What's your best VISUAL teacher?

[Heroique]

I’m thunder-struck by the replies to an ongoing thread about art books.

The poster says, “I know nothing about art,” and appeals to us for help.

He asks for “something to read.” Next comes an avalanche of replies (w/ the occasional exception) directing the curious poster to texts – not images. That is, it seems the great majority of people, in their wish to be helpful, took the poster at his word!

But does this raise any eyebrows? :confused:

The unstated assumption behind all the text-happy recommendations is that actual paintings, actual photographs are secondary to what acknowledged masters & clever critics have to say about them – go first to their words!

Perhaps the best example:


Any suggestions? I know nothing about ART, hopefully it can help me with my photo-taking.


Another book which I consider the most important literary work of last century is Proust's "In Search of Lost Time". The book itself is an incredible work of art and it also contains many discussions of art.

Granted, the OP’s request is a bit unclear, and will naturally inspire a diversity of replies, all of which mean to be supportive. But I’m going to make a bold assumption: I’m going to interpret his “nothing” to mean “nothing.” If this is so, shouldn’t one’s investigation about art begin with the visual? And if so, shouldn’t Step 1 be a careful and inquisitive look at real subjects in front of one’s very own eyes? Shouldn’t this investigation, only then, continue with paintings & photos by others, the good and the bad?

Why this immediate and overwhelming emphasis to start w/ words, words, words?

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?

[Kirk Gittings]

It does not raise my eyebrows at all. People look at hundreds of photographic images a day but that does not by itself raise anyone's critical thinking or knowledge base about imagery (I'm not talking about technique here). I'm sure that he has looked at tens of thousands of images in his lifetime and still he feels like that was not informative enough. Its oftentimes not enough to simply look at more and more and more images, one may need to step back and think about the history, social context and critical thinking about image making and books can help in this as can art history classes etc.

Before university, art education is absolutely abysmal in this country and anyone who wants to increase their knowledge by doing some reading gets my support.

[Vaughn]

He specifically asked for "Art Books to Read" in the title of his post -- how is that unclear?

Images are everywhere...I assume if he wanted a list of artists for to look at their work, he would have said so. It hard to curl up with a photograph or painting on a cold winter's night.

Vaughn

[rdenney]

I learned art first by studying the art made by others. Art history in college comprised looking at the art produced throughout time. The art courses I took had very few words. They had lots of gesture drawings, line quality studies, composition studies, and so forth, all working from real subjects and the work comprising actual art.

This didn't teach me all that much about how to discuss art, but it taught me a little (within the scope of my own vision and talent) about expression.

When I studied architecture, we spent a lot of time looking at buildings. We built things (mostly models) and we experienced spaces. We spent very little time talking about buildings, other than their purely mechanical aspects.

What skill I have with writing came from reading.

Studying music can be quite technical, but the only reason I study the technical parts is because of the sounds in my head and my need to express them, and those came from listening to music.

In all cases, the basic learning process for me as a practitioner was to fill my head with good examples, and then try to first emulate those examples until I gained an understanding of them sufficient to find my own modes of expression (if indeed I ever have). If one wants to be a practitioner, I think that's as good an approach as any and maybe the only approach that can work for those who lack genius.

But that is poor training for someone who will want to discuss art, or architecture, or literature, or music. To discuss those things, they need to be able to describe those expressions, and that's the reason such work ends up being categorized and dated. I can hear Mozart in my head, and I can hear Beethoven, and I can hear Wagner. I can hear that they are different, and I can even hear how Beethoven drew from Mozart and how Wagner drew from Beethoven. But I would have to read a book to know that Mozart was classical, that Beethoven was the turning point from classical to romantic, and that Wagner was fully romantic.

Likewise, I can see Rembrandt in my head, and I can see, say, Van Gogh. I can see how the former leads to the latter. But it takes reading to categorize them.

And so on. I would have a hard time discussing those categorizations with literature, just because I have not studied it in that way, though I have read a lot.

I suspect much of what people study when they study art in college is what they need to know to describe and discuss art more than what they need to know to express themselves artistically. There is a connection between the two, but that connection is the experience of art, not the description of it, or so it seems to me.

That said, I think it takes more than looking around. Many are marvelous observers, but lack the discipline to turn their three-dimensional observation into two-dimensional art. They may also lack the willingness to explore their own responses to that three-dimensional observation as a means of determining what they really want to express in their art. That has always been the stumbling block for me, and it is not, I don't believe, related in any way to what I have or have not read about photography or art.

I do, however, remember my first good art teacher yelling at me, "Rick! You are being lazy. Show me what you SEE." He was demanding that discipline.

Rick "who now has to read that other thread" Denney

[Doremus Scudder]

Heroique,

While I share some of your sentiment, I too feel that, in the end analysis, art is about ideas, and that learning about art, and how to interpret and understand images, music, literature, etc. requires some knowledge about context, intent, philosophy, and so on.

Usually, the best method for acquiring an overview of the myriad of different approaches and purposes for art is verbal; usually written. It would be assumed, of course, that books about visual art would contain many images in addition to the text. These images, which often require a substantial amount of foreknowledge on the part of the observer in order to appreciate fully, would be explained and contextualized for the uninitiated. I do not find this a bad thing. Once one becomes conversant with the milieu, impetus and techniques in a particular medium at a particular time, one can then make one's own assessments.

However, until that conversance is reached, one is insufficiently equipped to appreciate. Books, by presenting the concepts and critical thinking involved in understanding an art form, can really help in bringing one to a level where one can both understand the art work being viewed and make their own judgments as to its effectiveness.

