Commenting on Photographic Art

[neil poulsen]

One of the benefits that this forum provides is the ability to get input about photographic art from other artists in the field.

But, it's interesting. Sometimes the number of comments on comments can equal the number of comments on the work itself.

Does that confuse disagreement with differences of opionions? In these threads, is it really necessary to defend our own opinions, or correspondingly to be placed in the position of having to defend our own opinions? Wouldn't it help to accept at the outset that people's opinions will differ?

I wonder if threads on people's work would benefit by people stating their opinions in a respectful manner and leaving it at that? In that way, the input itself would stand out and not be diluted by comments about other comments.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Neil,

I agree with your post and I hope others read it.

I think the current trend of going after people for their points of view stops many from participating ( I know I have all but given up). The current thread on Michael Smith's new work is a fine example.

Thanks for the post.

[Struan Gray]

One of the things I like most about this forum is that it is possible to have conversations here - threads are not just a bunch of people posting past each other.

A few flame wars and a smattering of grumpy grannies seems a small price to pay.

[tim atherton]

The problem with that is that it's not really a discussion or a debate - it really ends up being more a sort of scorecard tally

10 people say this work is awful, 15 say it's great, 2 say they aren't sure - so the final result is... the work a bit this side of okay.

My feeling is that such an approach will just encourage more comment along the lines of: "this work is pointless therefore it's worthless" or " this work is by the best photographer since sliced bread therefore it's great"

If peoples opinions differ, then is there no value in trying to simply find out why? Rather than just tallying up the opinions "yeah" and "nay"?

I also don't think you can always easily separate out how people comment and chose to phrase their comments from what people are saying. The two are frequently linked.

And as often as not I have found that hashing back and forth has at time helped me clarify what i have been trying to say or at other times someone has said something along the lines of "okay, I see what you mean now"

So essentially, no - I think such an approach will actually lead to greater polarisation.

Now I also think this can be done without people acting like arseholes and regularly making personal attacks.

The problem isn't necessarily making "comments about comments" rather there's a fairly thin line between vigorous and lively debate and discussion and being, say, a browbeating bully who chooses personal attack as a first response. But it's a clear line.

[Asher Kelman]

The problem with that is that it's not really a discussion or a debate - it really ends up being more a sort of scorecard tally

10 people say this work is awful, 15 say it's great, 2 say they aren't sure - so the final result is... the work a bit this side of okay.

My feeling is that such an approach will just encourage more comment along the lines of: "this work is pointless therefore it's worthless" or " this work is by the best photographer since sliced bread therefore it's great"

If peoples opinions differ, then is there no value in trying to simply find out why?
Hi Tim,

I think you have recognized something very important. People who give critique should explain why they have such an opinion of a photograph. Is it that is does not interest me, makes me feel angry? "It's in the style of XYZ but poorly executed (giving specifics)" or, for example, "It's orginal, I am interested but have issues with PQRS"!

Now for this critique to be meaningful, the artist needs to have presented the photograph as part of a body of work, a theme or with a title that gives guidance or some frame of reference to the work. Also the photographer must have their own steadfast vision of what he/she intended to portray and how much of the image they wanted to show, in what manner, style, emphasis to be printed in what manner and size.

The one person this has to work for is the photographer and he/she must jealosly defend his/her vision yet be open to feedback!

Then the number of "yays" and "nays" doesn't matter! :)

Asher

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

One of the benefits that this forum provides is the ability to get input about photographic art from other artists in the field.

But, it's interesting. Sometimes the number of comments on comments can equal the number of comments on the work itself.

Does that confuse disagreement with differences of opionions? In these threads, is it really necessary to defend our own opinions, or correspondingly to be placed in the position of having to defend our own opinions? Wouldn't it help to accept at the outset that people's opinions will differ?

I wonder if threads on people's work would benefit by people stating their opinions in a respectful manner and leaving it at that? In that way, the input itself would stand out and not be diluted by comments about other comments.

LOL.....keep on wishing, as long as there are a couple of guys who insist on being the art and photography apreciation police, who insist they are more sophisticated and knowlegeable than the rest of us and who think the way to garner respect and show how much they know is by arguing every opinion that is not similar to theirs, this will continue to happen.

The best thing to do is ignore them. Sadly, I did not follow my advice for a long time but since I started doing it, this place has become much more enjoyable to me.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think you have recognized something very important. People who give critique should explain why they have such an opinion of a photograph.

