Ramblecrap...does it have a purpose?

[George E. Sheils]

Found a nice website the other day. Belongs to one RJ Lam. Some very good images.

However, the artist (photographer) statement goes like this:

"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world. Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light. Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself.":

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Can anyone translate this please?

[Ash]

Hi George.

I'm personally quite offended, mainly due to my own correspondence with RJ, and his kindness, critique, and encouragement.

I guess what you consider crap is actually a substantial portion of the communication between fine art world people, for want of a better expression.

You may also find that RJ is multilingual and with that in mind his prose may be transliterate.

[George E. Sheils]

Ash,

Apologies, my post was not designed to offend anyone. I have no doubt that RJ is a sound individual from what you say and that he is entitled to freedom of speech.

RJ expresses himself (and his talent) very clearly through his images. The above artist statement does not do him justice. It does little to enlighten the majority of viewers as to what really motivates RJ to do what he does so well.

What does anyone else think?

[Walter Foscari]

Definitely a bit overdone for my taste.

[John Kasaian]

Request my post be deleted due to being written while suffering chronic indigestion

[Alan Davenport]

Request my post be deleted due to being written while suffering chronic indigestion

ROFLMAO

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Photographers come up with this sort of BS to try to make their work seem more legit, and thus, more valuable. I find it a real turn-off- the images should speak for themselves- but apparently people buy it, since many photographers sell lots of prints using this technique. I can't comment on RJ Lam, since I haven't checked out his images, but personally I am turned off by this approach.

"Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light."

An acid trip, perhaps? ;)

[Doug Dolde]

Sure looks like Ramble Crap to me.

Is it the Queen's English, Ash?

[SamReeves]

Photographers come up with this sort of BS to try to make their work seem more legit, and thus, more valuable. I find it a real turn-off- the images should speak for themselves- but apparently people buy it, since many photographers sell lots of prints using this technique. I can't comment on RJ Lam, since I haven't checked out his images, but personally I am turned off by this approach.

"Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light."

An acid trip, perhaps? ;)

Amen. Let's see the photographs. Less talk and more action.

[Donald Miller]

Found a nice website the other day. Belongs to one RJ Lam. Some very good images.

However, the artist (photographer) statement goes like this:

"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world. Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light. Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself.":

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Can anyone translate this please?

O.K. George since no one has stepped up to translate this for you (unless I misunderstood the previous attacks by some responders for translation), let me try to put into plain language what this person is saying.

I paraphrase... In this persons photographic journey he strives to discover and portray his inner being (his psyche, for want of a different word) through his portrayal of the external world. He goes on to state that it is through self discovery and knowledge that he portrays a broad scope of himself by his love and use of light.

He goes on to say that it is his relationship with light, as manifested in the external world, that has enabled an inner organization and that this inner organization enables a new view of the external world through a mutual relationship between his inner self and the external world.

That furthermore, what could simplistically be interpreted as a typical topographic (photographic or outer view) of the external world is rather a continuation of this relationship between his/her inner self and the external world.


I will go on to say, all of the forgoing indicates a person with an advanced understanding of themselves, the world in which they exist, and their rightful place in it. For those who do not understand and wish to learn one may benefit from some reading, study, and hoped for understanding, an overview of Jungian psychology and an overview of the Buddhist orientation to life may serve as a beginning...there is more beyond those two areas but they would serve as a good beginning.

Now it would help, in the future, that some of us could recognize that just because someone uses language beyond our intelligence and understanding does not necessitate the need for a personal attack.

I hope this is what will help you.

[janepaints]

What RJ Lam is trying to describe seems kindred to Steiglitz's notion of Equivalents, yes? No?

Maybe the exact same blend of mind/grace/awareness/perception intended by Steiglitz's term.

[D. Bryant]

Found a nice website the other day. Belongs to one RJ Lam. Some very good images.

However, the artist (photographer) statement goes like this:

"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world. Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light. Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself.":

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Can anyone translate this please?
Is there a URL to this site?

Don Bryant

[Donald Miller]

What RJ Lam is trying to describe seems kindred to Steiglitz's notion of Equivalents, yes? No?

Maybe the exact same state of mind/grace/awareness intended by Steiglitz's term.

Yes, I would say that they are on the same page as I understand it. The area where there may be some difference in these two individuals' related beliefs is that while Steiglitz seemed to indicate that his "equivalent" images were an indication of an inner orientation via his chosen subject matter...hence the external is more passive, Lam, on the other hand, seems to indicate something additional in that there is an ongoing and hence more active relationship between his inner being and the external world. As others have already said, "the camera points both ways".

[Donald Miller]

Is there a URL to this site?

Don Bryant

http://www.rjlam.f9.co.uk/RJ%20Lam.htm

[Duane Polcou]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

[George E. Sheils]

[B][I]

Now it would help, in the future, that some of us could recognize that just because someone uses language beyond our intelligence and understanding does not necessitate the need for a personal attack.



Donald, thank you for correcting me.

Please don't assume that I or any others find this type of beyond our intelligence or understanding. I simply asked why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

The genius of Shakespeare lies in his ability to express complex notions in the simplest language. RJ Lam and some others choose obviously choose to do the reverse.

Unlike your response to me, I didn't make a personal attack on RJ Lam. I merely pointed out that the complexity of his statement flies in the face of the simplicity of his images.

Regards,
George

[Donald Miller]

Donald, thank you for correcting me.

Please don't assume that I or any others find this type of beyond our intelligence or understanding. I simply asked why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

The genius of Shakespeare lies in his ability to express complex notions in the simplest language. RJ Lam and some others choose obviously choose to do the reverse.

Unlike your response to me, I didn't make a personal attack on RJ Lam. I merely pointed out that the complexity of his statement flies in the face of the simplicity of his images.

Regards,
George

George, If you will take a moment to reread what I wrote, you will see that I did not single out you or any individual, for that matter. I left it for those who responded to your post to determine for themselves. My response to you was tempered in what I though was a sincere request for elaboration on the statement that Mr. Lam made. I reached that determination based on your request as follows

"Can anyone translate this please?"

I guess that I did not understand your intent at all...I say this because you seem to be making differing requests between this response and your original post. I honestly thought you wanted an explanation but it seems now that you were trying to be cynical. In the future, it may help if you communicate clearly your honest intent.

Most sincerely,
Donald Miller

[Paul Moshay]

I just surveyed RJ Lam's website and the work is beautiful, and no matter how he states it the work tells the tale. Paul

[otzi]

Oh dear, what world do I live in? For a purely agricultural perspective may I put it this way.

If I like what I'm seeing.
I'll shoot how I see it.
And hang how I saw it on the wall.

Now if the image strikes a cord and causes the viewer to pause just a moment in reflection, I consider it a success. Any attempt to tell the viewer how or what to think, I feel, is an insult and takes away proportionally from the image. Who am I that needs to tell others who or what I am or even what I think? Look at the image.

Have I lost the plot?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

Hillarious!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Oh dear, what world do I live in? For a purely agricultural perspective may I put it this way.

If I like what I'm seeing.
I'll shoot how I see it.
And hang how I saw it on the wall.

Now if the image strikes a cord and causes the viewer to pause just a moment in reflection, I consider it a success. Any attempt to tell the viewer how or what to think, I feel, is an insult and takes away proportionally from the image. Who am I that needs to tell others who or what I am or even what I think? Look at the image.

Have I lost the plot?

RJ does very nice work, but IMHO the pretentious photo-speak detracts from it. I think that many other photogs are turned off by this, but it seems to work with the general public. Most of the photographers who sell a lot of prints use a similar approach- I think it makes many photo buyers feel like they're getting more for their money.

From the website-

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

[Dick Hilker]

When the art is good, an elaborate statement seems superfluous and, when it isn't very good, the fanciest statement doesn't help. The situation seems much like that of a recent discussion relating to picture titles.

Some artists' statements suggest that they take themselves much too seriously for the quality of their work and it seems that their lofty pronouncements detract, rather than add to the impression they try to convey. As somone who's perhaps taken himself and life a bit too casually, I'm often stumped when asked to provide an artist's statement for a show, much preferring that my pictures speak for themselves: after all, it's all about them, isn't it?

[QT Luong]

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

Maybe he eschews digitalisation, but I thought I saw his images on the web ?

[Alan Davenport]

Cows do it, too.

[domenico Foschi]

RJ does very nice work, but IMHO the pretentious photo-speak detracts from it. I think that many other photogs are turned off by this, but it seems to work with the general public. Most of the photographers who sell a lot of prints use a similar approach- I think it makes many photo buyers feel like they're getting more for their money.

From the website-

"RJ does not accept digital manipulation of photographic images as a standard and his work eschews digitalisation or manipulation of the image."

This statement I find somewhat offensive and hypocritical- ALL photography involves manipulation of images- RJ is selling the old "digital and/or manipulation of photos is inherently inferior" rant.

Brian, I don't think it's a hypocritical statement, since he mentions digital manipulation.
Why do you find it offensive?

He is talking about his approach and his value system when it comes to creating images, without attacking other photographers.
He probably works hard in his darkroom and he would like to underscore what kind of process he uses.
Everybody has his/her own approach and it seems fair to me that he mentions this as information for his potential collectors.

[domenico Foschi]

About the description?

I, as an humble immigrant, understood very little.
Too many circumvolutions around pretty effective images.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Brian, I don't think it's a hypocritical statement, since he mentions digital manipulation.
Why do you find it offensive?

