Art is Emotion

[Tin Can]

Today I made a rant triggered by my emotions

At first I was ashamed, then slowly I realized, that is the power of good art

Art is not about tones, shapes, compositions unless it means something to a viewer

The image, a stark truth about a place I know so well, it hit me like a slap

Thank you, Richard Wasserman!

I-94 Overpass— Glenview, IL (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143405-Some-B-amp-W-Bridges&p=1597063&viewfull=1#post1597063)

[Jody_S]

It's ironic that a photography forum such as this bans discussion of politics. All of my images that I consider successful are political statements.

[Tin Can]

Ditto, but most don't notice the message

It's all in our heads anyway

Without a viewer art does not exist

What is the sound of a falling tree, is a popular discussion these days

but is it all in our heads, our entire body is connected to...

[Richard Wasserman]

No need to feel bad about your response! I am extremely pleased that you had such an emotional reaction to my photo—in my experience far too few people look at images on that level. It is a bit tiring, and as you said, irrelevant to mainly talk about the technical aspects of a photograph. I'd much rather hear about what gets stirred up than tonality.

Thank you

[Exploring Large Format]

It's ironic that a photography forum such as this bans discussion of politics. All of my images that I consider successful are political statements.I imagine it's been proposed before, but a thread that featured political photographs, as defined by the one who posts, that invite discussion might be interesting.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

Actually it was tried 2 decades ago here

Did NOT work and I am glad I missed it

Discussion is where we fail... often

Make your images speak and STFU, to use the vernacular

and newer member I am not telling YOU what YOU should do

The Mods do a fine and thankless job


I imagine it's been proposed before, but a thread that featured political photographs, as defined by the one who posts, that invite discussion might be interesting.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[pdmoylan]

One tries to connect the dots when personal nostalgia/experience intervenes when presented with a straight forward image of a road overpass.

Not slighting Richard here, but there is nothing intrinsic to the overpass image that conveys a human connection, let alone the plight of homeless associated with the site.

Now if one were to show in an image or series with the human element, perhaps providing the despair, a sense of hope (or hopelessness), in the context of the physical structure, I as an outside observer might react with emotion. Why do I have to bring any history to an image to find context?

As to politics, IMHO, any depiction of human difficulties has political content. Having said that, if one wants to take a "position" on politics as an artist, I can see limiting that as potentially inflammatory/biased in what is an "open" forum here.

For the creator, emotion may not be an impetus. It fact, it may be an expressive "need" to show light, color, form etc in a way which is intellectually based, or simply visually based.

Art does not have to be viewed to exist, as it is a medium for those attempting to make sense of a complex world with their own signature. It's nice if one can communicate with it, but we are inundated with so many "images" without context in many cases, those that stand out for the most part depict the human dilemma.

When I consider Salgado's images of the Sahel and Rawanda, or Dorothea Lange's of immigrant families, I don't have to be in a rage at the way people have been treated and local communities have neglected the needy, to have an emotional reaction. That comes not from any history, but from the intrinsic nature of the image.

I don't think we should be promulgating politically slanted pictorials to young photographers, as the extreme political and social biases from many factions in societies may cause them undue physical and emotional harm - unless they are willing to take on those risks.

When populations increase beyond an ability to meet the needs of the many, the center falls apart, and "objectivity" loses it value. The photographer's job becomes that much more difficult to depict objectively.

Art is Emotion is simply BS except for those who are emotive to begin with. For most art is a visual medium that causes one to stop, look and find context from that output.

As I may have stated before (apologies for redundancy), the closest that photography comes to art is depiction of the challenges humans (and animals) face.

As much as I seek to capture the beauty of color and light with a camera (mostly in the landscapes), the severe limitations imposed by the medium as compared to painting, collage or multimedia (as examples), tell me that I am an illustrator, perhaps with a good eye/technique, while those with true vision will express command over every millimeter of their output.

Certainly there are innumerable photographers who produce wonderful images. I am not slighting their output (some of whom I envy, and many admire), but as much as I may enjoy a photo, I will take William Chase's landscapes of Long Island (example) over any photos of the same location.

[Peter De Smidt]

And what are emotions? They are your subconscious predictions about the future.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_feldman_barrett_you_aren_t_at_the_mercy_of_your_emotions_your_brain_creates_them/transcript#t-718

[Tin Can]

We are wary hunters


And what are emotions? They are your subconscious predictions about the future.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_feldman_barrett_you_aren_t_at_the_mercy_of_your_emotions_your_brain_creates_them/transcript#t-718

[Tin Can]

Seems to me an overwrought defense of...

