I respectfully disagree. IMHO, artists like "pushing others' buttons" more so than average folk.
I respectfully disagree. IMHO, artists like "pushing others' buttons" more so than average folk.
Well I guess you're certainly right for some artists like the fella who put Christ in a bottle of pee!
^^^ Yes... that jerk is propogating hate. "Hate" is indeed an emotion. One which only sociopathic "artists" use.
Kinkade pushed some buttons....
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Peter Lik is still pushing buttons.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Yes, very often the one that triggers my gag reflex.Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Well, these two (adjacent!) posts caught my attention since they seem to represent conflicting extremes – Peter stressing how photography should serve the individual at the (implied) expense of communication w/ others, and Mr. Jim stressing how important it is for art to communicate w/ others at the (implied) expense of the individual.
Probably most would discover a healthy share of each approach in their personal balancing act between these competing claims (for self & audience).
When it comes to “Classics” and how they are born, I think Arnold Bennett (in post #1 for people joining late) would choose a balance weighted toward Mr. Jim’s approach – for doesn’t the very term “Classic” necessarily imply an audience whose members share some sort of common ground of idealized standards? (Made manifest to the passionate few w/ the “reasoning” that Bennett opposes to “faith.”) Not exactly something that will ring true in all modern ears, but it seems necessary if Bennett is to make sense.
I’m curious if people here think that the closer a photographer comes to Peter’s important claims for expressing self, the less likely it becomes for a “Classic,” as Bennett understands the term, to come about? Similarly, would a “Classic” have increasingly poor chances of establishing itself, the closer it comes to Mr. Jim’s claims for audience?
I do.
Other than as an educational or scientific exercise, in fact I find it hard to believe there much other motivation for a photo, or any other type of art, than emotion.
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain
I'm not sure that following what one thinks is valuable is necessarily at odds with communication. Odds are that there are other people who value similar things, or at the least might come to do so by what you've shown them. If someone were to hold that one should pursue what one doesn't find most aesthetically valuable, i.e. if they value some other goal higher, such as making money, pleasing others,...., then wouldn't the type of communication involved be a bit deceitful?
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Whose emotion -- the artist' own or the intended audience. Because I really have hard time thinking that Jackson Pollack set out intending to solicit an emotion from anyone. Some people make art because they have a need for self-expression, even if no one sees/reads/understands it. That's also why people keep diaries.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks