Still Life; the tension continues

wfeller

-

wfeller

Tamarisk; the Not Whole

r3t1awr3yd

I'm lost

wfeller

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

I'm lost

Interesting.

-

wfeller

http://wwar.com/masters/movements/dadaism.html

r3t1awr3yd

Nope. Even after reading that, I still feel like an idiot. If that was the goal then great job!!

wfeller

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

Nope. Even after reading that, I still feel like an idiot. If that was the goal then great job!!

That's an interesting comment also.

Think of it as about the opposite of what you would think it would be about.

-

Richard

Both are ambiguous and strange. Perhaps it's my monitor--or I'm reading too much into it--but there seems to be a ghost like presence in the first one. A cat? Or is it just dried weeds? And what's with the vaguely humanoid dark form to the back, on the left of the first trunk there? There is an ominous quality to the second. Are we seeing just a bit of a much larger building, which would explain the darkness in the trees, or is this just a small hut about to be attacked by something out of a 50s Japanese horror flick? Or? Dunno, but I don't think I'd like to look inside.

wfeller

Richard wrote: »

Both are ambiguous and strange. Perhaps it's my monitor--or I'm reading too much into it--but there seems to be a ghost like presence in the first one. A cat? Or is it just dried weeds? And what's with the vaguely humanoid dark form to the back, on the left of the first trunk there? There is an ominous quality to the second. Are we seeing just a bit of a much larger building, which would explain the darkness in the trees, or is this just a small hut about to be attacked by something out of a 50s Japanese horror flick? Or? Dunno, but I don't think I'd like to look inside.

That's an assessment as close as any Richard. These are both what seems to me to be almost a parody of photography- I like them both though. I was trying to capture a moment of emotional tension. The first, I think, is the more successful of the two, and actually had quite a bit of planning and processing going on with it to make it look so -- what it is. It's three photos of the same scene with different points of focus. I stacked them. I did notice a subliminal anthropomorphic/human presence type thing going on in the trees on the left, in fact that's what attracted me to the scene. Sort of strange, sort of serious and an exploration. The second is a deserted bungalow. I shot it because of the light and the awkwardness of the composition. Another which I'm thinking is a subconcious play on non-photography, making fun of certain aspects of what I believe (the bulk of) photography is turning or has turned into- that's why my reference to Dadaism- a concept I may explore for awhile.

DaddyO

Mocking photography are we? Who'd have guessed it from just looking.

wfeller

DaddyO wrote: »

Mocking photography are we? Who'd have guessed it from just looking.

Don't you just love the ambiguity of it all? ... Even the comments?

From what I think I understand, the Dadaist painters were mocking, what, the cubists? abstractionists? modern art in general? I've read several different definitions and descriptions. Rather than do what other Dadaist photographers have done (Mann Ray) and are doing (some nut- or actually just about everyone, but unintentionally), out of my frustration in my attempts to excell I've subconciously make an image that follows guidelines but lacks that certain element that many photographers think they have. If I say I did it intentionally, then it's art-- a beautiful image that says nothing, however having something to it that for whatever reason engages the viewer--if they look. The viewer tries to understand what the artist/photographer is saying, because obviously they are saying something, but in reality they are not, and that is how they are making fun of the art and is what they are saying. Psychological layering, or lying? All of a sudden something with no apparent meaning takes on many different meanings, but as a 'serious' parody.

jiro

Maybe, Sir in my limited comprehension, my way of viewing art (whatever this is) with photography as a medium is not yet fully developed to understand your concept with these images. I can dig the antithesis and the juxtapositions done on a dadaistic image. In this case, I can't seem to comprehend it at all. I wish your explanation would further help me understand your work but I'm still at lost. Without any offense to you, Sir I really find the first image "intriguing" as I cannot see which is the main element and which are not. If the main purpose of taking the shot is to create an irrational image then I think you achieved it, Sir.

wfeller

jiro wrote: »

Maybe, Sir in my limited comprehension, my way of viewing art (whatever this is) with photography as a medium is not yet fully developed to understand your concept with these images. I can dig the antithesis and the juxtapositions done on a dadaistic image. In this case, I can't seem to comprehend it at all. I wish your explanation would further help me understand your work but I'm still at lost. Without any offense to you, Sir I really find the first image "intriguing" as I cannot see which is the main element and which are not. If the main purpose of taking the shot is to create an irrational image then I think you achieved it, Sir.

My thoughts are still undeveloped although I think they've been swimming around below the surface for several years. Dadaism is just a starting point. I'm not real concerned with what other photographer/artists are doing with it, but what I feel is the concept. The first image is the more important of the two. There is no main element other than the entire image. If that is irrational, then it is intentionally so (I believe to make it rational) rather than the unintentionally irrational believed to be rational by the status quo. Understanding is not the intention of the image although a viewer may understand the intention of the image by viewing. I think many images I've seen have no intention although the photographer believes them to have one.

Here's a portion of another definition of Dadaism -
"... flouting conventional aesthetic and cultural values by producing works marked by nonsense, travesty, and incongruity."

I'm thinking I'd like to produce something a little more subtle than that.

-

Dogdots

You certainly have crossed into something I know nothing about. Had me reading up about Dadaism for the last 1/2 hour. Looking at other photos, etc. Even my hubby and I had a discussion on our interruption of it's definition/definitions

From my readings the Dadaist artist is mocking art/artists/people and the world happenings in general. Maybe its their way to rebel .. that I don't know. First piece of art my hubby thought about was the crucifix in urine that made the news awhile ago. Me .. it reminded me of the posters one could buy back in the 60's...Peace Not War with lot's of stuff packed onto a poster size piece of paper one would hang on their wall. You had to hunt to find little tidbits of 'what they are saying' within that artwork.