He is talking about his approach and his value system when it comes to creating images, without attacking other photographers.
He probably works hard in his darkroom and he would like to underscore what kind of process he uses.
Everybody has his/her own approach and it seems fair to me that he mentions this as information for his potential collectors.

Hi Domenico,

The reason that I found it slightly offensive is because it implies that digtal printing is inferior to darkroom. Those of us who print digitally also work hard at creating the finest prints. Neither method is innately superior to the other- they are just tools.

[Randy H]

Heck RJ, ya gotta talk "really slow" so the hillbillies can unnerstan whut you sayin'. After all, Jethro jus gradiated sisth grade last year. An don' be usin words that are more than monosyllabic.

Why is it that if someone speaks or writes something that is above our feeble comprehension, that we are so ready to crucify them? I found no problem with him sharing his thoughts and emotions regarding his work. Kinda cool. Just because he did so on a level that average Joe did not comprehend, does not make it B.S.


But then again, I am just an ass-kiissin old long-haired hippie. (so I've been told :rolleyes: )

[Rob Champagne]

If you wrote a book or magazine articles or just about anything else using that kind of language, you would be laughed at by the publisher. The fact is, it is trying to be elitist which is fine and dandy if thats the clientelle you want to attract. But if you are the sort of person who thinks that the masses don't count and your art is only for the few who can decipher your statement, then that says more about you than your images ever will. Thats why your artists statement is so important. This guy has F*****d up big time.

[Randy H]

why some photographers/artists choose to write statements in language which is both obscure and let's be honest, pretentious.

Perhaps he is being neither obscure nor pretentious.
Perhaps it is the reader being dull of understanding and of a difinite lower level of intelligence.
Nah. That cain't be it.



"The ass-kissin old hippie"
Peace Out

[Eric_Scott]

Can anyone translate this please?

If George really wanted a translation, he'd ask the photographer himself to translate it. At least he'd give the photographer a chance to translate it for him.

[Ash]

I wonder if anybody has invited RJ to see what criticisms people have laid without any real founding. Not to troll on this issue any further but I believe this is just a bitch fest.

For the record I appreciate RJ's work and this it is some of the best I've seen for the genre he has. I prefer portraiture and street, RJ is more colour landscape and the like. For this reason I'd like to make clear there's no ass kissing from me here, and it takes a lot for someone who works in an area of photography that I dislike to put out images that I love.

With that in mind, I feel that the problem here is with language. RJ writes in English, European English if you like. I understand it because I was brought up reading complex prose in school. Maybe that's just because of my education. If I had only read the TV Guide I'd never understand a word on this site.

If you don't understand it, don't read it. Take another look at your posts and realise that there is no point bitching because you can't understand the prose.

Oh, and RJ is a member here. You're shooting yourself in the foot when so many of the regulars effectively witch-hunt someone in their midst - on a specialised forum of all things.

[Rob Champagne]

Well lets hope he's paying attention then

[cobalt]

I wonder if anybody has invited RJ to see what criticisms people have laid without any real founding. Not to troll on this issue any further but I believe this is just a bitch fest.

For the record I appreciate RJ's work and this it is some of the best I've seen for the genre he has. I prefer portraiture and street, RJ is more colour landscape and the like. For this reason I'd like to make clear there's no ass kissing from me here, and it takes a lot for someone who works in an area of photography that I dislike to put out images that I love.

With that in mind, I feel that the problem here is with language. RJ writes in English, European English if you like. I understand it because I was brought up reading complex prose in school. Maybe that's just because of my education. If I had only read the TV Guide I'd never understand a word on this site.

If you don't understand it, don't read it. Take another look at your posts and realise that there is no point bitching because you can't understand the prose.

Oh, and RJ is a member here. You're shooting yourself in the foot when so many of the regulars effectively witch-hunt someone in their midst - on a specialised forum of all things.

I agree with you, for the most part.

I would add that (present company excluded, Ash, and I mean that sincerely. You apparently have the balls to experiment and break from tradition, all the while maintaining a commendable humility with respect to the assessment of your own ability.) that I find it ironic that true talent is often ridiculed by those that have very little if any.

If may be "ramble crap", but it sure beats the living dogshit out of "a joy to use", "ymmv", "fiddly" as well as numerous other often repeated catch phrases issued by the less well endowed. While most here ramble on incessantly about lens comparisons, getting a bigger camera, development times, film e.i. tests, etc., this guy is creating images that put the vast majority of those displayed here to shame. I know I will get crap from this statement, but who cares. The emporer is indeed quite naked, and I am tired of looking at his bloated, mouldering ass. Truth hurts. Deal with it. Pardon the colloquialism:

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

[Rob Champagne]

With that in mind, I feel that the problem here is with language. RJ writes in English, European English if you like. I understand it because I was brought up reading complex prose in school.

Ash,
What does valorisation mean? And what does it mean in the context it is used in?

[Doug Dolde]

I find it hard to believe that's European English. Heck even the French couldn't come up with such self aggrandizing babble.

[Donald Miller]

Ash,
What does valorisation mean? And what does it mean in the context it is used in?

I hope that Ash will allow me to respond.

It means to "give value to"....in other words he assigns value to the light that he observes in the external world.

while the more common spelling would be valorization the language that the speaker uses apparently is more familiar with the alternative spelling valorisation.

[tim atherton]

Ash,
What does valorisation mean? And what does it mean in the context it is used in?

There's still a sort of lingering Macarthyiusm in many American schools, as a result of which many aren't always terribly strong on aesthetics or critical theory - especially when it grows out of continental philosophy. It's sort of unamerican

(mind you, most architects will be steeped in this before they are allowed to go out and design parking garages and malls)

Anyone who has taken marxist theory 101 (or a basic aesthetics course) should know what valorisation means. Read up on your Adorno or Marcuse et al :-)

Just because this is written in language that some don't appear to comprehend doesn't mean it isn't comprehensible or meaningful.


That said, I don't think his work lives up to his his theory....

[Donald Miller]

I find it hard to believe that's European English. Heck even the French couldn't come up with such self aggrandizing babble.

While you are entitled to your impression, there is nothing...I repeat nothing that is self aggrandizing about the statement as it is presented here.

[tim atherton]

while the more common spelling would be valorization the language that the speaker uses apparently is more familiar with the alternative spelling valorisation.

That would be the more common US spelling - the "s" version would be the British/Australian/NZ (and occasionally Canadian - where both s and z versions of such similar words are acceptable) etc spelling... :-)

[Ash]

I love that the critics here prove my points with their own counter-arguments.

If you wish to express your opinion and pass it on as an intellectual argument, be sure to back it up.

Rob, your question has been answered.

Doug, give some reasoning behind your harsh opinion. Or is it just that? An unfounded opinion?

Spelling: As Tim said :)

[Barry Trabitz]

Is there a difference between really communicating and attempting to impress with the use of multisyllabic language.

[Toyon]

Check out this site: http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html?
Now you too can create prose freighted with obfuscatory obtuseness.

[Rob Champagne]

Rob, your question has been answered.


No my question has not been answered. I asked you specifically because you are English, your education was in England and your interpretation will be based on English Education not American English and the photographer resides in England. And you claim you understand things. I didn't ask what other peoples interpretation was and no one has given an explanation what valorisation means in the context it was used in and it is your interpreation I want to hear as you have proclaimed some expertise.

So once again, what does valorisation mean? And what does it mean in the context it is used in?

[Doug Dolde]

No reasoning...just my precision bullshit detector working very well.

[Bob Jones]

Not having an unabridged Oxford English handy (only an Oxford American, which itself must be an amusing idea to a Brit), I was forced to resort to the abridged online version. According to that source, to valorise is to give or ascribe value. My Oxford American, OTOH, defines valorize as to raise or fix the price of a commodity by artificial means, particularly by government action.

The two are similar, but not the same. In the context of Mr. Lam's statement, I find the usage to be awkward and a bit of a stretch, but that's just my opinion. I don't think it's necessarily wrong.

The same online dictionary surprised me by having a definition for "essay" when used as a verb, since I was taught that "essay" is a noun and that the similar-sounding "assay" is the correct verb. While the abridged OED does suggest a legitimate usage as a verb, it gives the meaning only as "to attempt". In the context of Mr. Lam's statement, I think that "assay", as in "to judge critically", would have been the better choice.

As to why someone would compose that sort of artist's statement, I think the real fault lies with a market that values "complex prose" above clear and concise English. His statement probably wasn't written for other photographers, but for gallery owners and buyers who think that such esoterica is what separates an artist from a mere technician. In other words, it's marketing, and it probably works. If it helps sell his photographs, more power to him.

[Ash]

Doug, I'm getting a few beeps on mine too :)

Rob, Valorisation is a Marxist term. It does not come from the English language, it comes from German. It is alike to, for example, Coup d'etat, which has no real English equivalent, so in English we say Military coup. It is fairly common with German transliteration that a word may be used without proper context. Of course when that word starts in a semi-philosophical text and could be considered fabricated, you'll find there isn't a few hundred years for the word to truly find meaning in English - especially when used in art, not money. My father is a translator and the word comes up frequently within translations, and he must be careful to translate correctly within context.

As you can see, it isn't the only German in that sentence.

It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light

Weltanschauung: A perception of the world // World View
Verwertung: Utilisation // Valorisation

With this in mind,

It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a worldly view of essences, transformed through the love and utilisation of light.

