree with you on one point; you are indeed an artist!
But, I also have to point out that a five year old little girl or boy that has dipped their finger in watercolor and smeared it on paper is also by definition, an ARTIST.
I believe, based on viewing your work, and reading your statements, that the real difference in opinions stems from your apparent very narrow scope of your photography experience. I'm not saying your not experienced at photography, just that all present indicators point in the direction that you have stayed within narrow confines of all that photography offers. Nothing wrong with that, until one tries to convince everyone they their methodology is the only viable method for success.
Let's say that I'm in the great outdoors, and I happen upon a majestic Grizzly bear. I take photographs of said bear. Of course, employing all my photography experience I try to create a compelling image of said bear.
Based on what you've stated in this thread, my image is incomprehensible and not not worthy of being viewed because I did not have a title, therefore a theme beforehand.
This simply put, makes no sense whatsoever!
I am personally interested in some background information on a photographer, (new to this forum), so that I can determine how much weight to give said photographers information.
Do you make 100% of you income from photography?
Are you, or your works famous?
What unique qualifiers do you possess about photography?
It's a two way street here, so for myself:
I am presently an amature photographer.
I did make 100% of my income as a photographer for three and a half years.
I am not famous, nor is any of my work.
I have been published several times in nationally distributed magazines.
I have several thousand post and images on this forum for research if you require more background on me or my work.
All this said for this:
You might want to consider the possibility that your methodology might not work for everyone else, nor be the best practice for others.
All the best...
Randy, this isn't a post on the subject of thematic art, but rather a personal attack. Do rephrase it if you expect a reply.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
edited. unacceptable personal attack Tom. Let's not go there.
And Randy - your contributions to the board are valuable and appreciated but your response to this OP was borderline!
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
there are thousands of art pieces hanging in galleries around the world that have no 'title" so it isn't on;y a photography matter.
some of the most interesting photography throughout the history of the art, by some of the most distinguished of the field, are not "titled". a lack of title allows the viewer to establish his own appreciation for the work sans hints.
we, in this digital age, posting on website threads that require a subject / title to begin the thread have fallen victim to this need to identify intent.
I for one would just as soon see people title their threads "my latest" or some such innocuous fluff
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I don't mind you zapping my post, Angelo, but you should at least edit my remarks in a fashion so as not to confuse folks as to whom I was attacking. It sure wasn't Randy. Thank you.
Tom
Yes, you're right. I corrected my post to reflect this.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Thank you for your comments.
I did look for these untitled ones. Google "famous untitled paintings" and there's piles of abstracts and sketches, one super Picasso portrait. Not much else. the very fact that one has to search for these exceptions is already telling.
That aside, it gets a little trickier with photography, simply because there's a lot of commercial and journalistic stuff, some of it is incredible, wall-hangers by any standard, but they were not conceived as works of art. A cool example of street work is Garry Winograd. Yeah, his work is mostly titled, but the titles are pretty standard: event name, place, year. That's not titles. Super work! Why? In part, because the intent is clear, the context is familiar to most viewers, there's nothing to add. But show it to someone who has never heard of these photographed people -- and the subject will elude them altogether.
Angelo, you are able to appreciate some works sans hints, because you already know the hints. You are familiar with the context. Take it away -- and you will not know what you're looking at. Take a trip to, I don't know, Split, Croatia. Walk around, enjoy the old town, take a bunch of photos. Do so without a guide. Now the context is no longer familiar to you. You won't be able to tell much about your own shots. Years later you might discover that this tiny little Roman-looking house is the actual birthplace of Jupiter. Would that not change the context? Would that not change the way you would have approached photographing it? Would that work not deserve a title?
I'll play along with the innocuous. My next thread will be called "Untitled fluff"! :ivar
Happy Rosh HaShana to those who celebrate!
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
all true but then some of the examples you offer fall under photo-journalism, even travelogue, so titles or descriptions would be necessary.
"untitled fluff" huh?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Alas! You give poor advice, Mr. Moderator. SEX generated 3 pages, yet no takers for "untitled fluff".
I think we should always have a thread going about who's got the longest!
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
I look at your title ("It's all about SEX!") and then the photo and I wonder why you chose that title.
Tom