Music as analogy for LF photography

[Doremus Scudder]

If the art doesn't grab in in the first two seconds, it's just conversation after that.

Aside from agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, I might submit that what grabs me in the first two seconds might be entirely different than what grabs you. I really love a lot of modern atonal music. When I first heard the Berg violin concerto, I was smitten. I was similarly smitten by my first real-life encounter with a Jackson Pollack painting. The Whistler exhibit at the Tate Gallery knocked me cold. Sweeny Todd did too, as did a book of Robert Rauschenberg photos that I only got to look at for a few minutes. I know lots of people that would have had negative reactions to those things; you probably do too.

My point still being: What you get out of something depends on what you bring to it. If you're not prepared to appreciate something, there's no way it's going to grab you; in two seconds or two hours.

When I was in elementary school a local radio station had a telephone poll: Who's better, The Monkeys or The Beatles. I was really rooting for The Monkeys then... I know better now

As for art having to grab you in the first few moments... I remember finding Strauß' "Der Rosenkavalier" tedious and confusing. The truth is, is was just over my head when I first heard it. After growing in to it and learning enough to appreciate it, it is now one of my favorites.

I make a point of never negatively commenting on a work of art I don't think I understand fully. Sure, I'll give a bad review to something I'm sure was done poorly, but anything that might still be over my head, I leave for others to comment on.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

I’ve already explained this. Learning is not elitist. I’ve been practicing and studying music my entire life, but study is not why I truly love the pieces of music I do.

I'm not saying what I espouse is elitist either

I don't know if I could love the pieces of music I do as much as I do without study, however. It seems the more I learn, the more I get out of things.

Best,

Doremus

[Tin Can]

Agree

I was poor at English, until I had 2 years of Latin, grade 6, 7 in a one room classroom, not religious, with the amazing Mrs Wolfe, she teamed me with a 4th grade, actual genius. He was fascinating, we each had something the other needed

Our bubble burst with JFK assassination

Then I went to a horrible Factory Training school, I have totally blocked that entire year, Fight Club

[Tin Can]

I love Shakespeare, preferably outside on stage at dusk

I am usually one of a few actually laughing at the jokes

I cannot remember stage lines, but I can analyze a script and characterizations

I have performed solo stage acts, yet prefer firepit tales as embers wane, each story created on the spot for the audience

I call them Bar Stories, never written, each custom

[Heroique]

When I was in elementary school a local radio station had a telephone poll: Who's better, The Monkeys or The Beatles. I was really rooting for The Monkeys then... I know better now

News just now breaking that Michael Nesmith has died.

The Monkey with the knit cap. Age 78. RIP.

Just one Monkey left (Micky), and two Beatles (Paul and Ringo).

[Alan Klein]

But there's those times you have been somewhere many times, but one time the place feels more "magic" than others... Then the next time, the "magic" is gone...

Explain that away, folks...

Steve K

It's never as good as the first time.

[Alan Klein]

That would be a ~no~ as initial appearance tends to be superficial, what might be the deeper meaning with any work of art that does not come from the superficial initial appearance?


Bernice

Not necessarily. Did you ever meet someone you were immediately attracted to physically? And then they opened their mouth.

[Alan Klein]

I have to disagree with you on this I think.

There definitely is an immediate reaction we have to a piece of art, however I would argue that is not innate. Not all learning is formal, I might even say most learning isn't formal. I don't think an infant would have an instant reaction to a piece of art as soon it opens it's eyes, rather over a child's growth they will see the world around them and slowly form opinions on what they like and don't like. In the nature versus nurture debate, I think appreciation of art falls in the nurture category.

Earlier in this thread you said "reading is not the same as listening to speech. The first must be learned while the latter comes naturally." I would have to disagree with this. Again, an infant does not understand anything when they listen to speech, that is why an infant cries, they do not have the language to articulate what they need. Both reading and listening are learned, it just happens that infants learn to listen on their own, but usually need instruction when learning to read.

Back to this latest point you made, I think much can be gained from looking at a piece of art or reading a piece of literature after first seeing it. There are many books I have re read and gained new appreciation for the second time around because in the second reading I am not distracted by the instant reactions I had the first time, and notice more hidden themes I didn't pick up on at first. The same definitely applies to a photograph or painting for me. The first time I see it I have an instant reaction to what it is, but often after going away and learning about the artist or the techniques used I can come back to it and find a deeper understanding of it after knowing the context which surrounds it.