I don't think one could learn to be an art critic or appreciate the great majority of art (including music, literature, etc.), much less become a viable artist herself, by simply being exposed to the art works themselves without any kind of initiation or introduction. Finding ways to get this kind of orientation, I believe, is what the original poster was requesting. Books, classes, docent tours, lectures, and the like are just the ticket for acquiring this kind of knowledge. Only after one has enough to bring to an artwork can one fully understand and appreciate it. I don't think it works the other way around very often.

As for your question, a huge influence on my development as a photographer was the art history courses I took in university and the many exhibits of art I have attended in galleries. Usually, the works that affected me the most were not photographic in nature. These experiences, however, were never just limited to images; there was always an element of explanation (especially in the classes!) to both contextualize and give insight into the artists' motivations. For me, there was a memorable exhibition of Whistler at the Tate Gallery, a dismal exhibition of Dadaism at the Guggenheim in Venice (knowing what you don't like is important as well...), pre-Rahpaelites in Portland, and a host of others. Each had elements that I could embrace as well as those I rejected. The ongoing process shapes my ideas, clarifies my vision and nurtures my growth.

And for me, the strictly VISUAL is not necessarily the most important. I am hugely influenced and inspired by the non-visual arts; I often feel my photography is more influenced by Mahler and Whitman, Verdi and Shakespeare, Feynman, Wolff, Mozart, Freud and Jung than by visual influences...

So, while not answering your question directly, I would like to gently contest your underlying assumption that the VISUAL is the source for creating visually. I really don't believe that. For me, a painting can move the same way as a poem, or a symphony. After all, the goal is often the same; only the paths are divergent.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[Merg Ross]

My suggestion, although the title might give a different impression, was a book of images linked by the thoughtful words of the author: Language of Vision by Gyorgy Kepes. A journey through the book will provide one with images of works by: L. Moholy Nagy, Klee, Duchamp, Matisse, Man Ray, Rembrandt, Mondrian, Seurat, Braque, as well as Spanish cave drawings, calligraphy, photomontage, photograms, and a long list of visual effects that relate to photography. There is very little work of photographers presented.

Looking at his work, I wonder if Andrew is as naive about art as his query implies. His images display an intuitive mastery of composition.

[Richard M. Coda]

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?

Looking at photographs and other artforms helps me. Also, just getting out there and "seeing". Granted, there's a lot of bad art/photography out there now (yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

Talking... seems over-rated. Those that can, do. Those that can't, talk [read what you want into that]. Another favorite movie quote (again from "On Golden Pond") "Well, I don't know why everybody has to talk about everything all the time."

If an image needs an inordinate amount of text to attempt to convey what the image maker intended, then the image has failed. A friend of mine recently commented on my blog... "When explanation is required it takes away from the photo and in 50 years when the culture has changed and the explanation is lost, the image will be meaningless."

[rdenney]

However, until that conversance is reached, one is insufficiently equipped to appreciate. Books, by presenting the concepts and critical thinking involved in understanding an art form, can really help in bringing one to a level where one can both understand the art work being viewed and make their own judgments as to its effectiveness.

I don't think one could learn to be an art critic or appreciate the great majority of art (including music, literature, etc.), much less become a viable artist herself, by simply being exposed to the art works themselves without any kind of initiation or introduction.

I agree with your conclusion that art in its many forms influences art in its other forms, and my musical and architectural training absolutely affect my photography and vice versa.

But I must disagree with the statements above.

I once wrote a lengthy article on the Vaughan Williams Concerto for Bass Tuba, in itself not a particularly significant work but for tuba players like me just about all there is from a great composer. I have a number of recordings, and my article went into a lot of detail and analysis of the different approaches over time. Having done that, I am now unable to hear that work simply for what it is. I find myself comparing it to this influence or that, and the simple experience of listening to it has been lost for me.

I don't mind intellectual pursuits, of course, but I wish I'd left well enough alone, and left the analysis to someone who knows a lot about music but who doesn't particularly like it much.

Most really good artists I know are reluctant to delve too deeply into their thought processes. I think one reason is that they don't really need to know what those processes are, as long as they work. Another reason might be that they are afraid they might destroy what works by taking it apart.

John Bunyan wrote, of writing, "As I pulled, it came." That seems to me both wise and profound, though not necessarily intellectual.

There is absolutely a difference between learning to be a practitioner and learning to be a critic. I can see the value to a practitioner in experiencing the whole history of art--one cannot shine a light into darkness until the limits of what is already lit have been explored--but I'm not sure all practitioners need to sit around trying to unravel what can and perhaps should be a mysterious process.

Rick "for whom the great challenge of art is getting the analytical mind out of the way" Denney

[jnanian]

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?


there are many things that help me

cooking
observing and listening
being with ( and not being with ) people
watching clouds
remembering my dreams
not being stingy with film / paper + shooting as much as i can
not being afraid to experiment

[Brian Ellis]

I’m thunder-struck by the replies to an ongoing thread about art books.

The poster says, “I know nothing about art,” and appeals to us for help.

Actually he didn't make a generic request for help. He asked for suggestions for books to READ

He asks for “something to read.” Next comes an avalanche of replies (w/ the occasional exception) directing the curious poster to texts – not images. That is, it seems the great majority of people, in their wish to be helpful, took the poster at his word!

