• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Sweat Equity and Skill in Photography as Art?

Ray West

New member
This discussion comes from the thread on B&W.

Here we are discussing the required evidence of skill and craft in the production of a photograph.

How much skill and craft is needed in a work of art? It seems that snap shots are too trivial. So what can be called Art? Asher







Hi Asher,

trying to find your way, after a bulldozer has demolished all the signposts, so you go back to walking the same path as before, rebuild the same route, replace the signposts, end up in the same place again.

I have no personal knowledge of the folk here, other than one or two, I do not know if Ben is an expert in anything, I'm not saying he is or isn't, just that I don't know. However, for what its worth, his second para looks very much like something that I had previously sent you concerniong some other images, but then, maybe he is lapsing into common sense, instead of 'expertness'.

All the arguments you made until this disclosure are of little value if fundamentally you require labor and sweat to elevate photography to art. Since, at this time, you "do not include it as art" I would ask you to visit galleries and get some books on some of the classical photgraphers who's work is admired as art.
I need to do this, as much as you need to look at the other end, jump up and down in the sand, as in the canon advert a few months ago. It is indeed, difficult to discuss anything, if you are looking down the opposite end of the tunnel. For every rule that folk will dream up concerning art, then there is a contradiction, there are really no boundaries. But, my argument is that the amount of art required in producing a pleasing photograph (such as in Charles' mandolin) is not the same as in prodicing the same image in water colours or oils or whatever, and it is just a photo of a mandolin, I do not see it as a work of art, in its own standing. Now, if it were by one of your guys in a gallery, or any established artist, folk would write about it, copy it, talk it up to be a work of art.

Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers, and given a mandolin, some lights, and a half decent camera, many folk with a modicom of training could do the same. I believe that Charles mentioned it was one of his first shots with this setup, so that means to me he has taken better and worse shots, and the 'art' in this image is thus a choice being exercised between different images of the same subject. It would be art, in my book, if there was more creative skill involved, and a certain amount of 'uniqueness'/creativity. In most of what I see here, there is little creative skill. It is a bit like saying the pope was the artist, not Michaelangelo, or selecting the one work of near Shakespeare, more or less from the million typewriters/years/monkeys. It is possibly 'art' in your definition, but in mine it is not, since art is the result of applying skill and creativity.

Then at least we'll have a common set of reference "standards" against which one might at least attempt to measure the artistic value of photography today.
I can't see that happening, for many reasons.

Is 'photography'=='art' crops up all the time. The subject is too woolly. If you post a picture, then I am quite happy to say if it has, in my opinion any artistic merit, and also why. And I guarantee that none of that judgement will be based on who produced the image, which I'm afraid appears to be on how much of this is judged. So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art.

btw., I'm not too fussy about the cigars, but I'll pm you my address, just in case ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

ps, by the time i've tried to get it into words, had a cup of coffee or three, etc., often a few others reply before me, so if this is out of sequence.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I now look to the end of your writing to see your final message.

This, I don't understand:

"So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art."

What is your concept of artistic merit. Then what does the "is" mean.

This is not a challenge, I just am puzzled!

Asher

P.S. Don't you have cuban cigars in the U.K. anyway?
 

Ray West

New member
the wonders of technology - I wrote an in-depth reply to you, Asher, I summarised it nicely in the last line, too, but got logged off, and the reply got lost. You will have to wait for my next important treatise on this important subject, which as usual, has wanderd from the op's original b&W/colour thread. Maybe cut and paste to another thread?

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,

Important to use MS word and keep a saved version of your valuable essays!

Anyway, we are, ASFAIK, still on topic.

We’re dealing with B&W as an ad hoc option in the creative process to make a photograph worthy of being considered art.
Yes, we're of necessity, dealing with whether or not you feel photography can generally constitute art as part of that package.

You feel that it's hardly worth the effort, since it is something almost anyone with an ounce of creative energy and a camera could repeat with little or no difference in value, unless the person is already celebrated.

However, I still don't understand

"So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettiness', is what you mean as art."

Asher
 
Well, since my picture has been cited as 'not art' I should like to put my two cents worth into the discussion. When I went to art school, there was hot debate over "what is art" with many young students experimenting with new media and methods. This debate rages still, 35 years later, with the current "is it really photography if it's manipulated in Photoshop" debate.

Art is more than mere communication. Writing can communicate facts and be completely artless. Photography can show us the record of light reflected from the scene, and still be completely artless.

It is commonly said that "Art is in the eye of the beholder." But more than that, I believe that art is in the intent of the creator. If my intention is to create a beautiful photograph of my mandolin, for the enjoyment of others, my intent is artful. If my intention is clearly communicated to the receiver, then my art is successful.

The assumption that there is no "suffering" or "sweat equity" in creating photographs is neither real nor a valid criteria for judging whether it is art. You as the perciever of my image have no idea of the work that went into that image. It is said that Ansel Adams put many hours into each photograph, in finding the precise view he wanted, in waiting endless hours until the light was exactly as he wanted it, and later in the darkroom producing beautiful prints that conveyed his vision as precisely as the technology of the day allowed.