That is how I PERSONALLY would interpret it, by breaking down the text, looking at the common uses of the world, and reading it as a creative writer, not a critic.

[Rob Champagne]

So if I understand this correctly, I would need to understand the German usage of the word valorisation to understand what it means in the context it is used in the artists statement which purports to be in English.

Curious, my 30 year old Oxford Concise English dictionary has a listing for valorise which says "raise or fix price artificially especially by government action".

It seems from the others that have looked it up in other dictionaries and your own context from Marx, that it is derived from an economic term.

Who would have thought it. Still everyone has learnt a new word and used their dictionaries. We will all be the wiser now won't we.

[Ash]

So you're no longer arguing Rob?

Fact is we all use words out of their original context. Terminology changes, language evolves. Go buy a copy of Lord Of The Flies, the author actually created a couple words to suit his purpose.

You note the financial use of the word. As I stated it was used for art, not money, in RJ's statement. Of course we all assign value to artform, do we not? By assigning value we must use the language which was originally ascribed to finance, even if the currency is not monetary.


To answer the initial question, yes, you must understand the words before you can understand the phrase.

[Ash]

Ah, as an afterthought I'd like to comment also on your own version of the word valorisation.

"raise or fix price artificially especially by government action"

So,

...transformed through the love and raised value of light.

Broken English, so open interpretation (by an intellectual such as yourself, reading Shakespeare and knowing to re-interpret what is written);

...transformed through the love and heightened value of light.


So regardless of what your interpretation of valorisation, the sentence makes sense when a little bit of intellect is available. With this consideration the use of valorisation would compliment the text, allowing it to mean utilisation and raised value. Much like art - the interpretation will vary from person to person.

[Rob Champagne]

I stand by my original point that the statement is elitist and I would add contrived. You could say the exact same using simple english thereby making it far more accessible and not sounding pretentious regardless of whether it is or not. Some have already seen it as that. Why make a statement in that manner which will allienate some people before they have even seen your images. It is a badly conceived artists statement IMO.

[Ash]

I was editing my post and when I finished you'd added your statement, so here's the edit for you:



So regardless of what your interpretation of valorisation, the sentence makes sense when a little bit of intellect is available. With this consideration the use of valorisation would compliment the text, allowing it to mean utilisation and raised value. Much like art - the interpretation will vary from person to person.

This in effect attacks your argument that all literature must be on the lowest common denominator to make it accessible to those that cannot understand a higher level of English.

To counter your argument further, I had not even bothered to read the statements on RJ's site until they were flagged by this forum. So that means in over a year I had managed to view the images totally oblivious to the prose.

I enjoyed the photo's, and the photo's alone. So my argument is that to READ those statements by the artist you are essentially hunting down such text. You're in essence searching for it, only to pick a fight when you don't understand what it says.

[Ash]

Furthermore, I too learned some words thanks to RJ's statement! I'm sure you wouldn't have noticed :)

What I learnt in school however was to effectively dissect and interpret any text, and I guess that shows.

[Rob Champagne]

I was editing my post and when I finished you'd added your statement, so here's the edit for you:



This in effect attacks your argument that all literature must be on the lowest common denominator to make it accessible to those that cannot understand a higher level of English.

To counter your argument further, I had not even bothered to read the statements on RJ's site until they were flagged by this forum. So that means in over a year I had managed to view the images totally oblivious to the prose.

I enjoyed the photo's, and the photo's alone. So my argument is that to READ those statements by the artist you are essentially hunting down such text. You're in essence searching for it, only to pick a fight when you don't understand what it says.

Garbage. I had the text presented to me by this thread and was asked to comment which I have. I didn't go looking for anything.

[Ash]

Garbage. I had the text presented to me by this thread and was asked to comment which I have. I didn't go looking for anything.

So you didn't even go looking to see whether the text fit the photo's? You merely commented with little (if any) justification? :rolleyes:

[matthew blais]

My guess is this sort of statement is usually written to impress the critics, who thrive on mumbo jumbo artspeak and the general public who don't understand art, therefore if they can't understand the statement the work must be serious art.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the photo's...Only peripherally related to the discusssion, but...

I've referred to what seems at least a year-long fad as "inappropriate use of apostrophes." Many decades ago my US elementary school education imparted that one uses an apostrophe for contractions or possessives, not plurals. The exception being "it's," which is both, and where convention dictates that one employ the apostrophe only for its contraction form.

Is the use of apostrophes in plurals something the world only recently adopted from British English? Thanks for your answer Ash!

[Ash]

Sal, the use of the apostrophe is due to the abbreviation, Photo rather than Photograph. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, the use of the apostrophe is due to the abbreviation, Photo rather than Photograph. :)OK, thanks. So British English considers "photo" an abbreviation. Here we grant it full status as a word on its own.

Is the use of an apostrophe in other non-abbreviation plurals, such as "book's," considered incorrect in British English?

[Ash]

The British English I was taught would consider it an abbreviation, as I would also consider "quote" an abbreviation and in fact not a real word. In essays we would be penalised for writing "quote" and it was necessary to write "quotation". For this reason I place an apostrophe with "photo's".

Sal you know very well that "book's" is incorrect, unless it is, for example within a sentence as a singular "That book's" (abbrev.: that book is, possess.:that book's). Any other nit-pick's?

[Mark Sawyer]

I think we've wandered from the photographer's concept of "the fine print" to the lawyer's...

[Sandeha]

Quote and photo (let alone, god forbid, 'phone) have not been considered abbreviations in British English for a long, long time.

English is a dynamic set of languages and dictionaries in the UK try to keep up with the pace of change in accepting new words as 'standard' and binning obsolete words and archaisms. While the short form till has general use, you can still find people using 'til in place of until both in the UK and in parts of the US ... though 'til is simply old fashioned over here.

The abuse of apostrophe's (sic) is a national disaster ...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/swansea_valley/th_king_edward.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/swansea_valley/king_edward.jpg)

But sometimes quite funny. The King Edward VII was due for demolition when I took the shot. I fancy it went out of business because it failed to attract the right kind of custom. ;)

[tim atherton]

Quote and photo (let alone, god forbid, 'phone) have not been considered abbreviations in British English for a long, long time.


it was somewhat less than 40 years ago that I was taught 'phone and 'bus at school....

[Sandeha]

it was somewhat less than 40 years ago that I was taught 'phone and 'bus at school....

Aye, dictionary publishers are way ahead of the schools.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Is the use of an apostrophe in other non-abbreviation plurals, such as "book's," considered incorrect in British English?


...Sal you know very well that "book's" is incorrect, unless it is, for example within a sentence as a singular "That book's" (abbrev.: that book is, possess.:that book's). Any other nit-pick's?

So, in a thread the subject of which is meaning of language, my question about a basic structural element thereof is nit picking? No, I didn't know very well that "book's" is an incorrect plural in British English. If I had known the question wouldn't have been asked. There was no way one could attribute the immediately preceding Internet linguistic fad -- which I called "the stutter" -- to correct English anywhere. An example would be "The problem is is that the camera..." That habit seems to have waned around a year ago to be promptly replaced by the apostrophe mess. Thanks for clearing up that we can't thank British English for the latter. Regardless of how you characterized my line of inquiry.

[Colin Graham]

Alright you's guy's...;)

[Randy H]

And speaking of nit-picking...
Anyone here really familiar with what it means? Or where it originated?
And in light of that, is it really somehing you wish to associate with your camera equipment?
And if it is, let me know to stay far, far away from you...

[Ash]

Randy I'm glad SOMEONE asked.

It has the same origin as "chat".

During WWI soldiers were infested with lice, all over their bodies. When a few soldiers were on leave, they'd take a candle to the seams of their jackets and clothing (where lice laid their eggs) to kill the lil buggers. In those days lice were called Chats, and Nats/Nits. Even when I was in school we called them Nits.

So to "have a chat" or to "chatter", and to a lesser extent "natter", would be slang for talking whilst removing the lice, just as nit-picking would be to literally pick the nits from the head, or clothing - so by all means close inspection to pick out something bad.

[Bob Jones]

The British English I was taught would consider it an abbreviation, as I would also consider "quote" an abbreviation and in fact not a real word.

Any other nit-pick's?

Only one: "Quote" is indeed a real word. It is a verb, and you'll find it in that form at the lower right corner of each of these posts. :)

[Colin Robertson]

Fowler's Modern English Usage.
Even more educational, and almost as entertaining, as Playboy.

[Sandeha]

Randy I'm glad SOMEONE asked.

It has the same origin as "chat".

During WWI soldiers were infested with lice, all over their bodies. When a few soldiers were on leave, they'd take a candle to the seams of their jackets and clothing (where lice laid their eggs) to kill the lil buggers. In those days lice were called Chats, and Nats/Nits. Even when I was in school we called them Nits.

So to "have a chat" or to "chatter", and to a lesser extent "natter", would be slang for talking whilst removing the lice, just as nit-picking would be to literally pick the nits from the head, or clothing - so by all means close inspection to pick out something bad.

Ash is pulling your collective legs (I hope).

[Ash]

Sandeha, nope!

My history tutor (well, one of them) was a child during WWI, so she had family in both wars. She told us that story when we studied WWI. It was a small anecdote alongside the syllabus' requirement for knowledge of living and working conditions on the Western Front and in the trenches.


Heh, even Wiki agrees:


Chats, the way British soldiers referred to delousing in WW1

CHAT, "chatting" in the WWI context meant searching for lice infestations while resting in trenches.

And here's the link for Nitpicking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking

[Sandeha]

Then it's swords or pistols, Ash ... your references or mine?

I'd hold with this one rather than Wiki ...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chat

Earliest recorded use, 15th century. And 18th century for 'natter'.

:)

[BrianShaw]

Then it's swords or pistols, Ash ...

Slow down, sir... no need for weapons. Since this is LFPF and you are talking to/about Ash, might I suggest using cameras as your weapon: 4x5's - hand-held vs tripod-mounted.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Slow down, sir... no need for weapons. Since this is LFPF and you are talking to/about Ash, might I suggest using cameras as your weapon: 4x5's - hand-held vs tripod-mounted.

Littman and Razzle--let's see who can get the eyes in focus at five paces.

[Sandeha]

Littman and Razzle--let's see who can get the eyes in focus at five paces.

Focus, schmocus ... with the Neretta (http://www.sandehalynch.com/large_format.htm) at f32, I'd pick out even the nits. :p

[Vaughn]

His images are lovely. And I think he must have a wonder sense of humour...why else would someone have you click on a horse's ass to go to his portfolio?!

I found his statement to be a bit wordy, but understandable. My guess is that he chose words that best described what he wanted to say.

Vaughn

[RJ-]

Albeit belated, this thread..........is quite a discovery.

I found it hard to read without laughing first time, so perhaps I will need to return to this and address any salient points.

Thank you for all who commented, kind or unkind words alike.
Your insights and feedback are much appreciated ;)

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

[bspeed]

Ha, I understood exacly what RJ was saying:


"My Prints are going to cost you a fortune" :)

[Reinhold Schable]

Ralph Steiner would have had a field day with this example of BaffleGab.

If you can find a copy of Photo Techniques Vol 19, No. I (Jan 1998), read Ralph's article entitled:
"The High Art of Post Transcendentalizing".

I'm with Ralph

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

[nathanm]

RJ's blurb sound's like parody to me, I think it's meant to be humorou's. But it work's both way's becau'se s'ome people will take it s'eriou'sly and be impre's'sed and it's s'till hilariou's non'sen'se to other's. But then again, it's not as over the top as it could be.

[sun of sand]

Now it would help, in the future, that some of us could recognize that just because someone uses language beyond our intelligence and understanding does not necessitate the need for a personal attack.

I'm going to have to say this is an attack
I will also say that asking for a translation is also an attack
More so if one one wasn't needed

If this language is over heads
How does it help?
You can understand what they guy is saying but you can also understand he's TRYING his best to go over heads
This is what is important here, IMO

Telling people there are books one can read to better understand this guys philosophy is cool
To suggest one needs to do so in order to understand the world better ..his images
"advanced understanding of themselves, the world in which they exist, and their rightful place in it."
I have to call garbage
If someone likes his photographs
One understands just what it was that RJ saw
Doesn't it?
If RJ is brilliant and makes great photographs cause he is brilliant
Those only as brilliant could see the brilliance in them
?
I dunno
Maybe those guys over at Playboy are doing something heroic and I just like boobs

[mrladewig]

No offense meant towards RJ. I know there is an expectation or a standard within the art community for this sort writing. However...

Hemingway about Faulkner


You have to "wade through a lot of crap to get to his gold."

I'm in Hemingway's camp on the issue.

[Shen45]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

My only problem with your post Duane is I THINK I understand it :)

[cobalt]

Perhaps the duality or triality of the quadrophenia hydroponic nano-riffles of one's own heliotropic vibratory eco-roulette can only truly unveil the de-evolved sceptre of lower edge consciousness and, striated through the convex ND 8x venturi tube of holistic free range worm holes, would create an nth dimesion kokopelli pitting the didactic of a plate tectonic Skynyrd uber-trance to the introspective mein-kampfness of ones own ABBA-esque morphological mullet.

Or, you could just title pictures with a location and date, I guess.

Dude! You almost made me shoot coffee through my nose!!!


I generally hate those kinds of abstractions by "artists" posited as artists' statements, and often ridicule them myself. The difference here is, this guy is actually quite good. Usually the esoteric bullshitbabble comes from those with negligible talent...

[h2oman]

I'm just wishing that when I click on a thumbnail in Preternatura that it would show me a larger version!

[Steve M Hostetter]

do you can your mom ,, mom or mum mom comes from mommy because mummy means something scary

[RJ-]

If we are to understand the world, we must turn aside from it;
If we are to serve men better, we must briefly hold them at a distance. But where can we find the solitude necessary to strength, the long breathing-space in which the mind can gather itself and courage take stock of itself?

- Albert Camus


It's a strange experience, at the beginning of the new lunar year to chance across a thread as old as this. It's taken me sometime to read it all; I can only imagine how long it must take others. Even strange and ironic still....to see that 9 pages of 'ramble', have succeeded a 9 sentence statement which I had offered as a glimpse into the process of the work I hold in mind.

Foremost, I can understand the original poster’s frustration at not being able to grasp text and image as synchronous, assonant and synergistic and asking for his artist’s statement to be decoded. Why then, was he not happy to stop at the level of the images? What kind of viewer demands the head of an artist on a plate, when he has already helped himself to the artist’s body of work? Perhaps the reader’s cue for the timbre of this thread, is given through the ironic, if not insincere, nature of the original poster, who either appropriates or shares the name of a famous Irish playwright, since deceased.....nonetheless, I think this is why I share Ash's view about the original post being a specific kind of Fest.

Next, may I take this opportunity to say, thank you for those forum members who tried to defend artist, text or both? I appreciate the contact I have with many of you on this forum; mostly, this happens off the forum thread, and reveals, a more generous and human aspect to the forum, than a thread like this might offer as an impression. Not wishing to come across as ungrateful, there was (or is) no need to defend nor take offence on my behalf, especially since I take none. The life of a forum thread such as this, takes a course of its own, and it may indeed descend to the level of the National Enquirer, however our minds need not pursue the thread in this way.

Some of the responses have been rehearsed in a patellar fashion; being standard fare in the modern cynical optic through which we have become accustomed to looking and thinking about art and its artists. This is the modern Zeitgeist, and the microcosm of activity here, reflects the kind of greater sphere of contempt for artists.

Perhaps this is a strange statement to make, seemingly a part of the realm of denial: however, after reading all 9 pages, I’m finding that…after all of this ramble….this thread is not about me. Mostly, I am incidental, and the thread is more about you. “You’s guys” ☺ - the collective body, who contribute to the thread, actively or passively, to the post.

Whereas it is true that photographers have projected their own (inner) vision onto the landscape; and others still, in search of a new and objective reality, others yet have denied or denounced what they see, turning it into a parody, stripped of its original, manufactured into a chimera. I accept that many wish to see disconnectedness in things, cracking them up into bite-sized chunks or bending and refracting the statements of artists, through their own mental prisms, totalizing others within their own attributions: such self-justification serves a purpose…to a point. What point? Or is there ever a point...without dialogue? Whereas I accept that this position is becoming the norm, if not the default starting point, I am still reminded, that this is not dialogue. It never discovers anything, other than satisfaction within the limit of its self, and lest of all, about the world we fall into.


Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate?pli=1)

[George E. Sheils]

Foremost, I can understand the original poster’s frustration at not being able to grasp text and image as synchronous, assonant and synergistic and asking for his artist’s statement to be decoded. Why then, was he not happy to stop at the level of the images? What kind of viewer demands the head of an artist on a plate, when he has already helped himself to the artist’s body of work? Perhaps the reader’s cue for the timbre of this thread, is given through the ironic, if not insincere, nature of the original poster, who either appropriates or shares the name of a famous Irish playwright, since deceased.....nonetheless, I think this is why I share Ash's view about the original post being a specific kind of Fest.

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate?pli=1)

Greetings RJ.

I am the original poster to whom you refer. I haven't posted here for a long time so am just seeing this again myself.

Regrettably, It seems that despite my efforts to make it clear that this post was not a personal attack on your good self some posters have decided to adopt the defensive (and peculiarly modern, late 20th century approach it must be said) of being 'offended on behalf of someone else', whether they be an individual, ethnic or social minority or whatever.

This, as I say is regrettable. Although I am glad that you say you have not taken any offence.

Ironically the queston that I really wanted to ask (and probably should have) was the same question which you have now put to me....why were you not happy to stop at the level of the images?

As I pointed out clearly, I like your images. I like your work as a photographer. Your images are strong enough to stand up on their own without words.

Of course, and I will repeat again, I respect your right to say or write whatever you want about your own images, but it's just that I don't understand why there was a need for an artist statement of such needless complexity?

I posted your statement to seek other viewpoints on whether I was alone in finding the use of language - albeit adroit - just a bit unnecessarily complex to exlain what was essentially a simple enough motivation to create images.

My motivation for writing the post was not to make mischief or cast a sideways blow at you or any other photographer.

I'm sure you will understand however that the art world is awash with overly verbose and deliberately obscure artist statements often used to dress up sub-standard images and somehow portray that the whole motivation for creating the images is somehow a faux mystical, ethereal experience bestowed on a select few.

Incidentally, my user name IS my real name, and yes I do share the name of the great Irish playright. It may also interest you to know that I am a writer by profession. I have the ability to decode your artist statement but my point is why should I (or anyone else) have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so when your motives for creating such nice images could be explained in a less complex and easier to digest way?