Yes, we tried to be helpful and assumed that when he asked about books to READ he meant he wanted suggestions for books to READ

But does this raise any eyebrows? :confused:

Didn't raise my eyebrows at all. But your response certainly does.

The unstated assumption behind all the text-happy recommendations is that actual paintings, actual photographs are secondary to what acknowledged masters & clever critics have to say about them – go first to their words!

Not at all. He didn't ask for ways to become better informed about art or ways to improve his art education. Had he asked that I'm sure he would have received responses very different from those given to him. But that isn't what he asked for. He asked for suggested books to READ

Granted, the OP’s request is a bit unclear [It didn't seem at all unclear to me. When someone asks about books to READ I'm pretty sure I know what they mean. You really find that unclear?, and will naturally inspire a diversity of replies, all of which mean to be supportive. But I’m going to make a bold assumption: I’m going to interpret his “nothing” to mean “nothing.” If this is so, shouldn’t one’s investigation about art begin with the visual? Not necessarily. My formal art education began with courses that combined the visual with text. But that's irrelevant because he didn't ask about the best way to improve his knowledge of art. He's already decided that he'd like to READ about art. So he was given information about books to READ And if so, shouldn’t Step 1 be a careful and inquisitive look at real subjects in front of one’s very own eyes? No. Shouldn’t this investigation, only then, continue with paintings & photos by others, the good and the bad? Not necessarily

Why this immediate and overwhelming emphasis to start w/ words, words, words?
Because the OP asked about books to READ and READING means words, words, words. /B]
It leaves me very curious – [b]what helps you become a better photographer?
Lots of things, all of which are way beyond the OP's request

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?
Sounds like a good topic for a thread you might want to start. But it has nothing to do with what the OP asked for

[brian d]

what helps you become a better photographer?
Large Format Photography Forum and APUG help me more than anything

[Heroique]

He specifically asked for "Art Books to Read" in the title of his post -- how is that unclear?

(Apologies, I thought it “a bit unclear” whether Andrew meant art images to see, or art history to read – inside books in either case. He says he knows “nothing,” so I presume that means both. And if so, the best place to start, I argue, is with art images. With a tweak. That is – 1st, real-life images before one’s eyes; and 2nd, images in books & elsewhere. It's a progression that seems natural to me for one who knows "nothing." Only then on to words, such as art history and criticism. The heap of replies to Andrew begins in the opposite direction – and has made me curious about the process by which photographers here sharpen their visual talents. The answers so far are quite revealing.)

[Nathan Potter]

I think the OP originally and wisely asked for books on art as Brian has pointed out. Why would he do this rather than specify photographs that he could study? The answer is that he is skilled in communication by reading because that's what he has studied and learned from childhood. The best of the writers about photographic art are brilliant wordsmiths and often have been involved with photography for many years. They speak a language that the OP can understand so that he can assimilate their ideas of what constitutes great photography in an artistic sense. A study of actual photographs is handy but most useful in the context of the written word.

There is no point where a photograph becomes a piece of art despite that many of us try to find that point. The real challenge with photography is that we are stuck with what is there. Visually all we can do, for example, is rearrange the parts, catch unique instances of time, eliminate the extraneous and employ fine craftsmanship throughout the sequence. I think it is one of the more restrictive of the artistic mediums because it is devilishly difficult to impart a sense of the photographer into the image. Now there's a pragmatic answer.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[D. Bryant]

(Apologies, I thought it “a bit unclear” whether Andrew meant art images to see, or art history to read – inside books in either case. He says he knows “nothing,” so I presume that means both.

Just a little reminder here: Without the invention of photography, most of the world would know little about "Art". There are plenty of opportunities for someone to encounter or study "Art" if that is their desire (at least in affluent societies.) But I'm not sure knowledge of "Art" will make one a better photographer. I'm not sure I know what is meant by "better photographer."

Was Atget a "trained" artist? Trained meaning educated in art.

Were the cave painters "trained" artists?

Technology has progressed, but not "Art". Our "Art" is different from the caveman but not better.

I think Callahan expressed it well - take more pictures.

"I photograph continuously, often without a good idea or strong feelings. During this time the photos are nearly all poor but I believe they develop my seeing and help later on in other photos. I do believe strongly in photography and hope by following it intuitively that when the photographs are looked at they will touch the spirit in people." - Harry Callahan

[Vaughn]

(Apologies...

None needed, and even the wrong question can yield answers of great benefit.

Not being an art student (I got my degree in Natural Resources Management), and having a natural distrust of dogma of any kind, I have not gone out of my way to delve deeply into the world of art critique and scholarship.

But I have had the opportunity to listen and look at the work of many photographers -- being an assistant to the Friends of Photography was wonderful for that -- and reading and looking at photographs (and other types of art) keep adding to my knowledge and experience.

But my best visual teacher has been light -- the main reason I photograph is to remain a student of this teacher and learn what I can.

Vaughn

D. Bryant -- some of the most important photographs I have taken -- one's that I learn greatly from -- were taken over a three month period with a camera with a massive light leak. I was hitchhiking through New Zealand with a 4x5. Rides were often difficult to get, and I walked miles down the roads until I got the next ride. And as I walked I printed the negatives in my mind. Once home, I found only a couple negatives that could be printed, but the experience and the mental prints still affect my photography today, almost 30 years later.