How do you know that my efforts to shoot the mandolin are any different, any less strenuous, any less onerous? How do you know how many hours I spent in the studio to produce that image on my digital sensor, or how many hours I labored in Photoshop to perfect the file I uploaded to my server? How do you judge that there is no suffering behind my mandolin images?

Granted, most of the digital images we see today are crap, not art. But the mere fact of being digital images does not disqualify them from being art.

Sometimes art is easy, sometimes it's just a cigar
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Charles,

A higher power sent you here so I'm not alone! Greetings from the earth and welcome! My father in law spent 6 months just re-photographing and printing composition of a lantern with eggs.

When it was finished, one print remained and it was simply mounted and placed on the mantle shelf.

When he died I found it and claimed it.

I know how much sweat equity there's in it. But that's not the point. It can only be judged by what it does when I see it. Effort is no serious measure for value as art, only perhaps its monetary value.

You have brought joy to a number of us in sharing your work. I have re-visited the image and and am still impressed. Well, I guess I'm impressed with the sweat equity and craftsmanship that went into the mandolin too!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here we are discussing the required evidence of skill and craft in the production of a photograph.

If the scene is perfect, mandolin is beautifully made with wonderful curves and grain, the woman sensual and beckoning or the statesman upright, framed on the steps of an impressive building in perfect light can anyone with a modicum of talent snap that perfect image?

Can The image then take its place alongside other aknowledge works of art.

How much skill and craft is needed?

Asher
 

Diane Fields

New member
Being a refugee (or a retiree depending upon my frame of mnd and the day) from the world of 'craft as art'---or vice versa depending upon how you see it, I suffered through these types of conversations for years. Photography will have to deal with it for a long time also I'm afraid. I just won't go there anymore *smile*.

Diane
 
Diane Fields said:
Being a refugee (or a retiree depending upon my frame of mnd and the day) from the world of 'craft as art'---or vice versa depending upon how you see it, I suffered through these types of conversations for years. Photography will have to deal with it for a long time also I'm afraid. I just won't go there anymore *smile*.

Diane

I don't see these conversations as causing suffering. While it is unlikely that we will reach agreement, nor is it even likely we will reach any consensus, I find these discussions interesting because they expose the participants. I had no knowledge of Ray's views before this conversation began. Now I feel I am more deeply acquainted with Ray and "where he's coming from." This is the value of these conversations to me. I don't expect answers, don't expect to learn anything particularly new about the subject of "is photography Art?" but I do expect to learn about the participants.

And that has value to me.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Actually, Charles, like it or not, in an argument, everyone changes including Diane, Ray, you I and everyone else. Of course, they may deny it to themselves or in social company.

However the human brain is smarter than we are and to some extent protects us in spite of our resistance. If the logic is indeed persuasive, and the discussion is friendly, the arguments, working below the awareness of each of us, is measured against other experiences in the brain's library.

So eventually, we get the message of reality. Otherwise, total delusion would kill us off!

I do think, despite everything to the contrary, the Ray is as open to new ideas as anyone. He just starts from a skeptical point of view, being against all puffery.

It may be counter-intuitive, but these discussions do in fact contribute to our work as photographers and artists. Knowing what others think and the barriers to ideas allow us to better deal with others!

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Charles,

This thread has got a bit out of order, and has been split into many parts (maybe its to do with the old warrior adage of 'divide and conquer') so from a previous reply which is now in another thread, I repeat myself below. I have entered folk's names in this version, for the sake of clarity.

It was mainly in reponse to Asher's query on something I'd said -

.................................................................................

"So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art."

As in most things, it depends where you are coming from, how set in our ways, that we are.

My version of art is more a) 'human creative skill or its application' whereas Asher's appears to be b) 'work exhibiting this'. The 'arts' are 'associated with creative skill, as opposed to scientific, technical or vocational skills'. These are just dictionary definitions, 'book learning', but a few examples describing more or less how I view this stuff. It seems every word needs defining, a cigar is not a cigar, unless it's Freud's, when it is what, exactly?

Anyway, I was saying that if you are looking at the final image, and describing it as art, then I would have to be considering the final image in a different way then I normally do, trying to see if it has any 'artistic merit', or 'prettyness' (pretty- attractive in a delicate way, without being truly beautiful or handsome). I was thus trying to revise what I see when viewing, trying to redefine my interpretation of what I refer to as 'art' with how Asher may view it. I can't do that, so I have to translate Asher's use of 'art' into something that makes more sense to me. Does that make sense to you,? For example, Dierk's B&W of the policeman's bum, Asher noted the pose, the significance in that, I'm looking for the manufacturer's name on the gas mask.

I think that for me, the original mandolin photo from Charles, it is the subject material that has the artistic merit. The photo itself is not art, for reasons Charles has said, and which I understood by just looking at the photo. I am not sure how one could get a photo 'worthy of my definition of artistic merit' from such a subject, without involving gimmicks of some sort. However, Charles is trying. His years at art school may help, but I suspect it may hinder. I think I gave my thoughts in a previous post, summarised in the paragraph beginning ' Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers,....'