I already wrote, the image in discussion is a well known location to me

Not quite down by the river...


One tries to connect the dots when personal nostalgia/experience intervenes when presented with a straight forward image of a road overpass.

Not slighting Richard here, but there is nothing intrinsic to the overpass image that conveys a human connection, let alone the plight of homeless associated with the site.

Now if one were to show in an image or series with the human element, perhaps providing the despair, a sense of hope (or hopelessness), in the context of the physical structure, I as an outside observer might react with emotion. Why do I have to bring any history to an image to find context?

As to politics, IMHO, any depiction of human difficulties has political content. Having said that, if one wants to take a "position" on politics as an artist, I can see limiting that as potentially inflammatory/biased in what is an "open" forum here.

For the creator, emotion may not be an impetus. It fact, it may be an expressive "need" to show light, color, form etc in a way which is intellectually based, or simply visually based.

Art does not have to be viewed to exist, as it is a medium for those attempting to make sense of a complex world with their own signature. It's nice if one can communicate with it, but we are inundated with so many "images" without context in many cases, those that stand out for the most part depict the human dilemma.

When I consider Salgado's images of the Sahel and Rawanda, or Dorothea Lange's of immigrant families, I don't have to be in a rage at the way people have been treated and local communities have neglected the needy, to have an emotional reaction. That comes not from any history, but from the intrinsic nature of the image.

I don't think we should be promulgating politically slanted pictorials to young photographers, as the extreme political and social biases from many factions in societies may cause them undue physical and emotional harm - unless they are willing to take on those risks.

When populations increase beyond an ability to meet the needs of the many, the center falls apart, and "objectivity" loses it value. The photographer's job becomes that much more difficult to depict objectively.

Art is Emotion is simply BS except for those who are emotive to begin with. For most art is a visual medium that causes one to stop, look and find context from that output.

As I may have stated before (apologies for redundancy), the closest that photography comes to art is depiction of the challenges humans (and animals) face.

As much as I seek to capture the beauty of color and light with a camera (mostly in the landscapes), the severe limitations imposed by the medium as compared to painting, collage or multimedia (as examples), tell me that I am an illustrator, perhaps with a good eye/technique, while those with true vision will express command over every millimeter of their output.

Certainly there are innumerable photographers who produce wonderful images. I am not slighting their output (some of whom I envy, and many admire), but as much as I may enjoy a photo, I will take William Chase's landscapes of Long Island (example) over any photos of the same location.

[Sean Mac]

216044

9x12 adox chs100, 3 seconds @F32

:)

[lenicolas]

As much as I seek to capture the beauty of color and light with a camera (mostly in the landscapes), the severe limitations imposed by the medium as compared to painting, collage or multimedia (as examples), tell me that I am an illustrator, perhaps with a good eye/technique, while those with true vision will express command over every millimeter of their output.

Certainly there are innumerable photographers who produce wonderful images. I am not slighting their output (some of whom I envy, and many admire), but as much as I may enjoy a photo, I will take William Chase's landscapes of Long Island (example) over any photos of the same location.

Interesting.
Could it be that you put painting over photography because you are... a photographer?
It’s too easy for us to disregard our skills and hard work and imagine that others work much harder than us...
I once heard a painter share an almost mirrored opinion : Painting is easy, I get in my studio every morning and I paint, from my head straight to the canvas. Photography must be so much harder because one must either walk around in an intense state of observation until they find a scene that resonates with the feeling they’re trying to express, or if they are studio based they must assemble all the necessary elements and personnel to create the image they envision.

Me, I like both painting and photography and admire many practitioners of both, but wouldn’t presume that either is easier or take less of an effort to make a truly great piece of Art. Plenty of lazy artists in either medium though. If all you have to do to produce your work is get up early and get to a scenic location, it doesn’t matter if you’re painting it or photographing it, chances are I won’t be interested in putting it on my wall.

[pdmoylan]

"Seems to me an overwrought defense of...

I already wrote, the image in discussion is a well known location to me

Not quite down by the river..."



You know, I keep an even keel when it comes to other's perspectives in this forum, but I couldn't follow the bouncing ball when it came to your epiphanies. One minute rage, the next embarrassment, and then a James Joyce moment, or two or three consecutively. Stream of consciousness..., super.

My essay was simply responding to your underdeveloped series of hyperbolic statements (perhaps some acetylcholine lapses there) which you seemed to be promulgating from sheer force of nature, otherwise I wasn't following it.

So we are witness to some prominent individuals who use the similar technique, I feel therefore what I say must be true (a perverse derivative of Buber). And the reference to Berkeley - so much egocentrism - I guess is a fad acceptable to aging WASPS. But count me out.