[Merg Ross]

There is no point where a photograph becomes a piece of art despite that many of us try to find that point. The real challenge with photography is that we are stuck with what is there. Visually all we can do, for example, is rearrange the parts, catch unique instances of time, eliminate the extraneous and employ fine craftsmanship throughout the sequence. I think it is one of the more restrictive of the artistic mediums because it is devilishly difficult to impart a sense of the photographer into the image. Now there's a pragmatic answer.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate, excellent!

This, from one of my favorite photographers: "The painter starts with a blank canvas and adds to it until satisfied; the photographer, with a blank piece of film and the whole universe to choose from, discards until satisfied. That they should so often arrive at the same conclusion is the nature of Man, not the medium!"

[Heroique]

I don't think one could learn to … appreciate the great majority of art … by simply being exposed to the art works themselves without any kind of initiation or introduction.

Doremus,

What a super response to a prickly issue! (And I mean your full response, which I mostly agree with, not just the quoted portion above, which I question.) I’ve only just now read through your entire post carefully. Thank you once again. :)

And I think most would agree this particular portion identifies the key issue – What does a beginner need to learn to appreciate art? I’m curious how many agree with your assessment; I don’t think I do, and may very well fall into the minority.

If I were to agree with you, I would say, yes, the beginner, like Andrew, needs an “initiation” and “introduction” to art by someone else. Certainly not just direct, unmediated “exposure” to it. (Makes it sound like he could get hurt!)

And for many of us here who experience art – legitimately – through the prism of a powerful, formal education, it’s an idea that’s supremely difficult to resist or question. Especially when you’ve articulated the idea so civilly, so beautifully.

In light of your generous and thought-provoking reply – especially what I think is the provocative part above – the following three questions, whose answers I of course don’t claim to have, occur to me, and I hope they’ll inspire additional posts with the quality yours always seem to possess:

— Can a beginner feel the full impact of an artwork without help?
— If so, can he or she learn, and continue to learn what’s important from these direct experiences?
— And if not, how does one account for trans-cultural or trans-temporal aesthetic experiences? (You know, the mysterious type that “takes off your head” no matter your cultural background or formal knowledge.)

[csant]

There is little that can be added to the excellent replies given earlier in this thread. I fully agree with the basic message: it is not *looking at* images that needs to be helped, it is "reading" those images that needs to be "educated" - through the words of somebody who'd guide you towards understanding the work of art better. Words are not the final goal you are aspiring at, but they are one of the means towards your goal of understanding better what you are working with.

[csant]

— Can a beginner feel the full impact of an artwork without help?

Simple answer - no. Since "full" would here encompass not only the direct environment in which the work was produced, the personality and complete output of the very artist producing it, the cultural contexts the work was experienced in, and the traces it left throughout history, etc… Of course you can enjoy a work of art without help, but that enjoyment (and maybe even recognizing that it *is* a work of art) heavily depends on your personal context - whether you have seen other, similar works, whether you know what it is, and how it was produced, whether you know who did it (and know the artist personally), etc.


— If so, can he or she learn, and continue to learn what’s important from these direct experiences?

Of course - it's all about learning! There are different ways and levels of learning, and they all lead to different results - without it being possible to say which one would be better. But somehow I believe that words are necessary - whether you'd have the luck of having somebody there to talk to you, or whether you'd read it in a book or on the internet doesn't play a role. Consider e.g. the simple fact that in our current world, there'd be little way of knowing for most that what you see on your computer is not (for example) the actual photograph, but a digital scan of the "real" work…


— And if not, how does one account for trans-cultural or trans-temporal aesthetic experiences? (You know, the mysterious type that “takes off your head” no matter your cultural background or formal knowledge.)

History teaches us that there has been also a *big* deal of trans-cultural and trans-temporal "misunderstandings" - think not only about all those artists misunderstood in their own lifetime, but also all the things some cultures have destroyed of other cultures they have encountered: not only because they have actually *recognized* them as art, and therefore *threatening* (think some dictatorial regimes), but also because they had no clue that it was art (think Europeans meeting some indigenous cultures). There are some deeply rooted, instinctive reactions in us - but any aesthetic appreciation is cultural, and "no matter your cultural background or formal knowledge" is only valid within "your" cultural context (which is, for those that are on this forum, prevalently and heavily Euro-American tainted…).

[jp498]

there are many things that help me

cooking
observing and listening
being with ( and not being with ) people
watching clouds
remembering my dreams
not being stingy with film / paper + shooting as much as i can
not being afraid to experiment

I like some of those. I'd add:

deliberate simplifying/slowing down, if only for the weekend; makes observing easier.

digital photography; it might not be what you want all the time, but the instant feedback is helpful for learning new things. I and others have waned in the past in our enthusiasm and practice of photography due to getting too busy to keep active in photography. For people that like computers, digital photography is photographic crack cocaine with the instant gratification, flexibility and easy results. Now I'm back full steam using both B&W film and color digital.

I don't credit books for teaching art. Sometimes books are inspiring for different types of photography and they can get artistic. For artistic inspiration in sports photography, someone might study Sports Illustrated as they are a big step up from the local newspaper or feed. For nature photography, you might read some Thoreau to polish up your observing skills, then an Elliot Porter photo book to color sense and inspiration.

I don't think formal art education is in any way a requirement for good photography. Some art history is good though for a background and primer on how people have addressed the basics in the past. You can see what has changed and what has not.

[Struan Gray]

I find reading helps....

[Hugo Zhang]

Old paintings. Especially "that little patch of yellow wall" from Vermeer...

From Joyce:

"Kind air defined the coigns of houses in Kildare street. No birds. Frail from the housetops two plumes of smoke ascended, pluming, and in a flow of softness softly were blown."

"A patient silhouette waited, listening."

"His downcast eyes followed the silent veining of the oaken slab. Beauty: it curves, curves are beauty."

"She bestows fat pears neatly, head by tail, and among them ripe shamefaced peaches."

"an elderly female with false teeth smiling incredulously"

"The boys sixeyed Father Conmee and laughed: _O, sir. "

[W K Longcor]

When my oldest son, (now in his late 30's -- heaven help me! I must be getting OLD!) was in 1st grade, his teacher had a little sign on the wall --" I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I DO and I understand. " I think the important thing is - DO all that you can to learn -- read, look at images, -- make images. And, when the time comes, teach others -- and you will learn even more. My own photography was good -- until I started to teach photography to students in a professional art school - WOW! did MY images improve! I learned more from my students than they learned from me -- but that was OK, I became a better teacher from it.

[csant]

And, when the time comes, teach others -- and you will learn even more.

Nothing more true. I am a professional musician, and one of the most educational (to myself) things I do is teaching. :)

[Drew Wiley]

My teacher? My aunt. She was collected by every major museum in this country and
some of the best in Europe too. How did she influence me? She told my mother never
to allow me to go to art school or it would ruin me. It's that simple, although the
two of us had a lot of vivid discussions about certain images or techniques per se.
Her posthumous website is www.muralist.org.

[Doremus Scudder]

Wow! I've been away too long and have too much to answer here. However, I'll give things a shot.

Rick, I understand exactly what you mean about getting burnt out on a piece by over analyzing it. Just last year I finished up my doctorate in vocal pedagogy and musicology; it took me almost this last full year before I could face the pieces in the subject I did the dissertation on... However, that was not what I meant.

What I believe is that there are many aspects of a fine art, be it music, painting, etc. that have been arrived at by, in effect, a succession of artists standing on the shoulders of those that preceded them. Expansion, reaction (for and against), returning to the roots, are included here, plus the inevitable "secret codes" of allusion, form, iconography, etc. Just as it is hard to read Dante and Shakespeare without a knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology and literature, it is hard to get the full impact of medieval religious painting without a knowledge of the iconography involved, as it is hard to understand Beethoven's revolution and innovation without a prior knowledge of classical musical forms. It is precisely these kind of things that are usually more easily acquired by being told; either by a real person in a classroom/lecture situation or, for many of us autodidacts, by reading. Add to this a contextualizing aspect; what role did art play in the time and society of the artist being considered? What specific things amplify or deny that role, etc., etc.

It is this kind of knowledge that I am referring to when I advocate reading. My own personal goal is to reach the level of Michelangelo's "God Creates Man" from the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It is both immediately accessible to the "uneducated" public, but is chock full of things that reveal themselves to the more initiated and enrich their experience; elements of form, iconography, and technique all contribute to a greater appreciation and greater emotional impact to those who can see them. The more of this kind of knowledge one can bring to a work, either as audience or artist, the richer the resulting experience or creation.

BTW, I like the Vaughan-Williams tuba concerto a lot.

Heroique, (whew, I'll have to go back and take a look at your post again before responding)... Ok, here I go:

"Can a beginner feel the full impact of an artwork without help?" I really think not. There are not many things in our society that do not require training, initiation, schooling. To me, asking someone to decode medieval art without giving them any information about the culture and, most importantly, the religious iconography involved would be like giving children the collected works of Shakespeare and telling them to figure out how to read. We humans, whether we like it or not (and often I don't...) are dependent on society, infrastructure, training, education; in short, learning from others. Art is no different. Sure, there are exceptional talents that need less of this; they have learned to learn from the sources directly. That, however, still implies a period of initial learning. You can't decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs without at least a Rosetta Stone to get you going, and then it is a long and arduous process. What makes us humans unique is that we can rely on the knowledge of others to get us up to the present state of the art and then go from there, thereby eliminating the time-consuming process of figuring it out for ourselves. I, for one, would much rather be able to acquire knowledge this was instead of figuring everything out for myself. This is why I think instruction, be it reading or lectures or whatever, is necessary.


"If so, can he or she learn, and continue to learn what’s important from these direct experiences?" Direct experience, in my view, is limited by what we perceive and what we understand. These two important qualities limit what we can know. (Aristotle agrees with me on this :-). "Direct experience" of, say, an Edward Weston photograph is different for a dog than a human, and different for a thoughtful, educated, and critical thinking human than for a, say, child, who, though equipped with intellect and ability, is still a blank slate and brings nothing to the "direct experience" of an artwork with which to make connections and draw understandings. So, I would say that direct experience depends on the mental acuity and preparedness of the observer. Certainly, education and initiation play huge roles in the final experience. I hope this reductio ad absurdum is not simply ridiculous, but points to the salient role of 1) intellect and 2) acquired knowledge in the notion of "experience."

"And if not, how does one account for trans-cultural or trans-temporal aesthetic experiences? (You know, the mysterious type that “takes off your head” no matter your cultural background or formal knowledge.)" Here, I might argue that artwork of the kind you describe relies for its impact on either innate characteristics of humanity or universal/common knowledge that is generally present in the entire populace. Certainly, a baby would not react to a work in the way that you describe; it does take quite a bit of training, acculturation, and education just to become a thinking, functioning adult in human societies. Much of what we learn as general knowledge is utilized by artists. In works with such appeal, however, there are often elements of a more specialized and arcane nature which, if seen and understood, give the artwork even more depth and impact. The best art, in my opinion, works on many different levels; The more one knows and brings to the work, the more profound the experience will be.

