Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (
More info?)
One-liner inserted below:
"There's no accounting for taste".
--
Frank ess
Paul Furman wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>
>> William Graham wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>>> news:iaq8b1dtr3f0r2jq51bad7ql1dcc45m722@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:44 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1119045446.225056.176990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Beauty'? Who said anything about 'beauty'? That has nothing to
>>>>>> do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if "art" isn't an attempt to create beauty, or that which
>>>>> is
>>>>> beautiful, then just what do you think it is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me (and I'm not an artist), art is an attempt on the part of
>>>> the
>>>> artist to show the viewer what the artist saw.
>>>> It *might* be beauty, but it might be, instead, power, or sorrow,
>>>> or a host of other emotions or dimensions or characteristics of
>>>> the
>>>> subject matter.
>>>> Beauty? Possibly, but certainly not universally.
>>>> I don't see how Munch was trying to express or create beauty with
>>>> The Scream.
>>>>
>>> This is true, but to me, it's the work that is beautiful....that
>>> is,
>>> the artist's ability to capture whatever he saw, or wanted to
>>> portray....that's where the beauty lies. The subject matter,
>>> however, need not be beautiful.....
>>
>>
>> The ability to capture is significant, no doubt; however, I'd
>> reckon
>> "Art" will have among its principal components the intent to convey
>> something about relationships among the artist, the subject, and
>> the
>> viewer.
>
>
> I agree with all that but the beauty component is real and it's in
> the
> sincerity and/or depth of the communication. An advertiser,
> propagandist or pornographer might convey feelings very effectivey
> but the taste could be nasty once you realize what's going on. That
> nasty taste is the opposite of the kind of beauty that makes great
> art. The Munch angst leaves you moved, like a heartfelt blues riff
> feels good.
> Take the example of what's-his-name from the other thread with the
> celebrity portraits and his pussy portfolio project. When I look at
> most of those, I get a strong reaction but they leave a nasty taste
> in my mouth. He's a very skillful ad man but not an artist IMO.
>
>
"There's no accounting for taste".
>>
>> Munch had some feelings that he embedded in the painting, which I
>> believe he intended as a kind of invitation to anyone viewing it.
>> "Join me in experiencing the depth and breadth of these emotions."
>> He painted in a way he hoped would facilitate a connection.
>>
>> I believe a photographer can do the same, through choice of medium,
>> color, definition, subject, size, aspect, perspective. Just as
>> Munch
>> did. Munch may never have seen a particular face to spur such a
>> response, may have imagined it, or seen something with that cargo
>> in
>> some form in his memory.
>>
>> A photographer has the additional task of finding a subject to be
>> the
>> vessel for the cargo. Or, he may have an array of cargos, and
>> encounter or arrange a subject, suited to one of them.
>>
>> In any case, it seems to me the essential elements of "Art" have to
>> do with the intent and process of communicating some load in
>> addition to mere content in both painting and photography, and an
>> inspired (to any degree) craftsman can grow art in either medium.
/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
Facebook
Twitter