I get it if you need the attention, but perhaps you can PM your inner most expressions to your group of friends, and free up the website for those who have some real insight.

You realize that the Tin Man did eventually realize his capabilities, once it was brought to his attention. Living in the moment, not the past helps me to stay centered. Not to offend...

[Tin Can]

Thanks for the insults

You may carry on regardless


"Seems to me an overwrought defense of...

I already wrote, the image in discussion is a well known location to me

Not quite down by the river..."



You know, I keep an even keel when it comes to other's perspectives in this forum, but I couldn't follow the bouncing ball when it came to your epiphanies. One minute rage, the next embarrassment, and then a James Joyce moment, or two or three consecutively. Stream of consciousness..., super.

My essay was simply responding to your underdeveloped series of hyperbolic statements (perhaps some acetylcholine lapses there) which you seemed to be promulgating from sheer force of nature, otherwise I wasn't following it.

So we are witness to some prominent individuals who use the similar technique, I feel therefore what I say must be true (a perverse derivative of Buber). And the reference to Berkeley - so much egocentrism - I guess is a fad acceptable to aging WASPS. But count me out.

I get it if you need the attention, but perhaps you can PM your inner most expressions to your group of friends, and free up the website for those who have some real insight.

You realize that the Tin Man did eventually realize his capabilities, once it was brought to his attention. Living in the moment, not the past helps me to stay centered. Not to offend...

[pdmoylan]

Interesting.
Could it be that you put painting over photography because you are... a photographer?
It’s too easy for us to disregard our skills and hard work and imagine that others work much harder than us...
I once heard a painter share an almost mirrored opinion : Painting is easy, I get in my studio every morning and I paint, from my head straight to the canvas. Photography must be so much harder because one must either walk around in an intense state of observation until they find a scene that resonates with the feeling they’re trying to express, or if they are studio based they must assemble all the necessary elements and personnel to create the image they envision.

Me, I like both painting and photography and admire many practitioners of both, but wouldn’t presume that either is easier or take less of an effort to make a truly great piece of Art. Plenty of lazy artists in either medium though. If all you have to do to produce your work is get up early and get to a scenic location, it doesn’t matter if you’re painting it or photographing it, chances are I won’t be interested in putting it on my wall.



Indeed, I have no skills to paint or draw though have tried. The conversion of what's in the painter's mind onto the canvas assuming one has the skill set to manage it, is unique and individual. The photographer takes what he sees and allows the the camera to in effect act as the artist. So photographers lined up at the same scene with comparable equipment will capture essentially the same image, no distinction unless through aperture or size of format, or AOV. Also DR is a huge issue with photography which before digital made it nigh impossible to get reasonable range in bright light. Even with digital one must be very careful not to lose highlights (my experience). So many times I have said, if I could only paint this scene etc. Also, with film you are subject to it's color palate, and then you must become a scientist in color management for post to get what you want. Very tedious and time consuming.

But with B+W, tonal range can be modified through filters and post techniques to mitigate the diminishment of DR. Color film is so limited, you really have limit your taking to low or diffuse light, particularly with chromes, somewhat less so with negative color film.

You are right, if the image doesn't work, either medium, it doesn't go on the wall.

[awty]

Today I made a rant triggered by my emotions

At first I was ashamed, then slowly I realized, that is the power of good art

Art is not about tones, shapes, compositions unless it means something to a viewer

The image, a stark truth about a place I know so well, it hit me like a slap

Thank you, Richard Wasserman!

I-94 Overpass— Glenview, IL (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143405-Some-B-amp-W-Bridges&p=1597063&viewfull=1#post1597063)

I agree, I know nothing of "ART" , although I can appreciate a good well made picture I can only truly be drawn to a picture that I can connect to.

[pdmoylan]

There are too many examples, but particularly in the first half of the 20th century, which show that art is exactly the expression of ideas, concepts, shapes, color relationships, and ultimately in the hands of an adept artist, a product which may speak to the observer. Fauvism, Vorticism, Cubism, Hudson Valley School of American Impressionists, the Symbolists, Abstract Impressionists, all convey a distinction of style, concept, born out of in some cases a manifesto, or a group effort to seek new approaches to visual expression. Whether it connects with you emotionally or not, is inconsequential, as it was the conveyance of a new vision which was of utmost importance - and least we forget, artists had to survive and to do so required modifying their style, technique, or vision to pay the bills.

I am not discounting that a person may connect with an image emotionally, it happens especially when we view previously unseen images of family for example - nostalgia.