Most of the people who do so in this forum explain the reason for their opinion. The problem rises when a couple of people disagree with the reasons for that opinion and go after the person who presented the opinon, and will argue him to death just to prove they are right. In the end it becomes boring and annoying, some have patience some, like me, like to tell them to go **** themselves. In the end it is best to ignore them.

[paulr]

If peoples opinions differ, then is there no value in trying to simply find out why? Rather than just tallying up the opinions "yeah" and "nay"?

absolutely. i've always felt that the thumbs up/thumbs down type of criticism is at best boring, and at worse a complete distraction from what the work is about.

i admire commentary that's illuminating--even if all it illuminates is someone's personal connection with (or difficulty with) the work. it can help me see it with more depth or more clarity. but i would never assume that other people care if i like the work or not. that's about as interesting as if i like broccoli or not.

[jetcode]

Now for this critique to be meaningful, the artist needs to have presented the photograph as part of a body of work, a theme or with a title that gives guidance or some frame of reference to the work. Also the photographer must have their own steadfast vision of what he/she intended to portray and how much of the image they wanted to show, in what manner, style, emphasis to be printed in what manner and size.


what is meaningful?
does an artist need to follow guidelines?
does an artist require vision to express?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

what is meaningful?
does an artist need to follow guidelines?
does an artist require vision to express?

And if he/she has vision, is he/she necessarily expressing something?

[riooso]

Dear kind sir. What we have here is a collection of the most eclectic bunch of maniacs that can be assembled and still not considered anarchist trying to overthrow the world. It would be nice if some of them would not be so hard on the "little" people once in a while but it is in their nature and most of the time they kiss and make up. Moderators do a really good job taming the beast but I think no matter what is said and done there will always be beasts.


Richard Adams

[Asher Kelman]

I have made bold the only absolutely primary source of all valid measurements in an artist's work. These ruler's, (however many there may be), must come from the photographer's pockets, not mine, yours or those of any professional/guru!


.........Now for this critique to be meaningful, the artist needs to have presented the photograph as part of a body of work, a theme or with a title that gives guidance or some frame of reference to the work. Also the photographer must have their own steadfast vision of what he/she intended to portray and how much of the image they wanted to show, in what manner, style, emphasis to be printed in what manner and size.

The one person this has to work for is the photographer and he/she must jealosly defend his/her vision yet be open to feedback!

Then the number of "yays" and "nays" doesn't matter! :)


what is meaningful?
does an artist need to follow guidelines?
does an artist require vision to express?

When the photographer discusses what is meaningful to him/her as a frame of reference, then we are better able to read the language in which his/her ideas are engraved in the final photograph. The photographer has worked to make hisd/her unique image from raw reflections of light from "something" he/she selected to make a likeness of.

Does the artist know what is meaningful? Maybe, it's an iterative journey of discovery.

Does the artist require vision to express? How can one express without there being something to be drawn, squeezed, manipulated or otherwise brought out and shown? It is that which is inside the photographer's head which is brought out if something is expressed!

However, if the artist wanting C&C gives no frame of reference, then the feedback will likely refer to what? Will it be my view of a classical landscape or street photography by one of my favorite photographers or perhaps whether I'd like to use that picture for a brochure I'm making?

My own preference is to learn "what the photographer hoped for and intends to show" and for what context. This is just my own way of working.

Asher

[domenico Foschi]

On the top of my head I can name Kertesz and Bresson that really didn't care of all this intellectualism around their work.
I believe all this brain storming in Art exsist to give a job to critics and whoever profits from an artists work, Artists included.
"What does it mean" is the question I loath the most when it comes to my work.
When I hear someone saying : I don't understand it, should I explain it to them?
If I was an established photographer, explaining my piece to a collector who "doesn't get it", probably would make me sell that piece, but it would make me feel like a merchant in the Casbah.
Or you like or you don't like it.

Art, and I repeat it "ad nauseam", has little to do with reasoning.

[kjsphotography]

LOL.....keep on wishing, as long as there are a couple of guys who insist on being the art and photography apreciation police, who insist they are more sophisticated and knowlegeable than the rest of us and who think the way to garner respect and show how much they know is by arguing every opinion that is not similar to theirs, this will continue to happen.

