Bob, I hope you don't really believe this. My point of view is that art should speak to human emotions within us. If you must cultivate 20 years of art history study to 'understand' the work, the work itself has limited appeal and audience. I would suggest that art should be something that stirs feelings we can all experience and understand. This doesn't mean that an artist is less valuable, or less studied, or less accomplished than a particle physicist. Simply, his/her accomplishments are in a different realm, orthogonal to the dimensions of particle physics or any engineering field. Particle physics demands 10+ years of rigorous study of mathematics and the properties of elementary particles. I don't expect many people to actually understand it. They only understand the consequences when they experience them in their lives. I expect art to stir in people some feelings that they were not conscious of at the time. I don't expect Particle Physics to be as accessible as Art. Regards, Bob S. (reformed physicist)
On 8/21/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Same here. I tend to think that most art, photography or whatever, > > should be accessible to the masses. > > It is. Just as particle physics is accessible to the masses. > > > If I don't get it I'm > > not going to > > spend much time with it. > > Then how can it be made 'accessible' to you? If you're not prepared to > put the effort into getting it, why should the people who made it have > to make it easy just to suit you? > > Why do people expect artists, who have devoted years of their lives to > understanding their subject and producing whatever it is they produce, > to be instantly 'accessible', when they don't expect the same from, > for example, particle physicists? Why should 21st century art be less > difficult than 21st century physics? > > -- > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Scott Loveless > > Sent: 21 August 2007 20:11 > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Conceptual photography (was - Corner Kick) > > > > Fernando wrote: > > > I'm not a fan of Winogrand, I thought I was, but I found > > that I liked some of his shots, probably the more popular > > ones, the ones that are > > > easy to read, the other ones, I don't get them, I guess I leave > that > > > to knowledgeable guys, who have the time and dedication to study > an > > > artist's body of work, I'm lazy and impatient, I don't get > > conceptual > > > photography for the same reason. > > Same here. I tend to think that most art, photography or whatever, > > should be accessible to the masses. If I don't get it I'm > > not going to > > spend much time with it. I suppose that if I was an art student or > a > > magazine editor I might be more critical. > > > Speaking of this shot, when I saw it for the > > > first time, I just thought, "I like it" didn't really stop to > think > > > why, > > > > > Me, too. I do sometimes put some thought into a photograph > > that I like, > > but more often than not I don't. > > > > -- > > Scott Loveless > > http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