Intellectualizing art after the 2 second "wow" period is like explaining the punchline to a joke. Either you get it or you don't. I'm not saying it's not interesting to look at the things in a photo that makes it work or not. But that's post-effect. Either the photo works for you or it doesn't. Either you get the joke or you don't.

[Alan Klein]

Aside from agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, I might submit that what grabs me in the first two seconds might be entirely different than what grabs you. I really love a lot of modern atonal music. When I first heard the Berg violin concerto, I was smitten. I was similarly smitten by my first real-life encounter with a Jackson Pollack painting. The Whistler exhibit at the Tate Gallery knocked me cold. Sweeny Todd did too, as did a book of Robert Rauschenberg photos that I only got to look at for a few minutes. I know lots of people that would have had negative reactions to those things; you probably do too.

My point still being: What you get out of something depends on what you bring to it. If you're not prepared to appreciate something, there's no way it's going to grab you; in two seconds or two hours.

When I was in elementary school a local radio station had a telephone poll: Who's better, The Monkeys or The Beatles. I was really rooting for The Monkeys then... I know better now

As for art having to grab you in the first few moments... I remember finding Strauß' "Der Rosenkavalier" tedious and confusing. The truth is, is was just over my head when I first heard it. After growing in to it and learning enough to appreciate it, it is now one of my favorites.

I make a point of never negatively commenting on a work of art I don't think I understand fully. Sure, I'll give a bad review to something I'm sure was done poorly, but anything that might still be over my head, I leave for others to comment on.

Best,

Doremus

Well, I wouldn't put a picture in the same league as Strauß' "Der Rosenkavalier". First off a picture is an instant in time. A musical piece is serial and extends and caries throughout its length. There could be parts you like and others you don't. Pictures don't operate that way.

I also think you're wrong about The Monkees vs. The Beatles. Inspirations and aesthetics have nothing or very little to do with technique or intellectualizing the pieces. A simple "I love you." heard from someone close to you can change that person's life a lot more than reading some complex analysis by Freud on self-esteem. When you admired the Monkees, it created the most inspiration and aesthetic power for you. So it was better. Also, intellectualizing things often take the power out of them. Often, I think I pixel peep things a little too much.

[Doremus Scudder]

... a picture is an instant in time. A musical piece is serial and extends and caries throughout its length. There could be parts you like and others you don't. Pictures don't operate that way.

Sure they do. There are often elements I like about an image and those I don't; things I think could be improved, things I think are perfect as they are, and so on.

... Inspirations and aesthetics have nothing or very little to do with technique or intellectualizing the pieces.

I would take issue here as well. The study of aesthetics (an intellectual branch of philosophy already) has at its heart the ability of a person to sense and perceive at a level above that of the average human (Hume's "delicate taste"). The admiration of expertise and virtuosity (not only musical!) are first on the list of Denis Duttons six universals in aesthetics. Also on the list are Criticism (in the sense of judging and interpreting art) and Style (meaning satisfying or interacting with rules of composition and form). For Kant, for something to be "beautiful" it had to give rise to pleasure by engaging "reflective contemplation," i.e., judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once. That's just scratching the surface of the subject...

A simple "I love you." heard from someone close to you can change that person's life a lot more than reading some complex analysis by Freud on self-esteem.

Agreed, but irrelevant.

When you admired the Monkees, it created the most inspiration and aesthetic power for you. So it was better. Also, intellectualizing things often take the power out of them. ...

Maybe the "most inspiration and aesthetic power" I was capable of the time. But it doesn't mean it was "better" in any universal, objective sense. Fortunately, by growing in awareness and understanding, I can now forget about The Monkees entirely and spend my time with the much richer fare I'm able to digest now. This doesn't mean I don't like simple things; it means that I see more of the spectrum of artistic and am able to get my head and heart around greater things than "Last Train to Clarksville." Yes we all have to start somewhere, but we don't have to remain there, especially when there are so many more rewarding things to spend our time on. But, you have to pay your dues and learn the "language of the arts" (as Bernice so eloquently analogizes).

I realize that most, if not all, people (myself included) never get to the point of artistic fluency in all areas (the classical violinist who thinks comic books are the height of literature, or the painter who's never been exposed to a Beethoven symphony). Still, it galls somewhat when modern "critics" speak of pop music or TV sitcoms as if they were the height of human achievement. That doesn't really change things; it just means that they don't understand those richer, more-complicated things. We should at least be aware that there are wonders and magnificence beyond our ken and not disparage those who are able to comprehend and practice them as "elite snobs" and therefore somehow to be censured. They are the ones that are getting a larger portion of the joys of this all-to-brief passage on this earth.

Best,

Doremus