The best thing to do is ignore them. Sadly, I did not follow my advice for a long time but since I started doing it, this place has become much more enjoyable to me.


Jorge you hit the nail on the head. Amen to that...

[Asher Kelman]

"What does it mean" is the question I loath the most when it comes to my work.
When I hear someone saying : I don't understand it, should I explain it to them?
If I was an established photographer, explaining my piece to a collector who "doesn't get it", probably would make me sell that piece, but it would make me feel like a merchant in the Casbah.

What's wrong with these merchants in the Casba?



Or you like or you don't like it.

True, but if the art is dependent on knowing some other art or cultural history, like the meaning of the crucifix, the magna carta, or some other culturally dependant idea, then why not explain??


Art, and I repeat it "ad nauseam", has little to do with reasoning.

That depends what you mean by reasoning? Even an "emotional" reaction is fundamentally "reasoning". I'd wager, most pictures you look at and like, involves some thought, judgement, questions and reasoning is used in all this.

In fact, art is an engine of reason, a tool. That is, after all the mechanism whereby, knowingly or not we "get it", or not!

Just because we might not be aware of the reasoning does not remove reason from our brains work in viewing the art. We just are naturally protected from 99.99%of all the work our brain does, or else if we were aware, we'd go postal!

Thank goodness we don't need to know all that to enjoy photography!

Asher

[jetcode]

As I progress in my own understanding of art I find that meaning is meaningless and visual impact is everything (visual arts of course). What happens in the first hour of viewing an image tells the story for me. I may be intrigued, untouched, or bored. I am not one to search for meaning however. This is different then being aware of the story in the image. I also notice that I am allowing myself to open to expressions that challenge me. This is one of my learning processes. Mostly I experience great satisfaction in finding. framing, and producing an image.

Joe

[Michael Alpert]

Wouldn't it help to accept at the outset that people's opinions will differ?

I wonder if threads on people's work would benefit by people stating their opinions in a respectful manner and leaving it at that? In that way, the input itself would stand out and not be diluted by comments about other comments.

Neil,

Although this forum is helpful in many ways, we should recognize that there are severe limitations to any conversation where people are strangers to one another. The discussions here involve diverse contributors, many of whom do not even identify themselves by name. A few seem barely literate, reckless in attitude, or lacking in experience. Because the Internet involves anonymous individuals, it is an essentially hostile medium; it is only through kindness that people here make something worthwhile out of this blind and deaf impersonal situation. Sadly, kindness breaks down most readily when we are asked to articulate quick (and therefore shallow) aesthetic judgements.

[Asher Kelman]

Neil,

Although this forum is helpful in many ways, we should recognize that there are severe limitations to any conversation where people are strangers to one another. The discussions here involve diverse contributors, many of whom do not even identify themselves by name. A few seem barely literate, reckless in attitude, or lacking in experience. Because the Internet involves anonymous individuals, it is an essentially hostile medium; it is only through kindness that people here make something worthwhile out of this blind and deaf impersonal situation. Sadly, kindness breaks down most readily when we are asked to articulate quick (and therefore shallow) aesthetic judgements.

Michael,

That's perfect and why a real identity should be required!

Asher

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What's wrong with these merchants in the Casba?




True, but if the art is dependent on knowing some other art or cultural history, like the meaning of the crucifix, the magna carta, or some other culturally dependant idea, then why not explain??



That depends what you mean by reasoning? Even an "emotional" reaction is fundamentally "reasoning". I'd wager, most pictures you look at and like, involves some thought, judgement, questions and reasoning is used in all this.

In fact, art is an engine of reason, a tool. That is, after all the mechanism whereby, knowingly or not we "get it", or not!

Just because we might not be aware of the reasoning does not remove reason from our brains work in viewing the art. We just are naturally protected from 99.99%of all the work our brain does, or else if we were aware, we'd go postal!

Thank goodness we don't need to know all that to enjoy photography!

Asher

:rolleyes: See Neil? Some people have it all figured out and have to absolutely argue any differing opinion.

[paulr]

Just because we might not be aware of the reasoning does not remove reason from our brains work in viewing the art. We just are naturally protected from 99.99%of all the work our brain does, or else if we were aware, we'd

Even if we're not actively reasoning when we look at art, we approach it with a lot of ideas and assumptions about the world (and art) that we learned, somehow.

