Aperture Magazine just set me an e-mail

[paulr]

I think your sharp line between "culture" and "Culture" is rhetorical. It can not really be resolved with our powers of observation.

I don't think it's rhetorical at all. I believe what Mr. Denny is saying that photos of rocks are acultural only in that are no cultural artifacts depicted in the frame.

However, all the ideas and esthetic dispositions that led the photographer to photograph those rocks, and the ideas and esthetic dispositions that lead the viewer to his or her reactions to the photograph, are deeply rooted in culture. There's no way out of this.

This is why (to use my example from upthread) a painting of mountains from the 15th century would mean something very different to European viewers from its own time than it would to us. They wouldn't see beauty and unspoiled nature; they'd see the wrath of God.

The color white has traditionally been associated with purity in Western art, and with death in Japanese art.

Even the most basic understanding of landscape has evolved radically over the years. Before the 18th century it meant little more than "background." Between the 17th and mid 19th century, it mostly meant pastoral, tamed, well-ordered land. Only in the late 19th century, starting with Thomas Moran and a few others in the U.S., was completely undeveloped land seen as landscape ... and this was a radical idea. It's the main reason the survey photographers (like O'Sullivan) weren't seen as artists until many decades after they did their work.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I don't think it's rhetorical at all. I believe what Mr. Denny is saying that photos of rocks are acultural only in that are no cultural artifacts depicted in the frame.

However, all the ideas and esthetic dispositions that led the photographer to photograph those rocks, and the ideas and esthetic dispositions that lead the viewer to his or her reactions to the photograph, are deeply rooted in culture. There's no way out of this.

I have no problem with that - just that the sharp distinction he makes between small c and big C culture is not so sharp. I think he is conflating big C culture with pretension.

False dichotomy is a rhetorical trick.

[paulr]

I have no problem with that - just that the sharp distinction he makes between small c and big C culture is not so sharp. I think he is conflating big C culture with pretension.

False dichotomy is a rhetorical trick.

It's not a dicotomy at all, but it's a significant distinction. In some art, culture is the direct subject, in others it is specificallly avoided as a direct subject. Consider the difference between Ansel Adams and Robert Adams.

We tend to see R. Adams' work as cultural criticism in a way that we don't see A. Adams' work—even though A. Adams' work can function indirectly as cultural criticism if you place it in a broader context.

And as with all art, we look at both of their pictures through the lens of own cultural context, which is going to have a strong influence on how we see the work and perceive its relevance.

So when you talk about culture in a piece of artwork, it's helpful to be clear about whether you're speaking broadly (as you can about any art), or specifically, as you can about art that directly shows the products of culture.

[Jack Dahlgren]

It's not a dicotomy at all, but it's a significant distinction. In some art, culture is the direct subject, in others it is specificallly avoided as a direct subject. Consider the difference between Ansel Adams and Robert Adams.

We tend to see R. Adams' work as cultural criticism in a way that we don't see A. Adams' work—even though A. Adams' work can function indirectly as cultural criticism if you place it in a broader context.

And as with all art, we look at both of their pictures through the lens of own cultural context, which is going to have a strong influence on how we see the work and perceive its relevance.

So when you talk about culture in a piece of artwork, it's helpful to be clear about whether you're speaking broadly (as you can about any art), or specifically, as you can about art that directly shows the products of culture.

The point I'm trying to make (it is simple) is that photography can be and often is a mix of the two, neither just a naive product, nor the gag inducing pretension that Rick described. You don't have to choose one.

[paulr]

The point I'm trying to make (it is simple) is that photography can be and often is a mix of the two, neither just a naive product, nor the gag inducing pretension that Rick described. You don't have to choose one.

It may be simple but I don't get it. For one thing, I don't know what gag-inducing pretension you're talking about. If by pretension you mean "complexity" or "depth" then maybe we're on the same page.

Whether something is simple or complex is generally less a question of the thing itself than about how we choose to look at it or frame it.

Someone picking up a cup of tea and sipping it, for example—you could look at it as a simple gesture. Or you could put it in a sociological context and compare it to different mores and rituals. Or you could look at it like a neurologist and describe it in hundreds of pages and 3-dimensional graphs ...

Different tools, different perspectives, different purposes.

[rdenney]

I have no problem with that - just that the sharp distinction he makes between small c and big C culture is not so sharp. I think he is conflating big C culture with pretension.

False dichotomy is a rhetorical trick.

The context your complaint was that my description of culture was that which could and should be avoided. The culture of which I was writing cannot be avoided at all--it is built into the context by which we view subjects and are motivated to express that view. When people say that they desire to avoid culture, they usually mean the sort of cultural responses being imposed on them by a cultural elite with whom they do not agree. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I don't think the culture of which I was speaking can be avoided, though some cultural constructs can be preferred over others.

Rick "accusations of rhetorical trickery is a rhetorical trick" Denney

[Jack Dahlgren]

Paul,

This is the polarization of culture I'm arguing against.

"Capital-C Culture, in the other hand, is what one seeks to display when spouting the art-speak that motivated this thread. It's what people send their precious children to snooty schools to acquire."

Rather than being one of those people who says this kind of thing is good and that kind is bad I'm with Sturgeon and would suggest that 90% of everything is crap.

Jack "all rhetoric is trickery" Dahlgren

[rdenney]

Rather than being one of those people who says this kind of thing is good and that kind is bad I'm with Sturgeon and would suggest that 90% of everything is crap.

Anarchy is not the answer.

By the way, saying things like "all rhetoric is trickery" and "90% of everything is crap" is itself profoundly cultural. Even iconoclasm is a cultural context, and one shared by many people who think nothing can be gained from discussing ideas. I suppose the alternative is to throw rocks at one another. Which is why anarchy is not the answer.

Rick "channeling Doc Sarvis" Denney

[paulr]

Paul,

This is the polarization of culture I'm arguing against.

"Capital-C Culture, in the other hand, is what one seeks to display when spouting the art-speak that motivated this thread. It's what people send their precious children to snooty schools to acquire."

Now I really don't see your point. This definition of culture-with-a-capital-C is yours from a previous post, and has nothing to do with the point Rick is making—which is about two distinct uses of a word, and not about polarization.

You're knocking down a straw man here, which I suppose is an example of rhetoric being trickery ...

[Jack Dahlgren]

Now I really don't see your point. This definition of culture-with-a-capital-C is yours from a previous post, and has nothing to do with the point Rick is making—which is about two distinct uses of a word, and not about polarization.

You're knocking down a straw man here, which I suppose is an example of rhetoric being trickery ...

No, that quote is from Rick. It was the distinction HE was making.
I don't agree with it.
Looks like you don't either.
Maybe it was just a throwaway line?

Is there any more to be said?

-Jack "prolly not" Dahlgren