That's a summary, in a rather large nutshell... Looking forward to your response(s).

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[Andrew ren]

You can't decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs without at least a Rosetta Stone to get you going, and then it is a long and arduous process. What makes us humans unique is that we can rely on the knowledge of others to get us up to the present state of the art and then go from there, thereby eliminating the time-consuming process of figuring it out for ourselves. I, for one, would much rather be able to acquire knowledge this was instead of figuring everything out for myself. This is why I think instruction, be it reading or lectures or whatever, is necessary.

this WAS exactly my point

[rdenney]

Doremus, I find myself wishing I could argue with you well enough to encourage you to write more.

Rhetorical question: How did I come to the point as a musical listener of appreciating the avant garde? Most who have little listening experience have never developed a taste for it. Reading a book about, for example, John Cage might make some curious to hear a representative work, but I doubt it would give them the tools to appreciate it, even if they enjoyed the book. I suspect those tools come through the ears, not the eyes. But having arrived through the ears, that appreciation might be enhanced by understanding its context and development. That's not a choice between receiving art as a child versus as an adult, as you describe, but rather as an experienced adult versus a learned adult.

Of course, that does not mean experience and learning are necessarily in conflict, but it does mean they aren't necessarily mutually required.

Rick "suspecting that learning about something through reading is often a way to avoid doing it" Denney

[archer]

Dear Drew;
Your blessed aunt was not only very gifted but very wise. Ansel Adams gave me nearly the same advice in 1956. He told me to first learn the craft so that you can then put into the print what you see in your head, not what someone tells you what to see and how to see it.
Denise Libby

[jnanian]

SNIP


"... put into the print what you see in your head, not what someone else tells you what to see ..."

in art school someone tells you what to put on the paper, and and how to see ?
that wasn't the way it was when i took classes in art school ...

[Heroique]

What makes us humans unique is that we can rely on the knowledge of others … eliminating the time-consuming process of figuring it out for ourselves.


It is precisely [art works] that are usually more easily acquired by being told [to us]; either by a real person in a classroom/lecture situation or, for many of us autodidacts, by reading.

Doremus,

Your prose is beautiful, your traditional arguments are solid, and your examples and references illustrating them are forceful and exact – but I’ll just go ahead and say what you mean:

“The art object is not where a beginner should start.”

Nor should he simply count on a normal upbringing, plus five healthy senses, to get him through the encounter.

A lot of my formal education begs me to accept this assertion.

A lot of it also asks me to reconsider it with a pinch of doubt.

For yours is the hieratic approach to art that, as you know, enjoys a long, happy, successful life in our Western tradition. It’s mainly about the priest who lifts the veil and explains, not about the onlooker who feels and perceives. It’s so successful, that I can’t even think of a broadly successful challenge to it until 1750 when Rousseau read the essay question from the Academy of Dijon – whether the arts have been conducive to the purification of the morals – and simply said “No!”

(This is the same protest that comes from Drew Wiley’s artist-aunt, in post #25, who alerted him to the potentially ruinous consequences of “art” school.)

I think your approach – and it’s a legitimate one I often share – naturally explains the appearance in your posts of “children,” and “babies,” your expressions for the passivity or helplessness of those w/o the benefit of cultural priests. I’ll be quick to acknowledge these are perfectly suitable images for your argument, and may even be suitable subjects for your benevolent concern. But I’m also going to add a quick word in support of their independent value. (Yes, Rousseau’s “savage” also occurs to me.) For many people, these are words that stand for the elemental human passions that make our initial and continuing relationship with art possible. By forgetting to start with them, or by abandoning them along the road toward cultivation, it’s just not possible to “soar into the heavens.” You lose your wings. Wordsworth agrees with me on this. ;)

Of course, just about all of us aim for the rich, complex, interdisciplinary experience of art – the same one you’ve described so well. It’s pretty wonderful. I just wanted to introduce a little doubt about how the beginner should start on the journey. Or better, how much we should trust the beginner to his own sensibilities about the art work in front of him. I say, “let the baby walk.”

[sun of sand]

I know in sports it is practice what counts
You can read a zillion books and still be a klutz
in fact, the more time you spend reading the less athletic you'll be
You can observe the greats but without the practice all you'll be is "that guy" at the party talking about why he was the greatest
with no real understanding of why

When I see posts like "I know nothing about.."
I believe these are for the most part people who want to be "that guy"


I believe people put meaning to artwork after the fact in order to sell it/job security/job creation


I know some stuff
I know there are tons of people who have years of education beyond me
but I would never allow anyone to believe they have the better shot at seeing the profound/great in something
I just don't believe learned words translate to ability

I would happily test it


Writing talent from reading is IMO
I truly believe this
partially plagiaristic
Assemblage -quick search for a better def.- may be a better way to describe whats going on

People using "fresh" words because others are tired is just one reason why I believe this
People take and when everyone has taken the same thing everyone begins to catch on to whats happening and a "new" word styling/phrasing comes about

[Andrew ren]

normally,

we walk with 2 legs.
one is practice.

and keep learning/reading and such will be another leg.

for me.

Andrew

[Andrew ren]

...
Why this immediate and overwhelming emphasis to start w/ words, words, words?
...


at certain point, I think I should turn to "texts" instead of "images".