I see a grove of trees in your first photo. Made me want to take a walk through there and see what lies ahead or deeper within. But .. it did have my eyes hunting for something with-in it. And for that it was sucessfull Dadaism wise since in those types of photos you do have someone looking for the hidden, different, changed, altered, etc. Same with your second photo .. it had me looking for a shadow of someone in the doorway.

Maybe I'm way off ....

Will say tho .. I'll be thinking about this

wfeller

Dogdots wrote: »

You certainly have crossed into something I know nothing about. Had me reading up about Dadaism for the last 1/2 hour. Looking at other photos, etc. Even my hubby and I had a discussion on our interruption of it's definition/definitions

From my readings the Dadaist artist is mocking art/artists/people and the world happenings in general. Maybe its their way to rebel .. that I don't know. First piece of art my hubby thought about was the crucifix in urine that made the news awhile ago. Me .. it reminded me of the posters one could buy back in the 60's...Peace Not War with lot's of stuff packed onto a poster size piece of paper one would hang on their wall. You had to hunt to find little tidbits of 'what they are saying' within that artwork.

I see a grove of trees in your first photo. Made me want to take a walk through there and see what lies ahead or deeper within. But .. it did have my eyes hunting for something with-in it. And for that it was sucessfull Dadaism wise since in those types of photos you do have someone looking for the hidden, different, changed, altered, etc. Same with your second photo .. it had me looking for a shadow of someone in the doorway.

Maybe I'm way off ....

Will say tho .. I'll be thinking about this

I think the idea is to take a concept like Dadaism and develop my own interpretation of it. I've seen some of what you're talking about and I'm not of the same school- at all. I'm going for what you said you've found in it, pretty much nothing with the exception of having your mind work and search for the point--to take up the viewers time. I couldn't begin to estimate how many times I've seen absolutely gorgeous photos and passed on to the next within seconds. I feel so jaded. Now to have an image that for all intents and purposes appears to have all the elements but the 'main' element, and to have the viewer stop and search for it, to consider the image and what it says, then to come to their own conclusion that it says nothing, at least to me says something. Possibly this could happen randomly, but to consistantly do this with that specific concept in mind, to produce something showing or saying nothing, well, that would be something. ???

Considering the 'legal' definition
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parody

I find the following interesting:
Some forms of parody and satire are difficult to distinguish from truthful publications.

Subtle and not to insult or be controversial (to a point), but to have some fun with. I think the insecure would have the most problem with the technique. And again, that's not to insult or direct, but a theory I think would be interesting to observe in action. Sort of turning the tables in the relationship between the artist and the viewer.

I'm thinking this could be developed into a great circular argument.

Is it real?

-

Dogdots

wfeller wrote: »

I think the idea is to take a concept like Dadaism and develop my own interpretation of it. I've seen some of what you're talking about and I'm not of the same school- at all. I'm going for what you said you've found in it, pretty much nothing with the exception of having your mind work and search for the point--to take up the viewers time. I couldn't begin to estimate how many times I've seen absolutely gorgeous photos and passed on to the next within seconds. I feel so jaded. Now to have an image that for all intents and purposes appears to have all the elements but the 'main' element, and to have the viewer stop and search for it, to consider the image and what it says, then to come to their own conclusion that it says nothing, at least to me says something. Possibly this could happen randomly, but to consistantly do this with that specific concept in mind, to produce something showing or saying nothing, well, that would be something. ???

Considering the 'legal' definition
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parody

I find the following interesting:
Some forms of parody and satire are difficult to distinguish from truthful publications.

Subtle and not to insult or be controversial (to a point), but to have some fun with. I think the insecure would have the most problem with the technique. And again, that's not to insult or direct, but a theory I think would be interesting to observe in action. Sort of turning the tables in the relationship between the artist and the viewer.

I'm thinking this could be developed into a great circular argument.

Is it real?

-

I agree with you ... this could develop into a circular argument

If your going for what I saw and what Richard thought he might of seen then you succeed

Qarik

Don't feed the trolls.

Juano

Wow, you sure got people stirred up! The whole idea of provoking something out of nothingness is interesting. It's a bit like playing a Beatles record backwards and wanting to hear hidden messages. If that's the point well done.

wfeller

Juano wrote: »

Wow, you sure got people stirred up! The whole idea of provoking something out of nothingness is interesting. It's a bit like playing a Beatles record backwards and wanting to hear hidden messages. If that's the point well done.

Every now and again things need to be stirred. Richard, Michael, Mary, and a few others have given me a lot of support, understanding, and food for thought in the past, especially through last summer when I decided to try an alternative approach to my photography. I very much appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

Richard

Artists have often puzzled over the question "what is art?" The answer changes over time, mainly as a result of artists themselves exploring the boundaries and facing ridicule and rejection in the process. Some have only found recognition long after they are dead, as public taste is slow to adapt. Acceptance is by no means guaranteed: it depends on the emergence of a consensus among artists, critics, curators, academics, patrons and (eventually) consumers themselves. Most attempts to explore new ground fail to capture popular support, and some that do end up as fads which are simply embarrassing twenty years later. So it's not an easy path to follow. Kudos to Walter for trying to rethink things and attempting something different.

Dogdots

Richard wrote: »

Kudos to Walter for trying to rethink things and attempting something different.

I agree .. Kudos to Walter for trying something different Also for sharing his travels through the process. It's a learning experience for him and for us/me.