Sometimes the learning was conscious, and sometimes not. I'm betting no one here has the same taste in art (or anything else) that they had when they were five years old. Or ten years old. So I'm surprised when people assume that what they like or appreciate today can never change.

[Asher Kelman]

:rolleyes: See Neil? Some people have it all figured out and have to absolutely argue any differing opinion.

C'mon Jorge,

Do you usually answer one person's reasoned opinion by talking about them in the third person, as if the writer was an upstart object? Let's look at this again.

We are not talking about any particular photograph. I'm simply positing that in critique, except for buying art for a collection or commenting in a newspaper, one is trying to give useful feedback to the photographer not protect the general public.

So I just argue for respecting the intent of the photographer. Why not address that point of view? Is the intent to promote or devalue a picture or is it to deal with the optimization of the photographer's purpose and intent?

The questions were posed about the standards to be used. I merely say that I try to use the artists intent if shared with us, that's all!

This thread is about "commenting on art photography". I'm just giving my own point of view that our individual reactions are dependant on internal dynamics based on our personalities, cultural preference, knowledge of art, photography and more and that this is a combination of reflex feelings and reasoned appreciation.

The idea that "Art, and I repeat it "ad nauseam", has little to do with reasoning." is not to be questioned, is therefore not a trivial point. Questioning this wonderfully sounding quip is serious and not from a penchant "to find a reason to argue with". It's the questioning of an attractively simple, seemingly true and significant but mistaken dogma.

For sure, the statement sounds true and has a "zing" to it, but it's like a number of aphorisms, too simplistic!

Asher

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I disagree, and it precisely this behavior that Neil is talking about. The thread is about commenting on the comments and/or opinions posted. Not commenting about art itself.

Now, we got your opinion, we have read it a couple of times. Yet when Domeinco posts his opinion, it obviously disagrees with yours but you could not leave it alone. Not only you could not leave it alone, but you use sentences like:

In fact, art is an engine of reason, a tool. That is, after all the mechanism whereby, knowingly or not we "get it", or not!

How do you know this? Since when this is a fact?

And then you wrote this:

I have made bold the only absolutely primary source of all valid measurements in an artist's work.

Sorry, but I happen to disagree with the statment you placed in bold. Yet, like it usually happens in these cases we were going to be going in circles and nothing would come out of it, so I left it alone, after all this is your opinion and I know I am not going to change your mind in the same way you are not going to change mine. So why bother?

Now, after countless flame wars, mostly with the two resident art experts and seeing them argue with other people as well, I have come to the following conclusion:

Nobody here is going to convince the other person, the only reason to argue, specially for people like them is to try to show off, and mistakenly prove that they are "experts" in all things photographic and artistic.

You seem to be in the same kind of mold, you apparently have it all figured out with you absolutes and facts, so with that, I thank you for your response but don't bother on responding to me, I have learned in the last few weeks that the ignore list does work.

[Asher Kelman]

Jorge,

Let's just leave it as two different viewpoints. Mine is not absolute, just an opinion, nothing more important.

I do not state how you should think or that you are wrong, just how I use the artists intention where I can and consider that pretty holy.

I will try to be scrupulous in not commenting too much on comments to my comments!!!! So relax! I'm a nice guy!

Asher

[neil poulsen]

Neil,

Although this forum is helpful in many ways, we should recognize that there are severe limitations to any conversation where people are strangers to one another. The discussions here involve diverse contributors, many of whom do not even identify themselves by name. A few seem barely literate, reckless in attitude, or lacking in experience. Because the Internet involves anonymous individuals, it is an essentially hostile medium; it is only through kindness that people here make something worthwhile out of this blind and deaf impersonal situation. Sadly, kindness breaks down most readily when we are asked to articulate quick (and therefore shallow) aesthetic judgements.

It's not only anonymity, it's proximity. For example, posting on an internet forum can be quite different than several people having a discussion together in a room. I think that we tend to show more deference when we're speaking with people in person.

But, I'm not so sure we can't show the same deference on the internet and respond as if we were in the same room. I think that's a good model to keep in mind.

As for the depth of input, quick replies can definitely lead to a lack of depth. But, the internet is interesting in that regard. Since it's written, and since there's no urgency, one can also take the time to carefully frame one's response and to think about what's being stated as one does that. I know that I can take 30 minutes framing a response in a forum that I might have spent two minutes articulating verbally. It can go both ways, though.

