Your post summarizes this pretty well and probably explains my lack of understanding for this kind of photography, I love the challenge of presenting a message just with pictures, telling stories, and probably that's why I find it easier to like photographs that show a way to solve this puzzle: they are useful to me at this particular point for my photography.
Tomorrow time will tell, to tell you the truth, I tried something that might "fit the concept" of conceptual photography, but didn't feel I could transmit my message with the photos, and your post just clarifies that to me, I'm not expected to tell something just filling up a frame, I can add words to the photos and combine both things as a whole. Not my cup of tea now, maybe someday. Nice to participate in a mature polite conversation ;-) Cheers Fernando On 8/22/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the things you learn as you study art is that "meaning" is > invariably tightly coupled with language and words. It is very very > difficult to create intelligible meaning in pictures alone. A visual > language of photographs that attempt to articulate specific meaning > is subject to widely variant interpretation ... and those > interpretations might or might not have anything to do with the > intent of the photographer-artist who made them and presents them. > However, there is a long tradition in photography of the 20th Century > that the pictures should be able to tell their story by > themselves ... the basis of the photojournalism that built Look and > Life magazines rests on this type of imagic story telling. So there > is a contention, a tension in this desire to have the images speak > for themselves and the desire to understand the artist-photographer's > intent in a meaningful way, which needs words and symbols to be > conveyed. > > Emotional expression, on the other hand ... pictures/photographs/ > paintings/sculpture are very good at conveying emotional messages, > based on the common psychology of human consciousness. "Oh, a > beautiful sunset" reminds us of that warm evening with golden light > in our own experiences. "What a funny little boy that is" reminds us > of the goofyness when we played with our siblings, our cousins in the > snow or the backyard as children. "Oh my god, the horror" that signal > photograph of the My Lai Massacre from the Vietnam War so long ago > resonates in our horror at man taking another man's live, cruelty and > injustice, evil. "Wow, look at that ball!" in frank's recent > photograph from the soccer field reveals to us the feeling of a > sport, of activity and play. And so on. Images are emotional > messengers triggering memory, feeling, sun, taste, touch ... all the > things that words and meaning are so remote and abstract about. > > So we combine some words to articulate an intent, an artist's > interest, and show some photos that codify the emotion of their > vision. I look at this set of pieces of "neglected spaces" and I feel > the sad moment of dissolution, of memories of grand times now gone, > of furniture and rooms that people enjoyed, had arguments in, trysted > in, and have left behind. They are static Things, locked in their > existential time and space, a mute record of something that was and > is passing if we let the soft sunlight and shadow of their > dissolution affect us with an open emotion. > > Is the piece successful? did it raise an emotive moment for you, > personally? or was it opaque, mute, unapproachable in your current > state of mind? The set, right now, seems a little lacking in force > and magnitude to me, but then looking at tiny representations on a > low resolution screen is miles apart from what the prints, hung > carefully with attention to the metre of the visual language and > coupled with the spoken intent in words, might do. It might take more > work, more effort, for me to become open enough to hear, feel what > the photographer's intent was. > > Art is many things, but only rarely easy. One must become attuned to > the metre of work, open to the messages it attempts, and it often > needs work to translate the experience into substance, meaning, > emotion and finally understanding: a shared experience with the > artist. At that point you can say, "ah hah, I get it, the artist was > successful" or "no, this one missed." > > Godfrey > > > On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:51 PM, Fernando wrote: > > > To add some context: an example of what I think of when I say > > conceptual photography, http://aperture.org/store/s06pick-fisher.aspx > > (found it in another discussion) > > > > On 8/22/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You are making strong points here Godfrey, and I agree with the fact > >> that without intention there is no art, in the end all this > >> discussion > >> is about the process of how this intention is communicated from the > >> artist to its audience. At least from me the critic goes to part of > >> what is considered art photography (specifically part of conceptual > >> photography) that demands the viewer to "read" the concept from a > >> textbook, not read the concept from the piece of art (photos) because > >> is not there, not even in a cryptic way, you have to read it from > >> somewhere else. The critic was no to art in general, not from me, I'm > >> not that extreme ;-) > >> > >> On 8/21/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Making art photography is an exercise that is not related to > >>> accessibility or like-ability. Most people can master a technically > >>> good photograph with today's cameras. Many people can make a good > >>> photograph in a compositional sense. Not many produce art. > >>> > >>> It is the intent, the expression, and the interpretation together > >>> that define a piece as art, and also provide a meter as to > >>> whether it > >>> succeeds or fails in the context of the artist's intent. Without > >>> intent, no photograph is art ... they're all just pretty pictures or > >>> documentary recordings of a scene. > >>> > >>> To look at photographs purely as pretty pictures and insist that > >>> they > >>> must be accessible to all is to miss the vast majority of the ideas, > >>> emotions, expressions that photographers might wish to convey. This > >>> saddens me. > >>> > >>> There is room for pretty pictures and art photographs in the > >>> world to > >>> coexist. It is not necessary that every photograph be a pretty > >>> picture, or be a piece of art. And it is also not necessary that > >>> every piece of art be accessible to every person's appreciation, or > >>> even if it is, be liked by every person who appreciates it. > >>> > >>> If you see a photograph that you don't "get", you can comment, or > >>> not, as seems fitting. If you want to try to understand it (or more > >>> specifically, understand the photographer's intent behind it...) and > >>> expand your ability to appreciate such work, commenting and/or > >>> asking > >>> a question is the only way to go. > >>> > >>> Godfrey > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > > > -- > > 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 > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