Regards,
G.

[RJ-]

-->

[RJ-]

Hi George,

It's a pleasure to meet someone who brings back warm memories of the Ulster playwright's work. Did you attend his university too?

Thank you for your kind words. In essence, I think it is quite difficult, trying to communicate on the internet without misunderstandings. Perhaps entitling a thread without a certain suffix might help? ;)

I can't help but notice the irony....of a writer asking why a photographer permits his images to suffer debasement through language. As a photographer, I could equally counter why a writer, might hold language as being in contempt of the image?

Nonetheless please allow me to share some thoughts with you. These thoughts may not be of any interest to anyone else, so perhaps it is best for others to tune off here. Afterwards, I wonder whether the statement which I have abided by for the last 5 years, still remains complex, or seen as an attempt at mystification.

There is a peculiar phenomenon which has infected the arts. Perhaps it has done so before I ever existed and thus it should be no surprise. Yet, like death, I can't be anything other than surprised. Cartesian dualism sees text on one hand, and image on the other. This kind of thinking is encouraged as 'pure', and in some photographic circles, a kind of contempt... for any kind of verbal signpost or signifier arises. This view assumes that the image must 'speak for itself'; or any image that requires a textual prosthesis, is a mere attempt at hiding its weakness. On one hand, this is quite a fascinating venture in to the pure abstraction of the eidetic world, and if anything, it is an idealised projection of photography as a self-referential world of imagoes. On the other, the viewer may not grasp entry, even into the image, wondering senseless about the images.

Being rooted in the oriental tradition, for me - text and image coalesce in unity: the image gives its meaning as text, and text is identified as image in the pictorial form. This background has informed me more, than perhaps, the western tradition, of separating disciplines; language and critique on one hand, and image making (purity) on the other. The dialogue between the two interest me more: call it a semiotic map, or a semiotic transformation of the image if you will, however neither is the lobotomising stance of the Cartesian mentality.

Having said this much, perhaps it is too much to ask for any sympathy in trying to unravel "needless complexity": perhaps the question requires reframing. Is the artist statement, a conceptual statement, one which requires concepts to apprehend, rather than vaguely feel some kind of dizzying assent towards, or is it too specialised, out of dialogue, with other photographers as a whole?

I read somewhere recently that a scientist ascertained that a google search consumed and produced so much carbon byproducts....and in several examples along this thread, I feel like I am responsible for creating a surge of googlesearches for the words 'valorisation'; 'essay' and 'Weltanschauung'. However all are standard concepts, and no amount of dictionary searching will reveal what can be summed up in the conciseness of those concepts, given by the words. For instance: it is true that 'valorisation' has a more recent reference, derived from Marxism; however a recognition of its Latin root etymlogy, 'valor, valorem', would probably offer a more lucid grasp of why I choose to use the term 'valorisation'. As a writer, my guess is that you have more experience than I, of seeing how others view language as substantive, yet it is not substantial nor absolute and fixed. Convention sees language as operating within confines; and the orthodox among us may accept, that this is the only valid use of language, trapped by the limitations of their Weltanschauung, refusing possibility (of the Other). As a photographer, I find language constraining: this much is apparent, in the transliterations, calquing and unmasking of words, back to their etymology, threatening to burst language's constraints.

I don't know how a writer feels, however operating as a system of differentials, language hems in thought; I rationalise now, that this is the reason why I choose to be a photographer, yet feel its truth more strongly than I can ever say. Thus, the commentator who decries the use of the word 'essay', after a lengthy dictionary search, is quite correct: the use of the word 'essay' as verb in English is not conventional, nor is it acceptable to the Oxford lexicographers. He fails to grasp, that the English language, is deficient when it comes to revealing, the existential project of Montaigne, in undertaking his "Essais" - a project, essentially of a post-Socratic nature, aimed at self-knowledge in various trials. Whereas Montaigne chose to write; I choose to photograph. Here, I openly agree that my view has nothing to do with the mechanical transfer of emotional 'Equivalents' into tones as Stieglitz had conceptualised. Although I am aware of his work, his theoretical underpinning is void of what troubles me most (perhaps this is what drives me to photograph?)

This means of existential essaying, has nothing to do with the clinically detached 'assay'. Nor does it have anything to do with the cognitivizing stance of the 'critical judgement'. It is essentially, a Renaissance concept, which preceded the San Andreas fault, popularised in modern Cartesian thought. Likewise, I choose not to use the word 'psyche', and return to an earlier motif: 'interiority'. Why inter-iority? In part, because the modern psychological methods of knowing, after Wundt, have no bearing on the richer theme of dialogue for the photographer: 'inter' or between man and his experience of the landscape, is essentially a dialogic engagement. Perhaps I follow Bright's example too closely, when she argues that a new form of landscape photography, can only arise within its own local dialect. Having undertaken some work with the Premonstratensiens, it inspired me to listen (as Barthes would say), "to the grain of the voice." How then does a photographer practice or live this out in practice, in imaging the landscape, if not by trying, through the 'essai'?

You may be correct in summing up the art world as awash with overly verbose and cryptic artist statements. If we suffer under this kind of culture, should we be drawn to patellar reaction again...with the Cartesian either/or response? Either the sociotrophic fawning and adulation of the inauthentic self, or the denigratory mocking, and critical condescension of someone else's work, such that the new 'critic' can transcend the artist? In the socio-cultural matrix in which art takes place, it is indeed difficult, to guage, whether work is indeed honest or earnest, or done in the modern sensationalist mode. This method of suspicion, need not however, lead us down that path of critical condescension, however that it does, surely says more about the critic, than the artist? The art of transcending, is evident in the artlessness through the 9 pages here, yet this need for transcendence, particularly in a forum space, seems all too strikingly.... located within the limits of the 'self'.

It seems quite impoverished for society to either idealise or devalue its artists, only to reverse gear depending on the season. Perhaps we have no qualm about others being suspicious of artists and their intentions; after all, in England, the distinction between artist and terrorist, is fast becoming blurred.

Yet, returning to the 'complexity' of the artist statement; there are some issues which I feel require attention.

I wonder if you would care to expand, on what a 'simple enough motivation' to create images is. Would this perhaps, be, as 'simple' a motivation, as a writer, has, to write a play, like 'The Rugged Path'? Determining intentionality of authorship is a dangerous premise; even the artist can only fathom the phantom or muse which guides him...to a limited extent. Is it really possible for a photographer to say with any integrity, that he takes photographs 'because they are pretty?', any more than a writer writes, 'because what he writes is pretty'? This may indeed be the virile truth for some; however it is an unreflected view of one's own work, however visually arresting, or literally moving.

One distinction which I do wish to draw, is that 'the faux mystical, ethereal experience', has been critiqued (to death) in the death of the American landscape. Ansel's mystique and realism aged and passed a long time ago, perhaps overtaken by its own social conservational foundation, which promulgated the platform for the rise of the New Topographers. This much, I would offer, thinking from a critical perspective about the contemporary status of landscape photography. Belonging to no such school or cult, I have no aspirations, beyond retaining the freedom to work as I do. I do distance myself both from Ansel Adams, geographically, but also in possessing neither a fraction of his technical ability, nor the wish to emulate him, as well as the spiritless enterprise of the new topographers. Whereas Adams and his school conceptualised the mystique in the landscapes; the New Topographers abolished it; what came after, we are still attending to.

In this respect, when Duane states that a date and location would be nice (i.e. topographical specifics), it is not that he fails to grasp the refusal of this dominant topographical approach in photography; he is merely disinterested.

I'm not sure I wish to thank you for taking me to task to clarify matters. Perhaps I have not clarified anything at all?

All the best for your writing too: it must be tempting to write an 'essai' on living in the mirror of the Irish playwright.

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

[RJ-]

Request my post be deleted due to being written while suffering chronic indigestion

Although chronic, I hope your indigestion is better (one year later).

Peace be with your bowels.

RJ


Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

[mikerz]

But it is gravely inaccurate to say your words are analogous to your photography, with only a change in medium.

This is the case only when you abide by the rigorous demands of a medium -- there is no art without a certain science to give it strength. If as a person, you naturally work within the demands of a medium -- you are said to be naturally gifted in it. There are often grand changes in how a person is reflected between mediums. The same concepts generally seem to remain, but the expression must be different -- or the work has not been suited to the medium.

RJ, when it comes to words - you are loose beyond what can be perceived as intentional.

[RJ-]

But it is gravely inaccurate to say your words are analogous to your photography, with only a change in medium.

This is the case only when you abide by the rigorous demands of a medium -- there is no art without a certain science to give it strength. If as a person, you naturally work within the demands of a medium -- you are said to be naturally gifted in it. There are often grand changes in how a person is reflected between mediums. The same concepts generally seem to remain, but the expression must be different -- or the work has not been suited to the medium.

RJ, when it comes to words - you are loose beyond what can be perceived as intentional.

With all respect Mike, you've not read a word I've written if you believe that language is equivalent or analogous to photographs, lest of all, understood the concept of semiotic transformation.

It begs the question, why you would offer such a critical opinion, without any conceptual grasp of things.

Why not walk on by and look elsewhere?

'Illegitimi non carborundum Mike!'

Pax te cum,

RJ

[jb7]

I keep getting drawn back to this thread, though I really should know better.
Forgive my gall at posting a reply, especially considering that I'm sure I'm to be counted as one who has already been invited to "tune off" and "walk on by".

Language might have been conceived as a medium of communication, however, it is possible to use it to exclude. I am one of those plebs who sometimes find it necessary to look up a word in a dictionary, and I'm guilty of having to do it as a result of reading this thread- I wonder how many trees have been felled in my search for the word 'imagoe'?

I sometimes find the language of the art critic seems to be crafted for one reason only-
to give the appearance of absolute superiority over their readers- and over the artists too. Obfuscation through illumination. Although not qualified to have an opinion of my own, I know what I like, and what moves me, and I sometimes find myself incredulous at the importance ascribed to works of art- I wont give examples here, as it would only result in a useless tangent.
I'm glad you agree that the art world is awash with overly verbose and cryptic statements.

Although I didn't have to use a dictionary to translate the statement at the top of the post, I did find it to be written in a style which was unnecessarily wordy, and designed to impress, or baffle- depending, I suppose, on the reader. The words themselves become symbols, and the semiotics are quite legible- even if you don't have a clear grasp of their meaning.

A very strange thing happened when I visited your website-
there is a page written in French, about street photos taken on a Ross Ensign-
and although my school French is thirty years old and unused, I found it quite comprehensible- because its purpose was to communicate. Unfortunately, I could only view the images as tiny thumbnails.

I would imagine that those are not the images your artist statement refers to, although I understand that images on a web page can be no more than symbols themselves. I might take a guess that your statement refers more to your cityscapes and landscapes and tumbling ruins- man made structures devoid of man- perhaps a type of perfection?

As to this interiority, while I understand that it has a purpose, I try not to travel too far up there myself, believing, as I do, that it is probably of no interest to anyone else.
Every now and then, however, some of it is bound to seep out-

joseph

[Chris Dunham]

Found a nice website the other day. Belongs to one RJ Lam. Some very good images.

However, the artist (photographer) statement goes like this:

"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world. Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked. It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light. Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself.":

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Can anyone translate this please?

George,

'The Emperor has new cloths'. Or in my own terms, if the fella is unable to get his message across in effective and understandable terms of reasonable length he's either empty (got nothing to say) or is simply unable to articulate the information. And it's usually the former. If you want to really bend your head check out Gregory Bates (Sociology), he's in a category of his own - plenty to say, a brilliant mind but mind numbing paragraphs.

Why anyone who produces visual work feels the need to qualify their images with text is beyond me. Perhaps they feel that the work has not been effective or successful. Or perhaps they are just frustrated writers.

Chris.

[mikerz]

With all respect Mike, you've not read a word I've written if you believe that language is equivalent or analogous to photographs, lest of all, understood the concept of semiotic transformation.

It begs the question, why you would offer such a critical opinion, without any conceptual grasp of things.

Why not walk on by and look elsewhere?

'Illegitimi non carborundum Mike!'

Pax te cum,

RJ

This is a public forum, which is publicly discussing the topic of "Ramblecrap". I wasn't expecting such an.. ambiguously inflammatory response from what was my desire to bring the issue to light. It's precisely my point that written language is not analogous to photography -- and thus an analogous expression must be different. In reality, you have written convoluted, obfuscated arguments which touched on supporting BOTH sides of this argument!

As an artist, I've come across more than my fair share of ramblecrap -- and I even wrote a bit of it at first. There is an arrogance in using complex concepts lightly and as related to artistic subjects. Any self-perceived complexity is worthless when you have not built your argument on clarity.

[Steve Gledhill]

Hi George,

...

It seems quite impoverished for society to either idealise or devalue its artists, only to reverse gear depending on the season. Perhaps we have no qualm about others being suspicious of artists and their intentions; after all, in England, the distinction between artist and terrorist, is fast becoming blurred.

...

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

Help me out here please. What can this possibly mean? And how can it help clarify anything?

[Mike V]

Im not sure why all this started. I believe someone was mocking RJ's writing on his website. I dont wish to comment on this.

However I do want to comment on RJ's character, I have conversed with him through PM and can fully vouch that he seems very genuine and willing to help.

[Mike V]

Help me out here please. What can this possibly mean? And how can it help clarify anything?

Just my 2p's worth but look how photographers are treated these days. One should never take a tripod to London! One should never even think about going near a school or you will be branded a pedophile. It seems the photographer, in general, as a character in society is being dragged through the mud.

[bvstaples]

Does it have a purpose? Sure it does. It may not appeal to everyone and it may not appeal to you, but there are people who do appreciate it.

I myself find the "artist's statement" an item used by an individual to explain what he/she is trying to accomplish. Personally, I want my images to tell the story, and if anyone ever asks me why I photograph, I answer "Because I must" and leave it at that. But then a three word statement never comes across as something of sustance (not that I care).

So, does that mean I have never used one? Actually, whenever I put together a portfolio of images, I include an "artist's statement." And when I create them, it's done toungue in cheek. None of my artist's statements have ever really had anything to do with the images themselves—more it's a small slightly smelly pile of bull sheet that gives others the impression that I worth more than a small slightly smelly pile of bull sheet. Though I'm not surprised, I find it surprising that when people view two portfolios, one with an artist's statement, and one without, they invariable like the one with the statement. For some reason people, from noephytes to connoissuers, seem to find the artist's statement as something that validates the work. Personally I believe the work is validation enough.

So, maybe I should use this thread as my next "artist's statement."


Brian

[aphexafx]

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with those who believe an artist's statement should be a bunch of bull **** made to appease some less than intelligent portion of society. If you are going to write a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with your work, then I think I can honestly say that I and most of the rest of the world would rather throw up than read what you have to say.

I get turned off when artists start blathering on about how spiritual they are or how the "essence of their souls presents itself through their photographs of whatnot" - this kind of contrived crap, whether it was written from the heart, or written in order to fulfill some notion that it must exist, is the reason artists are often not taken seriously. Writing this stuff because you think you have to is, frankly, insulting to those of us with some intelligence that have to read it.

An artist's statement should be direct and to the point, and it should be used to illuminate to the viewers of your work some kind of context and explain why you felt it necessary to spend so much time doing what you’ve done. If it is something “spiritual” fine, but limit your explanation to the context of the work you are making a statement about. Even better, get over yourself and realize that most of the rest of the world is rather unconcerned about your particular spirituality and often times turned off by it.

It is annoying to me to see so many so called fine-art photographers blow their image, no matter how good they are at photography, by attaching a bunch of written drivel that has little to do with the work at hand. If you must do this, save it for your bio.

I do not consider myself an artist, and I have a lot to learn about photography, but I can write an effective artists statement that describes a piece of work as I intend it. Personally, I think this is an important skill and I think that a lot of photographers should spend some time thinking about what they are writing!

[walter23]

I've attempted a translation. It wasn't easy :)



[B]"In my photographic journey, it is the domain of interiority which I strive to essay and distill within the external world.

I like to look in to myself when I'm trying to get pictures of things I see.


Interiority and all that goes beyond the self - this is the prism through which the essence of my relationship to the external world is unmasked.

What's inside of me (including my mystical feelings) changes how I interact with things.


It is through personal perspective and organisation that an image is wrought to reveal a weltanschauung of essences, transformed through the love and valorisation of light.

I feel this sense that I "get it" and that everything comes together when I study light photographically.


Light organises interiority from without and enables a transformation of the external world in dialogic engagement. Thus mere representation and topography yield to an experience of participation with a landscape; a place and the subject itself."

When I see things, those things change how I feel inside and thus how I see things. Photography makes me feel connected.


Collated:

I like to look in to myself when I'm trying to get pictures of things I see. What's inside of me (including my mystical feelings) changes how I interact with things. I feel this sense that I "get it" and that everything comes together when I study light photographically. When I see things, those things change how I feel inside and thus how I see things. Photography makes me feel connected.


----

Now, you can argue that elaborate language lends precision and subtlety, but this doesn't seem to lend precision as much as just obfuscate meaning. I think the idea is maybe to give an impression of the feeling the artist gets, but it could also be seen as pretty damned pretentious and unnecessary. To each his own though :)

[Mark Sawyer]

I suspect a good deal of the misunderstanding, unintentional and otherwise, stems from Mr. Lam's not speaking good old fashioned American English, but some obscure European island-dialect of English...

Oh, how those foreigners mangle our language...

[RJ-]

Im not sure why all this started. I believe someone was mocking RJ's writing on his website. I dont wish to comment on this.

However I do want to comment on RJ's character, I have conversed with him through PM and can fully vouch that he seems very genuine and willing to help.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your kind thoughts…..in all honesty, I don’t feel offended by a thread like this although I appreciate your efforts; the numbers engaged in viewing a thread like this would indicate a chronic voyeuristic relation with certain parallels……however this is a digression.

There is an ambiguity in this thread which will require clarifying. Perhaps it originates in the original post, where George Sheils has confused me [along with a plenitude of other artists] for an attention seeking whore.

I don’t take offence to this either; partly on account of awareness and fatigue (in a cynical moment, perhaps this can be grasped as essential martyrdom for any artist before qualifying :) ) at being dragged through the mud; and partly because George shares the same name with a dramatist whom I looked up to as one of the inspiring figures in Irish literary life.