[paulr]

I'm simply positing that in critique, except for buying art for a collection or commenting in a newspaper, one is trying to give useful feedback to the photographer not protect the general public.

We all seem to be talking about different things ... one of the pitfalls of criticism is that there are so many different kinds of it. I didn't even realize that you were talking about giving feedback directly to an artist. I agree that this is a special case, and that it asks for special sensitivity. My feeling in regard to this is that it's best to ask the artist what kind of feedback they're looking for. techincal? general impressions? specific questions? a serious ass kicking? or maybe they're just showing it and don't want feedback at all?

[Michael Alpert]

It's not only anonymity, it's proximity. For example, posting on an internet forum can be quite different than several people having a discussion together in a room. I think that we tend to show more deference when we're speaking with people in person.

But, I'm not so sure we can't show the same deference on the internet and respond as if we were in the same room. I think that's a good model to keep in mind.

As for the depth of input, quick replies can definitely lead to a lack of depth. But, the internet is interesting in that regard. Since it's written, and since there's no urgency, one can also take the time to carefully frame one's response and to think about what's being stated as one does that. I know that I can take 30 minutes framing a response in a forum that I might have spent two minutes articulating verbally. It can go both ways, though.

Neil,

No matter how carefully you frame your Internet responses, you can never overcome the lack of real personal contact and the absence of an holistic perspective. So any post (including my posts) is best seen as incomplete. Still, I agree with you. Communication on this forum can be beneficial. Thank goodness many of the contributors here write with both passion and care.

[domenico Foschi]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty.
Beauty is intended not as a pretty flower or a sunset that makes you think of your last vacation at the Haway, but as that Universal presence, also called Truth.
If you agree that Art is a vehicle to that, then all the intellectual speculations around Art are just scratching the surface, or, if you feel that an artwork needs an explanation, then the artists has failed.
Let's remember that seemingly corny statement that says that an Artist is just an instrument, an antenna whose work is to translate a message in his/her own medium of preference.
Well, at the risk of getting scorned here, I agree with it. If you believe there is a God, you must take in consideration that that God is involved in your creative act.
Countless great Artists have expressed this concept in as many different words as it is their number, but at the end they all expressed this same idea.
What am I getting at?
What I am trying to say is that any attempt to explain Art, in fact limits its power by placing in front of it an intellectual barrier, which will never allow the viewer to experience the work in its full power.
Furthermore, if it's true that Art is for all, all the reasoning behind it will alienate the person who hasn't been gifted with a ceratin degree of intellect, especially when it comes to those overly intellectual discussions about Art.
Nobody has the same degree of intellect, but everybody has the innate ability,sometime buried or dormient, to love and see beauty.

[paulr]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty.

it might be, but i think you'd have a hard time getting a room full of people to agree on what "beauty" is. for some it IS prettiness, for others it's a more complex matter. People have been trying to figure this one out at least since Aristotle; the branch of philosophy called Aesthetics is dense and continually evolving. Even those who tried to simplify the idea, like Keats with his Grecian Urn that proclaimed "beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know," set us up with more questions than answers. Just try to get people to agree about "the truth!"


What I am trying to say is that any attempt to explain Art, in fact limits its power by placing in front of it an intellectual barrier, which will never allow the viewer to experience the work in its full power.

this may be true, but I think it's limiting to think of criticism or commentary as attempts to "explain" art. some critics do this, but in my opinion they're not the good ones. excellent criticism can illuminate the art--establish a context for it, and point to relevent aspects of it that we might not have fully noticed. when it succeeds at this, it doesn't stand in our way; it helps us see more.

i don't know if you've seen Szarkowski's old book, "Looking at Photographs." each spread is a picture by a different photographer, paired with a bit of text. In each example, he writes something illuminating, from a different angle, intended to help you experience the work more profoundly. not once does he say "this what this picture is about ..."

