Robert Adams at the Getty

[Oren Grad]

having an emotional response to something doesn't mean it's good art and good art doesn't depend on a good emotional response

There are different understandings of what art is "for". No single one is uniquely privileged.

I would have to assume you mean having a positve emotional response

You would be incorrect.

because you are quite clearly expressing a strong emotional response in your posts - just not a feel good one

This is true.

Cheers...

[paulr]

" I "get" where your approach to "consuming" photography and other arts comes from, though it has no emotional resonance for me... ;-)"

which part? would you advocating judging something that you don't understand? i'm curious to hear a well reasoned alternative view.

[William Mortensen]

There is a difference between understanding ("getting it") and appreciating a work of visual art, and one is not necessary to the other. There are works I think I understnd fully but don't appreciate, and some of the images I appreciate most still challenge my understanding.

Regardless of whether you appreciate RA's work, it does repeatedly generate some of the best conversations and disagreements on this forum.

Incidentally, does anyone know the value of an original Robert Adams print on the gallery circuit? Just wondering how he fits into the art world's status structure. (I'm still struggling to comprehend the $1.2 million for the Richard Prince color photograph of another photograph. Now that one I must admit I don't get *or* appreciate...)

[Oren Grad]

One's conceptual framework for assimilating visual works - one's "understanding" - can derive from many sources other than formal study of history and criticism written by art professionals, or of manifestos written by creators of visual works.

As for judging things one doesn't "understand", every one of us does it all the time. There's no other way to get through life.

[paulr]

"Incidentally, does anyone know the value of an original Robert Adams print on the gallery circuit?"

my memory is that he's a bargain compared to, say, steichen's $3 million print. last time i saw a show (4 or 5 years ago) they were in the few thousand dollar range, i think.

"I'm still struggling to comprehend the $1.2 million for the Richard Prince color photograph of another photograph"

i'm offering a limited edition of screen grabs of that photographed photograph for considerably less than 1.2 million. contact me privately!

[paulr]

"one's "understanding" - can derive from many sources other than formal study of history and criticism written by art professionals, or of manifestos"

i would hope so. how about informal study, like looking at a lot of the pictures in question, and at a lot of pictures from the same tradition that came before--and doing so in a genuine spirit of curiousity? this should suffice for something as close to our cultural frame of reference as robert adams.

"As for judging things one doesn't "understand", every one of us does it all the time."

what's at issue here might be better stated as judging things one hasn't made any effort to understand. i'm sure sure we all do this, too, but it isn't something to brag about.

[Oren Grad]

Paul, this will have to be my final word for the moment, because I actually need to go earn a living.

When Chris S said "I just don't get it" and "Help me learn to appreciate these", your response started with "the first step is to sincerely want to see them for what they are, and not as fodder to confirm an oppinion you already hold".

In other words, you started with your own prejudice - that there is a class of people whose preference for unsubtle pictures that proclaim "ain't nature grand" is attributable to a complacent, willful, ego-gratifying ignorance - assumed that Chris S is such a person, and proceeded to lecture him accordingly.

Totally apart from the tactical question of whether such a rhetorical strategy is likely to be successful in motivating its target to think about things differently, it's a direct violation of your own ardently and repeatedly expressed principle that one should try hard to move beyond initial, knee-jerk reactions and seek to understand where the object of one's attention is really coming from, and why, before unleashing the artillery.

Think about it.

[Kirk Gittings]

The subtlety and lack of rhetoric of RA's work suggests the instructive model..... to simply see the West beyond mythology and romantic artiface.

[paulr]

"in other words, you started with your own prejudice - that there is a class of people whose preference for unsubtle pictures that proclaim "ain't nature grand" is attributable to a complacent, willful, ego-gratifying ignorance - assumed that Chris S is such a person, and proceeded to lecture him accordingly."

if that's what you thought i meant then i was very unclear. when i said, "the first step is to sincerely want to see them for what they are ..." i wasn't directing it exclusively at people who prefer one adams over the other. i meant it for anyone, myself included, who ever looks at something and thinks "i don't get it."

that reaction, "i don't get it," can have a couple of different sentiments behind it. one of them is "this is b.s.! there's nothing here worth getting!" the other is "i dont' get it now, but i'm interested in getting it." my point is that it's helpful to guide yourself to the second path. make an effort to get it before passing judgement or dismissing something as not worth getting.

on a larger note, i think the widely held idea that all imagery belongs to a universal language (and therefore should be instantly accessible to everyone) has done a lot of harm. when people expect that they should instantly get a piece of visual art, anything that they don't get is perceived as a challenge ... it prompts the reaction to either feel superior or inferior to the piece. which ultimately is unhelpful to anyone involved, and is kind of silly.

if i gave you a book of poetry written in turkish, i don't think you'd have any similar reaction. you'd just say something like, "i don't speak this language, so i don't know what these poems are saying." and there's no shame in this, because we all know that there thousands more verbal languages in the world than any one person can hope to know.

part of the confusion stems from the fact that there ARE universal visual elements. human expressions like a smile or a scream transcend all cultures and time periods. and there are certain geometric forms and spacial relationships that have been considered pleasing or restful or dynamic to cultures across time periods as well. but other visual signs are more limited. in asian cultures white is the color of death. mountains symbolize a completely different range of things to contemporary westerners than they did to westerners 500 years ago. religious art of any culture depends on a vocabulary of iconography that is learned by its native audience like any other language. none of this stuff is universally human. there may be certain elements of it that you can feel without digging deeper, but it's also possible to completely misread something by doing so--not that your feelings would be "wrong," but that they'd be completey ahistorical--they'd run completely counter to interpretations of someone who speaks the language.

in a more subtle way, late 20th century american landscape photography uses a different vocabulary than romantic landscape photgraphy. fluency in one doesn't magically lead to fluency in the other.