But I do not see how strict landscape photography, if considered art (and I am not convinced), can convey emotion. Yes we might see beauty in its form and color, but ultimately, does that appealing sensibility rise to true emotion, or is just a moment's pleasure. Is there intended emotion in Gursky's large format images, or rather, does anyone experience a tinge of emotion in viewing them? They are conceptual, tidy, detailed, balanced images of a construct which has no immediate human dimension. Where's the connection for emotion?

Some have a need to connect emotionally with art; however, there are far too many including myself who find emotion the least important response to any piece of art. On the other hand, I cannot but become emotional when severe and evocative images of the human condition find their way to me. Unfortunately, LF is not the most ideal medium for those protrayals.

[awty]

But I do not see how strict landscape photography, if considered art (and I am not convinced), can convey emotion.

Of coarse it can if there is familiarity with the subject, evidently Mr Can has. I would think a lot of people would have a emotional attachment to places they are familiar with. I'm always drawn to a landscape that has gum/eucalyptus trees, because they are party of my environment. The trick is to portray emotion with a subject the viewer isn't directly connected to, then you need to be good at dodge and burn and working the light.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps PD never saw my NOT ART scheme, I have posted a version of this

1997 I made 10,000 stickers and gave them away at the largest Art Fair Chicago has ever had. Centered on Wicker Park, all inclusive, open your studio, bands played, we danced in the streets. A very diverse scene, streets were closed. No Police.

Originated 1979 by frenchman Jim Happy-Delpech (https://www.google.com/search?q=Jim+Happy-Delpech&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS850US850&oq=Jim+Happy-Delpech&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), that was THE peak year, the next year leeches created rules, bigger fees and failure

ATC was free to visitors, artists were asked for a $25 fee to get a spot somewhere...very hard to find any spot

I paid the fee, but did not want a spot, I had 2 young women volunteers to help hand out stickers anywhere

We were chased down the street a couple times, one was the Big Art Boss, incensed by our giving stickers while he was trying to sell $5 stickers, we moved down a block, he was red faced and shouting

The next day, he found me and apologized. He was head of ATC organization, we got on after that

Art teachers loved the stickers, we gave them as many as they wanted

One stern fellow shouted, 'I AM an Artist' and stalked off

We never went inside any studio, but some stickers did, that also created danger

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51195203913_7e2ca11b1a_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kZWNvx)1-NOT ART Sticker (https://flic.kr/p/2kZWNvx) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[neil poulsen]

It's ironic that a photography forum such as this bans discussion of politics. All of my images that I consider successful are political statements.

I think that it's kind of ridiculous, because there's so much related to photography that can be politically related, and yet also be enlightening and insightful. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog, it began when the Lounge sub-forum was created. One can imagine the kind of political discussions that RAGED out of control. So "logically," political discussion was banned in ALL of the sub-forums. (This decision may have also been a bit of an over-reaction by moderators who actually had to deal with the mayhem that was occurring in the Lounge.)

As a former moderator, I argued that political discussion need be banned only in the Lounge. In other sub-forums, errant political discussion was controllable by requiring that all discussion be photographically related, and as current guidelines require, that discussion "maintain forum decorum."

Alas, this logic did not prevail.

Actually, I originally argued that the Lounge be jettisoned, in favor allowing thoughtful and respectful political discussion, which had been permitted previously to the Lounge. But, I could see where the Lounge offered value, so I tempered my input somewhat.

[Tin Can]

Jody, I don't believe your images are banned, it is the insane discussion we fear.

I for one want to see the political Images, not the chatter of opinion

Please speak visually

Today Brian posted this interesting image

Augusta, GA - 5/21/2021
Leica M6, Nikkor 2.8cm f/3.5, Foma 400, Pyrocat
(https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?43423-safe-haven-for-tiny-formats)

It's ironic that a photography forum such as this bans discussion of politics. All of my images that I consider successful are political statements.

[Corran]

Interesting thread Randy.

To your point, the image I posted certainly seems to evoke certain emotions and assumptions on the part of the viewer. For context, the image was taken in the "JB Whites" building, apparently an old department store, hence the letters. But as seen, without context and presented as such, it makes one think of other historical signage.

Also, many here made some very emotionally-charged comments when I initially posted images from a certain political figure's rally. It's still amazing to me how many will assume my political leanings based on what I happened to photograph.

[Peter De Smidt]

Bryan, that happened to Austin on Facebook. He posted some images, and a number of people assumed he had a particular message. We humans have a very strong desire to form groups, and to make very quick decisions about who's in or out of them.