[John Kasaian]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty.
Beauty is intended not as a pretty flower or a sunset that makes you think of your last vacation at the Haway, but as that Universal presence, also called Truth.
If you agree that Art is a vehicle to that, then all the intellectual speculations around Art are just scratching the surface, or, if you feel that an artwork needs an explanation, then the artists has failed.
Let's remember that seemingly corny statement that says that an Artist is just an instrument, an antenna whose work is to translate a message in his/her own medium of preference.
Well, at the risk of getting scorned here, I agree with it. If you believe there is a God, you must take in consideration that that God is involved in your creative act.
Countless great Artists have expressed this concept in as many different words as it is their number, but at the end they all expressed this same idea.
What am I getting at?
What I am trying to say is that any attempt to explain Art, in fact limits its power by placing in front of it an intellectual barrier, which will never allow the viewer to experience the work in its full power.
Furthermore, if it's true that Art is for all, all the reasoning behind it will alienate the person who hasn't been gifted with a ceratin degree of intellect, especially when it comes to those overly intellectual discussions about Art.
Nobody has the same degree of intellect, but everybody has the innate ability,sometime buried or dormient, to love and see beauty.

Beautifully put, Domenico!

[darr]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty. Beauty is intended not as a pretty flower or a sunset that makes you think of your last vacation at the Haway, but as that Universal presence, also called Truth.

... Let's remember that seemingly corny statement that says that an Artist is just an instrument, an antenna whose work is to translate a message in his/her own medium of preference.

... If you believe there is a God, you must take in consideration that that God is involved in your creative act.

Domenico you make more sense than any essay on photography I have read. Thank you for your profound words and ability to recognize and communicate the truth. Your work speaks your vision clearly. It is always a blessing to share your presence in this forum.

[tim atherton]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty.


probably the oldest and original objective of art is as a vehicle for religious ritual. This involved not only a search for beauty and the numinous but also equally embodied the sublime with its invoking of awe and fear.

Both of these strands (along with others) continue through to the history art and up to the art of the present day.

Art purely as a search for Beauty is a fairly modern (small m) concept and one which excludes whole swaths of art both contemporary and historic.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

if you feel that an artwork needs an explanation, then the artists has failed.

Unfortunatelly, some people beleive this is not so. That it is in fact the explanation that gives the work meaning and that most of us are too uncouth, unsophisticated, banal and unwashed to "get it" and therefore needs to be explained to us. Nobody can define what is art or what is beautiful and by this exclusion nobody can tell us that we are wrong in what we like or dislike. As it happens a lot in this forum.


If you believe there is a God, you must take in consideration that that God is involved in your creative act.

Hmmm... I think we have enough disagreements as is with the concept of art to inject religion into it. The concept I have of God is probably much different than yours. In any case I think I better stop now before this becomes as you italians say another imbroglio... :)


Furthermore, if it's true that Art is for all, all the reasoning behind it will alienate the person who hasn't been gifted with a ceratin degree of intellect, especially when it comes to those overly intellectual discussions about Art.

Yep, or put more succintly, I may not know a lot about art but I know what I like.... :)

[paulr]

probably the oldest and original objective of art is as a vehicle for religious ritual.

last year in Chicago I went to an exhibit of some of the artifacts from Kink Tut's tomb. It was a mind opening example of what you're talking about. All of the art objects were beautiful to look at, but since I'm not an Egyptian from that era, I couldn't appreciate what they actually were.

Some of the descriptions helped bring the esthetics and the orignial purpose together in my mind. I could see that these weren't decorations; they were magical objects. Some were designed for communing directly with the gods, or helping with safe passage to the underworld, or for appeasing the sun god ... that kind of thing. Their beautiful appearance was a byproduct of this greater purpose, not an end in itself. I was able to get a much deeper appreciation for what I was seeing thanks the context given by the curators.

[jetcode]

Off Topic Warning:


If you believe there is a God, you must take in consideration that that God is involved in your creative act.

The subject of "God" and any definition of is highly subjective. There are indeed spiritual forces in play in this reality and beyond but humanity is not really in a position to understand, identify, or quantify the notion of "God". To do so would require knowledge of universal truth well beyond the human experience. As I have learned in my spiritual studies (your mileage will definitely vary) there is no one all knowing entity responsible for this creation. This existence is one of physical phenomenon that transcends the sensory capabilities of the human experience. There are archetypes that can be considered god like. There are notions of forces which appear god like. There are spiritual experiences that appear to be god given. But all of these can be traced to physical phenomenons surrounding the reality of this carbon based organic existence. The electromagnetic spectra contains communities that are not perceptible to the human sensors. This indeed is where spirit as we experience it in humanity exists. Beyond these lower realms are even higher realms of intelligence. No doubt these realms had a hand in the creation of life forms as we know them here on earth. One can only speculate this creation and existence blindly in the midst of a much larger universal picture of truth. That said we have innate capabilities that are mind boggling. Who could have ever conceived the immense functionality of the human body and the spiritual existence that make up our life? We as a species have been reverse engineering our existence on earth since we were given consciousness to do so. Life is a mystery far from being realized in it's entire truth from the perspective of the human experience.