I always think that the "Internet/intranet" we owned and participated right now could be a 2-blade sword. you can browse thru almost every great's work, and the question will be how to keep your work be yourself?

then, I will, again, turn to "texts"

Andrew

and I don't want to be "that guy", who stops eating, just because he is knowledgeable enough that he knows there is a "potential" possibility he will get chocked while he eats.

[Doremus Scudder]

Heroique,

First, thanks for your compliment about my writing.... I really don't deserve such praise, especially when the last post (and this one as well) was quickly formulated at the bar of my favorite local brewery with a beer in hand and the cacophony of "Taco Night" going on around me....

And, although my points may seem traditional and, perhaps, one-sided, I assure you, I am much more in agreement with many of your points than you might be led to believe.

First, I don't believe that “The art object is not where a beginner should start.” I really think confronting works of art is the only way to come to any kind of understanding and insight. I do, however, believe that the neophyte who is confronted with such a potential confounding situation could use a bit of guidance. When teaching about music, I find that "guided listening" is indispensable to rasing the level of understanding and appreciation of the students as quickly as possible. Similarly, I think that "guided viewing" is equally important in the visual arts. I remember the awakening experience I myself had in my art history classes with a particularly adept professor. His approach was to show a slide of an artwork and then talk; about the history, the symbolism, technique, form, and the relationship to other works of the time, etc., etc. As he waxed on, the many layers of the work gradually coalesced out of the mist of my ignorance into a clearer and much more moving entity than the simple image my eyes perceived at the beginning of the lecture. And, by applying the concepts he presented, I found I could bring a lot more to other works I encountered. And, before long, I was able to gain insight into concepts and intents that were inherent in the works of art I was viewing without having them first explained to me. But, without that initial introduction to the genres and possibilities, I would never have been able to do so.


And, I also believe that a "normal upbringing" (whatever that is in whatever social context) can often give one many of the concepts, abilities, and intellectual tools needed to understand and appreciate many creative works in many genres (to a certain extent at least). However, the more complex and rarefied extremes of human creativity most often (if not always) require a certain familiarity with the specialization involved in order to fully understand, and by extension, appreciate them. "Normal upbringing," as understood in, say, Los Angeles (and by that I mean a normal public school experience) will rarely prepare one to be moved by Beethoven's late string quartets, James Joyce's Ulysses, Rauschenberg's painting, and so on. But, how rewarding these works can be with just a little guidance and explanation! A pre-concert lecture, a docent tour, a literature class is all that is needed to give many people the tools to more intensely understand and experience them. This is less about "lifting the veil" than awareness raising, which is subtlety different; the first implies top-down, "I will show you the way" mentality, while the second is more about shared experience, and nurturing growth. While I do find (to the consternation of many of my acquaintances) that hierarchical structures are useful and necessary in many places, I would maintain that art, true art, is about communicating, sharing, and including others in a common experience (granted, fashion is more about exclusivity, and many mistake this for art...).

"Formal education" is where you find it. (Mark Twain: "I never let my schoolin'
interfere with my education.") A university classroom can be dismal compared to an apprenticeship with a master, or picking up pointers and discussing nuances in the cafe or the bar. "Art school" can be disastrous for those that are after a different kind of expression than taught there. Don't go to "music school" (with the exception of a few) if you want to learn blues guitar, and so on. Nonetheless, in the end, it is the knowledge imparted that is important. Where one gets what is the only difference; one does need a "school" of some kind. Those who have never studied formally, but became meaningful and influential artists in any genre did not spring fully-formed from a vacuum. Their "informal education" was as intense and far-reaching (and maybe more so) than many who were "formally" trained. Indeed, as you point out, "formal education" (which often has more to do with conservative tradition and social expectations than furthering expression) can indeed be "ruinous" to those yearning for another direction.

My point is simply this: you can't react to something in a credible way (even negatively) unless you can comprehend it somewhat fully, and that comprehension is more easily attained by entertaining discussion and explanation about the artwork being considered than by attempting a complete understanding without any initiation whatsoever. Certainly, the explanations and commentary are secondary to, even meaningless, without having experienced the work of art first. I found very early on that there was a large number of art works that I was simply unqualified to comment on or make judgments about because I could not bring enough understanding to the work to venture an assessment.

How should a beginner embark on his journey of encountering, confronting, and, ultimately, understanding art? As Portland Mayor Bud Clark in the famous poster encouraged, "Expose yourself to the arts." But I would add, expose yourself to ideas about the arts as well. Certainly, when one gets to the desired point, art works communicate more and differently than mere words ever can (even those comprised of words). However, to get to that point, we need words to support us and help us on our way; we need words to hold our hands while we learn to walk on our own.

So, "let the baby walk," but hold its hand until it can walk on its own. It's a lot harder to do it without help.

And Rick, I want to address your specific ideas as well. Especially since we both come from musical backgrounds and I value your many contributions to this forum.

In line with the above, just reading about "avant garde" music will most certainly not prepare one for hearing it. The verbal concepts just don't correlate with the musical experience. You hit the nail on the head when you said, "Most who have little listening experience have never developed a taste for it." It is the experience of the artwork itself (if I may generalize) that leads to understanding. My point is that this understanding and appreciation can be hastened by (and indeed may never be achieved without) guidance in the form of explanation, especially at the beginning of one's journey into the genre. The tools come through the ears (eyes) and through the understanding. We need it all. The one is augmented by the other. I really think that, for a full experience, both learning and sensory experience are required (to come down somewhat opposed to your statement...). Sure, great experiences can be had without "full" understanding (do we ever fully understand anything...). But, I truly believe that the more we understand, the fuller our experience of a piece of music, a painting, a book, a sculpture, will be. "Enhancement of an experience" is what makes it fuller, richer, more meaningful. It is not just a bonus that is somehow "extra" or additional.