George Shiels (1886 – 1949) himself shied away from attention and mass culture, rejecting petty narrow-mindedness and avarice alike; much of this translates into his dramatic works as a playwright. In one of his plays, The Rugged Path (1940) it recalls to mind, the struggle of those very characters…who were dragged through the mud... Although I share the same aspirations as Shiels, perhaps it's inextricable in a world replete with internet forum warriors that I should fall short or fail immediately. Nonetheless, Shiels still remains an inspiration…and aspiration to me.

Hope you’re enjoying the Sinar in the snowy outdoors!

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

[walter23]

I think it's less to do with his extrinsic placement within the prejudicial confinement of the sociopolitical psychogeographical representational schemii that infuse our intrinsic essences with discordant xenophobic linguistic disposessiveness, and more a matter of prismatic internal reflections of elaborate linguistic superficiality erupting into visualized dialectical resonances of the syllabillic neologue of the artiste vrai.


I suspect a good deal of the misunderstanding, unintentional and otherwise, stems from Mr. Lam's not speaking good old fashioned American English, but some obscure European island-dialect of English...

Oh, how those foreigners mangle our language...

[Alex Wei]

I suspect a good deal of the misunderstanding, unintentional and otherwise, stems from Mr. Lam's not speaking good old fashioned American English, but some obscure European island-dialect of English...

Oh, how those foreigners mangle our language...


well, those "foreigners" are not only mangle your language, but also teaching it in the classroom now.

I did finish reading this thread, prove once more that one can't make everybody happy, and people do intend to make fun of something they don't fully understand. In this case, RJ, write something in English that some people who don't understand even their native language is English.

[RJ-]

--->

[cowanw]

--->

Beauty eh!:p

Regards
Bill

[Rider]

On "valorisation of light", I am surprised no one picked up on the subtle meaning, given that you're all steeped in Adamsianism (of the Ansel variety).

Light has value, eg. from 0 to 11 (depending on the medium), and to valorise the light in a scene is to give it the proper value on the medium (film).

My own humble opinion is that there were too many big/foreign words in such a short statement. One would have been ok, maybe even meaningful.

[George E. Sheils]

Being rooted in the oriental tradition, for me - text and image coalesce in unity: the image gives its meaning as text, and text is identified as image in the pictorial form. This background has informed me more, than perhaps, the western tradition, of separating disciplines; language and critique on one hand, and image making (purity) on the other. The dialogue between the two interest me more: call it a semiotic map, or a semiotic transformation of the image if you will, however neither is the lobotomising stance of the Cartesian mentality.


Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)

Hi RJ, thanks for your response which I enjoyed reading.

The above paragraph clarifies -for me- the principal reason why you are motivated to link your artist statement with your images and, taken in this context, I completely understand where you are coming from.

As a writer, I believe that words can convey powerful images and that images too, can inspire potent text. Yes,I would agree there can be a dialogue between the two.

However, the real skill is matching up one with the other. Very often a perceived mismatch of what the artist created and what the artist is saying inspired them to create it is what can cause disagreement between artists and critics. That is probably the reason for so many pages of internet space being used up on this thread.

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

For instance, the cave paintings of southern France probably pre-date the earliest known language and certainly pre-date the earliest known text. But, cave dwellers found a non-verbal way of expressing how they felt about their lives, their hunting, their landscape without any recourse to textual descriptions. Just looking at the care and detail in the drawings implants even in modern man the glorious feeling of what it must have been like to live in such a simple and pristine, if somewhat dangerous environment. But who can really say what motivated the cavedwellers to make such images? Their motives for creating cave art pre-dated Dualism, Functionalism and all other such philosophical and sociological paradigms. We can't assume to know what they got out of their art - and for many people it's just not that important - it's just cave art - it doesn't need to be placed in a textual context.

The work of the Surrealists (Dali et al) often did not come with a set of reasons to explain why the artist created what they created or what they were feeling when they were creating it. In fact, more often than not the works of art were simply signed and dated in the topographical style. It was left to art critics to make a stab at what they thought Dali meant by this or what they believed Magritte meant by that...and frequently the critics came up with grandiose and improbable explanations to explain what were (more than likely) simple motivations for creating simple images.


When I say that some images are strong enough to stand on their own, I sincerely believe in the idea that image making is perhaps one of the oldest and most primal responses into describing how we feel, and as such mere words are often insufficient to convey the motives for creating such imagery.That is not to say that I support the 'dumbing down' of written expression. Far from it, but I do believe that if text descriptions accompany graphical images they should be expressed in a way that owes much to concision and brevity.

This is probably why I prefer the topographical approach. I prefer to keep it simple.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Keep up with the image making.

Regards,
G.
PS.. As much as you despise Cartesian Dualists I also found issue with the concept of Functionalism a la Durkheim and others. You know, the 'cause and effect' people. Functionalists see little value in pursuing interests for interests sake. I once knew someone who wanted to take a degree in Spanish. His boss (a functionalist to the core) could not comprehend why someone who was a computer analyst by day would want to study something other than computer technology. :(

[mrladewig]

I did finish reading this thread, prove once more that one can't make everybody happy, and people do intend to make fun of something they don't fully understand. In this case, RJ, write something in English that some people who don't understand even their native language is English.

That is not necessarily true. My degree is in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and the field has a language sub-set of its own as do most fields. Although some words relating to that field have Latin origins that would make their meaning somewhat clear, one may not translate an accurate meaning without knowledge of the definition and the context. Words related to these fields do not exist in Websters dictionary. However a very particular word such as austenite could be replaced with the common term "hard phase of steel" if there were a discussion on the matter with someone outside the field. But hard steel does not exactly mean the same thing. Austenite is a very particular phase of steel and there are other hard phases with very different properties. At the same time I would have no expectation that anyone outside the metallurgical field would understand this term if it were not defined for them. Austenite may be in the dictionary and it is found in Wikipedia these days, but its an example where there is no Latin root that would provide a hint to its meaning since the term is based on the name of the man. And the variations on the word such as austenitic transformation are even more obscure without a knowledge of the root term.

I also do not make the assumption that someone is of lesser intelligence or incapable of understanding because they are not familiar with the language associated with my field. Martensitic transformation is as foreign a term to you as Weltanschauung is to me. It does not imply that either of us have a lesser grasp of language or a lower level of intellect. We may likely be intellectual peers focused on different spurs of the common language. There are many such spurs in the grand construct of our English language, but within that there is a common set of words whose meanings are clear and well known. And that binds all of us together. We do not have the finite construct of language enjoyed by the French, and that gives us great flexibility, but also leads to great confusion.

My point is that many artists, curators and critics have developed a language subset which is not accessible to those outside that profession. And it while may be true that the term Weltanschauung holds a particular meaning within this context that cannot exactly be mirrored in term perspective or view, it is not a common term in the English language.

I understand the purpose of writing for an audience and if RJ's intent is to write for the audience of curators and critics, then his language is appropriate. But it is either inaccessible or cumbersome reading to the general population and I would expect that he knows this in his assayed and distilled interiority. If not, then RJ has taken residence in the ivory tower for far too long and has lost touch with society. (I do mean this in jest)

Where I think this story becomes confused is on this point. Why has the art curatorial and critic community chosen to adopt language sub-set where the meanings are obscured in terms that not part of the common language for a reason other than to segregate itself from common society? Much of the language used in the discussion of art within these finite circles appears to be overly wordy, and unnecessary for the task in which it is employed.

What is the purpose of making the language associated with art inaccessible?

AKA, what is the purpose of ramblecrap?

That is the root question that has been raised not only in this thread, but also in a recent thread referencing the writing of a curator at MOMA. And it has not been answered here. A translation of RJ's writing is not an answer to this question. I think it is unfortunate that RJ's writing was the central point of this discussion because it has confused the issue. The question has nothing to do with RJ other than the fact that his statement was used an an example.

I think George made it clear that he meant to ask a different question entirely, but this question created in the heading of his topic remains unanswered.

[walter23]

Very well written and concise discussion of this issue! I think you've really hit the nail on the head, and driven it in perfectly to boot. Very insightful.

I have noticed that there are certain professions or disciplines where this linguistic segregation seems to earn less respect from the general population. Nobody is really going to contest that developing a concise language with terms like "austenite" is necessary for a structural engineer, because this language is practically a technical necessity to get physical tasks that serve the general population (like the building of safe bridges) completed effectively.

However it seems we're less understanding of the desire for artists (and those of other intangible professions like philosophy) to use jargon. Maybe one reason is that art serves no purpose if it doesn't speak to an audience, and an audience of other artists is a pretty limited audience. This especially becomes an issue of public resentment if the arts are receiving public funding... but I suppose we see similar complaints lodged against scientific researchers - just look at the political and public controversies surrounding evolution, for example, and the fact that scientific research without immediate and obvious practical application is often generally maligned (which is a pity!).

I guess art jargon might serve a purpose for artists who are communicating with one another to refine their art, but when it enters the domain of the art itself it turns that art into something that only speaks to the artistic community. We've all seen the cliche modern art installation which "redefines the boundaries of the gallery experience and brings sculptural post-relativism into a new era of neo-spatialist dynamic" (I'm making up art-jargon here) but that doesn't have any other purpose (in fact we'd be tempted to call it boring stupid crap because we don't understand the insider's references). It'd be like a photographer making a photograph where the only subject is "dodging and burning" or "acutance" or "high dynamic range / tonemapping"; ineffective at communicating with a general audience.

I guess this is going off on a bit of a tangent, as we weren't talking about the art itself, just the description of the art... but if the description is full of art-world jargon and is also given alongside the art, it does taint it and remove it somewhat from the general audience.