End Off Topic Warning:

[Struan Gray]

The most fundamental objective of Art, the most real one is the search for Beauty.

As others have said, this just changes the question from "what is art?" to "what is beauty?"

I love plenty of art that falls under classic definitions like yours. The problem for me, is that I experience the same emotions when I encounter a classically 'elegant' piece of mathematics, or a well-argued essay. I also find that my appreciation of classically-approved of art improves when I learn something about it, i.e. when I engage it with my intellect, I experience stronger emotions.

So statements like yours are essentially telling me that I am not included in your club. I know that is not what you mean, but I have met enough people who used your words and did mean to exclude me that I am personally very suspicious of the notion of instinctive aestheticism. I have no problems with the idea that some want to approach art without any analysis, but I reject strongly the idea that I am somehow doing something wrong when I choose to approach art, and define what is art to me, in my own way. It's not as if anyone's life is going to be blighted by my preferences.

[domenico Foschi]

Struan,
I also, am in awe of the intrinsec Beauty in a mathemathical formula, as well other disciplines like even finance, actually strictly connected to mathematics.
It is my beliefs that this "discoveries" are not dictated by the intellect, but by the classic "hunch", the inspiration.
Mathematics is not something that humans have invented, it's out there and we are in the process of discovering it.
The intellect then becomes part of the process in the realization of envisioning through the experience and knowledge acquired through study and practice, this is true of Art as well.
This is a process that defies logic. Once this hunch is accepted by the brain then is the work of our rational side to develop it.
This is the equivalent of "thinking out of the box", in my opinion wrongly described, because there is no initial thought process.
Art, like every creative action, is, has been and always will be about Beauty, that is why an inspired work of Art will always be beautiful and withstand the passage of time, will be timeless, like the very nature of God, in my opinion, the true definition of Eternal.


Jetcode, Jorge

I am not talking of God to an intellectual level, namely religion, I am talking of God, to use the most widely used term, at an experience level.
It is not a complete understanding of how things work, but a series of experiences that tell you all you need to know in that specific moment.
This is the realm I do not wish to describe, because it is a very personal one and in all honesty I don't feel I can describe to give you an understanding of it, because is experiencial (spelling?).
I truly feel this is my last post on the subject, I have had a lot of fun partecipating, I like this exchange of ideas, and my intention is not to change anybody's mind, but simply share my thoughts and convintions about the subject.
I will be following this thread with extreme interest.





As others have said, this just changes the question from "what is art?" to "what is beauty?"

I love plenty of art that falls under classic definitions like yours. The problem for me, is that I experience the same emotions when I encounter a classically 'elegant' piece of mathematics, or a well-argued essay. I also find that my appreciation of classically-approved of art improves when I learn something about it, i.e. when I engage it with my intellect, I experience stronger emotions.

So statements like yours are essentially telling me that I am not included in your club. I know that is not what you mean, but I have met enough people who used your words and did mean to exclude me that I am personally very suspicious of the notion of instinctive aestheticism. I have no problems with the idea that some want to approach art without any analysis, but I reject strongly the idea that I am somehow doing something wrong when I choose to approach art, and define what is art to me, in my own way. It's not as if anyone's life is going to be blighted by my preferences.

[Struan Gray]

It is my beliefs that this "discoveries" are not dictated by the intellect, but by the classic "hunch", the inspiration.

I like this post much more than your first, but I am still wary of prescriptive approaches to something as remote from necessity as art. There are so many layers of character and culture between the sensation, the perception and the appreciation that I don't think there can be any general rules.

In particular I think hunches are trained instincts, and like physical tangrams can be led in particular directions by the life you have chosen to live up to the point where they are used. I am currently reading William Empson on poetry, who has some interesting things to say in defence of an analytical approach to art. He talks about how his instinctual approach is to home in on unexpected beauty. My point, and I suspect his (I've only started the book) is that 'unexpected' is as dependent on the particulars of individual character as 'beauty'.