Min, thanks for bringing these discussions over here because they are marvelous. This one may be the best yet for its stark, blatant contrast between, shall we say, myth and reality. (But which is which?
minniev wrote: Steven G Webb wrote:
minniev wrote:Thank you for pitching in, and we don't mind repetitious, 'cause you've probably got your own unique view!
The stark reality, sharply defined edges and contrast in Eggleston's photo run counter to the illusion most have of the holiday season. Yule tide is emotion more than equation and feeling more than fact. We like our movies chock full of special effects and CGI and we really don't want to see the wires, the chroma screens and animations though we can rationalize they are there.
Thank you! You're the first to bring up our infatuation with being coaxed into believing an illusion.Indeed, Currier and Ives perpetuates that sweet delusion, while Eggleston slaps us in the face with it.
All else aside, it may be germane to note that Currier and Ives don't have one single soul in that treacly scene wearily shoveling
Psjunkie wrote:... you know I don't know squat about art ...
From discussions like these I don't know that many of us do, but it makes me wonder if it would affect our work, and to what extent, better or worse? S-
I am inclined to think that the more we know and understand art the better photographers we are likely to be, regardless how we identify as photographers. I believe I am a documentary photographer, closely aligned with photojournalists on the one hand because I want it "real," but on the other hand pretty much not bothered by "'shopping" a picture to make it better (I hope) by willfully editing it. I like to capture reality, but prettier, not as far as Currier and Ives, but I am somewhat repelled by many of Eggleston's pictures, and at bottom I really dislike the one in the OP.
Charles Haacker wrote:My sentiments exactly, Frank! I did however go looking at more of Eggleston's stuff plus studious commentary so now (as usual) I am torn. Like you I don't know squat about art or much else for that matter, but I've said often that I have fairly eclectic tastes in many things. ....
I love that Frank is so straightforward, nothing to decipher there, and you are so elegant and rounded. If I had to guess I'd say you were brothers in another life!
You are right too to like so many different things, I went through a lot of phases with music and love pretty much everything I see in museums, but there are times I stand in front of something and think why did you waste the money printing this, let alone framing it, and it hangs in a gallery? Is this the kind where you pay to have your work shown and they take a profit IF you sell something? I have so much to learn, mostly why something so bad is thought of as so good. S-
Frank! Dude! Bro! (Thanks Steve but I am not at all elegant but you got the well-rounded part right: I can't see my toes much less touch them.)
But seriously, in both real and virtual galleries I too see things I cannot believe are even there, much less the pricetags, and woe betide if the artist is dead!
Charles Haacker wrote:... Reading it twice I more and more came to feel that he was putting us on and inwardly hilarious at his own joke. ...
I wonder it The Masters were arrogant or like Stephen King just looking for a way to get the voices out of their head? S-
I find myself often citing the parable of the unclothed emperor parading around in his undies, but then I have to remind myself (again) that I don't know nuthin' 'bout AAaaaart and the folks who supposedly do (are they posturing as well?) think that what I see as garbage they see as Great AAaaaart worth zillions. Is it? Could it be that the emperor is totally nude and no one wants to say so?
The thing is, I LIKE art, I have a creative bent or I wouldn't even be interested in photography or a lot of other things, but in my ignorance I sometimes wonder if someone is being scammed.
St3v3M wrote:Maybe that's how you play the game, take an image of something, anything, and throw it out there letting others decide what it means? S-
- Ah, I just had an idea!!!
If you notice, most all great photographers never explain their images.
Personally, I feel that if I have to explain one of my images, I failed somehow.
Oh, and by explanation I don't mean a description of location or date or other data driven information.
I have no problem with explaining. My work explores the relationship between Jungian archetypes and life as performance.
With influences as diverse as Kafka and L Ron Hubbard, new tensions are synthesised from both orderly and random discourse.
Ever since I was a kindergartner I have been fascinated by the theoretical limits of the universe. What starts out as hope soon becomes corrupted into a manifesto of defeat, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the chance of a new reality.
As temporal phenomena become distorted through studious and personal practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the outposts of our condition.