Experienced vs. learned? How about both?.... How and in which order we come to the combination of experience and knowledge that works for us is different for us all. That's what makes things interesting.

Best, and thanks for a great, though-provoking discussion. (Sorry about so many words, words, words...)


Doremus Scudder

[rdenney]

Sure, great experiences can be had without "full" understanding (do we ever fully understand anything...). But, I truly believe that the more we understand, the fuller our experience of a piece of music, a painting, a book, a sculpture, will be.

I recall being dragged, somewhat against my will, to a concert at Southwestern University in central Texas about 25 years ago. The performer was Philip Glass, and the guy doing the dragging was a friend whose tastes in music were dangerously more adventurous than my own (at least at the time). I had not heard Glass, and I certainly had never read a word about him or about minimalist music. I had heard (at my friends house one evening) an extended excerpt of Steve Reich's Drumming, and, truth to tell, this did not bode well.

I think it was about 10 minutes into the second half of the concert when it clicked for me (I think it was something from Akhenaten), and no more enthusiastic a fan did Glass have in the audience other than me by the end of the concert (when he fairly blew me away with his encore--Spaceship from Einstein on the Beach).

Since that experience, I have read more about minimalist music and listened to quite a bit more of Glass (and Reich, and Adams). I have heard Glass perform live on several occasions since then.

But none of those later experiences have matched the impact of that first concert.

I'm not sure I know what to make of that experience vis a vis this discussion. I don't think I could say that later learning has in any way enhanced my appreciation of that musical genre, but I thoroughly enjoyed and still believe I benefited from that learning. I think the only conclusion I'm left with is that the learning is satisfying in its own way, and the listening is satisfying in a different way. Both certainly enrich my existence, but I think that says more about me than about, necessarily, anyone else.

I suspect that comparing myself to formally trained musicians is at least somewhat relevant to this discussion in that I was never formally trained. What training I have received has been of the apprenticeship kind, studying with teachers privately, and entirely focused on the fundamentals of my instrument. My training in musical development and styles has been largely gathered on my own through personal interest. That leads to another story: I provided accommodations for a tuba player who was performing with the San Antonio Symphony as a substitute many years ago. He had never really listened much to Vaughan Williams, and I was eager to play a recording of his F Minor Symphony (No. 4), which is one of my favorites. His observation of me while we listened was that in dealing with professional musicians on a daily basis, he rarely found people who seemed as genuinely enthusiastic as I seemed to be.

The difference between me and his professional colleagues was two-fold, it seems to me: 1.) I was on a voyage of discovery, with no obligation other than my own enjoyment, and therefore could limit my learning to what interested me, and 2.) we have this thing in our society that says that professionals should not be "gung-ho". (That has never worked for me, either--I'm gung-ho about my engineering work, too, even after 30 years of professional practice.) That second thing is, I suspect, what makes gung-ho practitioners leery of formal training--they associate formal training with becoming jaded and cynical.

But maybe we have the causation reversed. Perhaps those who are apt to become jaded and cynical are those who are also apt to confuse formal study with passionate practice. I was jaded and cynical about engineering school by the time I graduated from it, and even moreso from architecture school from which I had fled when I found out that nobody in architecture really got to design anything any more, unless they owned their own company. But I can still get quite wound up on engineering topics central to my expertise, and thus I separate practice from formal study even in something as right-brained as engineering.

Now, I have to go back and read what I just wrote to see if it has a point.

Rick "wondering what it is that sends enthusiasts on their voyage of discovery in the first place" Denney

[Heroique]

Doremus,

Your clarifications are so helpful, I wish I could go back and integrate them into my post.

Thank you. :)


What's your best VISUAL teacher?

So often, it’s free-standing sculpture. Especially outdoor sculpture you can walk around. One of my fondest memories is visiting the Musee Rodin in Paris. In the gardens are many Rodin works. Balzac, Burghers of Calais, Gates of Hell. (I recall The Kiss was inside.) My favorite – a sculpture of the old master, Lorraine. Under thick summer foliage. Chestnuts, I recall. I walked in circles around it. So many times, I got dizzy. I thought Lorraine was moving. Really, it was the ever-changing light on him, as I moved. Lorraine looks up into the tree branches, like he’s planning to paint them. So my answer is Rodin and Lorraine.



From Joyce:
"Kind air defined the coigns of houses in Kildare street. No birds. Frail from the housetops two plumes of smoke ascended, pluming, and in a flow of softness softly were blown."
"A patient silhouette waited, listening."
"His downcast eyes followed the silent veining of the oaken slab. Beauty: it curves, curves are beauty."
"She bestows fat pears neatly, head by tail, and among them ripe shamefaced peaches."
"an elderly female with false teeth smiling incredulously"
"The boys sixeyed Father Conmee and laughed: _O, sir. "

This post I’ve come to love. Only someone w/ considerable visual-arts experience could offer these heart-stopping literary examples. I mean Hugo Zhang, not just James Joyce. And to think that Joyce-of-the-eye-patch :cool: had so much trouble with his eyesight.

[csant]

And to think that Joyce-of-the-eye-patch :cool: had so much trouble with his eyesight.

You wipe your glosses with what you know.