That is not necessarily true. My degree is in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and the field has a language sub-set of its own as do most fields. Although some words relating to that field have Latin origins that would make their meaning somewhat clear, one may not translate an accurate meaning without knowledge of the definition and the context. Words related to these fields do not exist in Websters dictionary. However a very particular word such as austenite could be replaced with the common term "hard phase of steel" if there were a discussion on the matter with someone outside the field. But hard steel does not exactly mean the same thing. Austenite is a very particular phase of steel and there are other hard phases with very different properties. At the same time I would have no expectation that anyone outside the metallurgical field would understand this term if it were not defined for them. Austenite may be in the dictionary and it is found in Wikipedia these days, but its an example where there is no Latin root that would provide a hint to its meaning since the term is based on the name of the man.

My point is that many artists, curators and critics have developed a language subset which is not accessible to those outside that profession. And it may be true that the term Weltanschauung holds a particular meaning within this context that cannot exactly be mirrored in term perspective or view, it is not a common term in the English language.

I understand the purpose of writing for an audience and if RJ's intent is to write for the audience of curators and critics, then his language is appropriate. But it is either inaccessible or cumbersome reading to the general population and I would expect that he knows this in his assayed and distilled interiority. If not, then RJ has taken residence in the ivory tower for far too long and has lost touch with society.

Where I think this story becomes confused is on this point. Why has the art curatorial and critic community chosen to adopt language sub-set where the meanings are obscured in terms that not part of the common language for any reason other than to segregate itself from common society?

What is the purpose of making the language associated with art inaccessible?

That is the root question that has been raised not only in this thread, but also in a recent thread referencing the writing of a curator at MOMA. And it has not been answered here. A translation of RJ's writing is not an answer to this question. I think it is unfortunate that RJ's writing was the central point of this discussion because it has confused the issue. The question has nothing to do with RJ other than the fact that his statement was used an an example.

[mrladewig]

Ultimately, I don't think there is a real answer for this. Its probably one of those things that has grown from convention and taken a life of its own.

It would be equally unfair to ask that the field of my education dispose of its internal language. It is necessary for concise discussion and clear meaning within that field.

This is the other thread of which I spoke.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23934

[RJ-]

However, the real skill is matching up one with the other. Very often a perceived mismatch of what the artist created and what the artist is saying inspired them to create it is what can cause disagreement between artists and critics. That is probably the reason for so many pages of internet space being used up on this thread.

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

Hi George,

Thank you for your thoughts.

There is a phenomenon of multiple discourses operating within this singular thread. Perhaps I thought this was self-evident, and indicative, of how the polysemous text works. Language which is polysemous, can be denounced as 'ambiguous'. However its very nature is rich enough for a plurality of interpretations, like different sides of a dice, reflected through different perspectives.

The dead text of simplistic thinking which argues for the monosyllablic domination of thought and thinking however...is not.

Much like your disdain of functionalism, this kind of 'teleological' text, particularly in the artist statement, disinterests me as much as the vogue for 'bling' photography. It may indeed be the only level of operation for many on a predominantly technical forum, however this is inevitable, when a question of aesthetics is posed outside of its relevant field within the photographic profession.

Art criticism relies on the polysemous text and semiotic transformation of both image and text. The plurality of interpretations is destined, as a consequence of the artist' work and text. If this is so, then it strikes me as arrogance, for someone to judge that an artist's work and text is mismatched. The blind voyeur who looks upon text or image as 'thing' rather than a 'thou' or 'you', cannot apprehend sense from nonsense (Gadamer).

The hypersaturation of images in the world, coupled with the rise of the internet forum warrior mentality, presupposes that Gadamer's view of interpretation is in retreat. Equally, illiteracy (and ignorance) is on the rise:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/302972.stm




The BBC's John Andrew: Many adults are embarrassed about their problem
The report, by the Basic Skills Agency, urges the government to introduce new national tests to assess adults' basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills.

It reviews evidence that adults in England have poorer literacy and numeracy skills than those in any other European country apart from Poland and Ireland.

It calculates that one in three adults cannot work out the area of a room, while one in five would be unable to find a plumber in the Yellow Pages telephone directory.


The discourse here, varies from talking about the Yellow Pages, to art criticism, however, is the vacillation between the two, not of interest to you? :)


Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate?pli=1)

[RJ-]

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

Hi George,

I had wondered if you were willing to say whether you refused the semiosis, inherent in the world of modern art, given to us as critical theory. On reflection, what arises is a premise which I think will make sense to you.

May I venture that it is the very world or the Renaissance world view and outlook revealed in the artist statement which affronts you.

The conceptual form of the statement, being irreducible to pure description does not help either. If so, then it must be frustrating..... not being able to shear text from images. Or at least practice a little reductionism to accommodate the images within a pre-determined Cartesian worldview dressed under attractive propositions such as 'clarity'; 'simplicity', 'purity' with a phenomenological or topographical description, instead of the paradoxical and multi-layered text.

Being honest, I rarely look at other photographers' work, or that which I see, seems to have little experience of the 'faux mystical ethereal experience bestowed on the select few'. In any case, I find it too unbecoming to talk of someone or their work as 'thing': this is the forum modality of engagement, and perhaps you can identify with this tendency, which refuses knowing and participation in discovering more than one's predetermined limits.

Yet your view seems to abide by the assumption that transcendent beauty, or mysticism within the philosophy of the landscape photographer, is projected topographically, either geographically heavenwards in some kind of uncloaking of the infrared sky; or perhaps located inwardly, that is, solipsistically, as if it had a élan vital of its own (after Bergson). This view of transcendental beauty could only serve to alienate you, since the visceral, or sensual beauty of the concrete form, is more sensible to both Jansenists and those akin to launch into the protestant protest at the pre-Cartesian worldview.

Of Durkheim's students, it was Bergson who had a generous view of the world; not as incapacitating as the Cartesian one which judges everything beyond immediate knowing, as anathema. It is quite correct, that I refuse the tenets of Cartesianism (disdain is not the right word), and its false claims for the virtue of simplicity (whenever did simplicity become a virtue?), yet whilst it simplifies everything until man is stripped of being.

The multi-layered text which is the Renaissance ideal, is polysemous. Inexperienced readers grasp this as 'ambivalent', 'confusing' and find that wandering through it, creates an effect...of 'defamiliarisation'. This indeed can be grasped as an 'unpleasant' or off-putting sensation which turns off reading the text. Some say that it is an elitist venture, to use language this way: I find such political correctness disinteresting - since it only mirrors the unreflecting viewer, who is not interested in anything beyond decorative art, even if to straddle this boundary, is no reason to imply inferiority.

In the world of the image, and text, I'm reminded, that it is a privilege to enter and share someone's work. Not a god-given right of entry. To say nothing of the passage thereafter. Perhaps you may recall the inscription hung outside of Plato's allegorical cave then? Only on reflection can such a defamiliarisation make sense; when a reader realises, that ..stumbling along the text, he discovers in parallel, the journey the photographer makes in physically stumbling into a landscape...

Take for example:


On "valorisation of light", I am surprised no one picked up on the subtle meaning, given that you're all steeped in Adamsianism (of the Ansel variety).

Light has value, eg. from 0 to 11 (depending on the medium), and to valorise the light in a scene is to give it the proper value on the medium (film).

My own humble opinion is that there were too many big/foreign words in such a short statement. One would have been ok, maybe even meaningful.

Thus, the student who grasps 'valorisation' as a function of the Zone System in photography, is not mistaken: this much was intended as a minor technical meaning derived from the polysemous (original) reference which is richer, denser, and more 'defamiliarising' to modern eyes. That he fails to apprehend, the aesthetic concept of 'valorisation', is a structural (conceptual) deficit, which is his alone. Does he apprehend the meaning of 'valour'? Perhaps not. If he cannot comprehend nor grasp 'valour', then he is bound to fail at the first obstacle. In this case, immediately after the first multisyllable. What is valour, translated into experience, when faced with obstacle, either rock in the landscape, or the frightening multi-syllable concept in text?

The reader as such, can but still derive meaning from where he is at, from his own peculiar optic, yet he is refused full entry into the richness of the polysemous text. This is not elitism: it is is the real limitation of the reader, who needs distanciation in retreat from this unfamiliar worldview.

Bachelard's discovery of man as 'half-open beings' bears relevance here. In no small measure, if a viewer is able to engage with a photographer's work which reveals to him, a world other than his own, then this is a small step in being 'half-open'.

Then there are those who are better described here as 'canned beings', closed off within their armour of scorn who can only view things from the split-off and reductionistic Cartesian acceptance of the world. This really is too bad. Thus my invitation for them to walk on by, and look elsewhere.

Thank you George for your comments on surrealist art and cave art too. Perhaps these examples diverge slightly, however I do appreciate the time you've spent to describe the kind of sensual beauty which motivates you. Both are bound by an appreciation of the autochtonous nature of man's experiences which deserves discourse on its own right (of which, there is a huge body). I have fond recollections of surrealism in my studies, most of which was spent on the south bank of Paris reading "Nadja" (André Breton) in hand, along with his first, second, and possibly third surrealist written manifesto. Given the furlongs of efforts ploughed by Breton to engage the literary world with the new movement in recognising his manifesto, it might be incumbent on you to read all three, over and above a 9 sentence artist statement :)

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/wholeplate)