Maybe you need to set fire to the mandolin, use its own flames to illuminate the photo, is your art worth that, (you'd only get a few minutes to get it right)? Or, burn some sticks, photoshop it in. Or draw/paint flames, in or out of a graphics package...., maybe do what the great painters did, get someone else to do the boring bits...
....................................................

I am genuinely puzzled as to how you can turn a photo of a mandolin into what I would refer to as 'art'. That is by no means degrading the worth of your photography, as a photographic record of a mandolin, but how can it be anything but that? I am looking for the artistic creativity, which is possibly unfair, because your original post was on technical aspects, but comments were made about it being 'art'.

Best wishes,

Ray

ps. btw, I am pleased that Charles has allowed me to 'pick' on him, and our mandolin.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,

I'm glad that you at least make an honest attempt to squint from the other people's perspectives.

Ultimately, Ray, if we had a million monkeys taking pictures of the mandolin, not one would be anything like or as great as Charles' picture. If you wish, I'll arrange the experiment and we can test it out!

Even with a human mind, getting a picture of the mandolin to become a work of art is a huge undertaking to which charles knows he has to commit much time. Who knows, he may merely use this to get used to his new lighting system and then choose an easier subject.

It is not a matter of getting a perfect exposure. The photograph must stand out in such a way that it convey's more than the instrument itself and that it is compelling enough to be revisited and at each time to require of the viewer even more thought on meaning and significence and relevence.

That, Ray is a tall order.

It could take 1 month or one year or never to articulate and render the vision that the artist has. Many pictures will be attractive, of which a few will be outstanding. Of these a rare one will be something to be treasured, or not.

So making of photographic art is very hard. Still, when it is achieved, it deserves the same recogniton as any other work of art.

Being technically competent, artistic or in any other way capable or having a great camera doesn't predict art being produced.

An emotional value and mystery is encoded or not and transferred or not what ever the medium, music, dance, painting, no matter the technical skill, it's this essence we are trying to achieve.

So That is what will or wont make Charles' pictures of the mandolin a work of art. For sure, Ray, it is work!

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
I was thinking, that I need a new definition, I was going to use 'photo-art', but I think that would get abreviated into something not appreciated.

Perhaps, I take a leaf out of my own book, slice the pie a different way, maybe even it becomes a different pie. Maybe into, 'I wish I'd created that', 'I would like to buy that', or 'How did you do that'. Or, in a slightly different direction,'That should be in a gallery','that could be in a gallery', 'you should try and sell that','you could sell that', 'you may be able to sell that - try ebay', 'that's a keeper', thereby sidestepping the whole 'art' argument, and viewing it purely as a commercial enterprise.

Or, I could also just look, and say nowt. Or, say 'that's good, what was the iso value'. But, if an image is posted, generally a comment is requested/implied, unless its purely a matter of boasting (do I need to qualify that?)

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Ben Lifson

New member
Self Reliance

If ever I should condescend to prose,
I'll write poetical commandments, which
Shall supersede beyond all doubt all those
That went before; in these I shall enrich
My text with many things that no one knows,
And carry precept to the highest pitch:
I'll call the work "Longinus* o'er a Bottle,
Or, Every Poet his own Aristotle."

--George Gordon, Lord Byron, Don Juan, Canto I, Stanza CCIV

*Longinus: ancient Greek literary critic, author of On the Sublime, the seminal and still central text on the subject.

yrs
ben
www.benlifson.com
 

Diane Fields

New member
Charles L Webster said:
This is the value of these conversations to me. I don't expect answers, don't expect to learn anything particularly new about the subject of "is photography Art?" but I do expect to learn about the participants.

And that has value to me.

I can understand that. For me, 25-30 years of these discussions wore me down so I steer clear of becoming involved in them, but they are still interesting to read---for the reasons you've stated.

Diane
 
Question for Ray

Ray, if you are so convinced that no, or almost no, photograph can be true Art, then why do you take photographs?

If aspiring to Art with your work is not your intent, then what is?

And, I'm not in the least bit disturbed that you chose my photo as the subject of discussion, because I believe that act, in itself, elevated my picture from mere technical exercise to Art. Thanks for that.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Charles L Webster said:
Ray, if you are so convinced that no, or almost no, photograph can be true Art, then why do you take photographs?

If aspiring to Art with your work is not your intent, then what is?...
Hi Charles,

I have been following this discussion from the beginning with great interest but have been a bit of a chicken myself so far by keeping silent :). Your post has finally prompted me to get actively involved. I would like to try and provide a straight answer to the straight question you have addressed at Ray (please note that I am answering on my own behalf obviously).

Regardless of whether I consider photography as being art or not, I take photographs because I like doing so. It gives me great pleasure being busy with photography as a serious hobby of mine. No other reason than that.

When asked why George Leigh Mallory wanted to climb Everest, he simply answered: "Because it is there".

Regards,

Cem
 

Ray West

New member
the shortened version

Hi Charles,

In my case, I take photographs for many different purposes. Initially, or at least more recently, with a digital camera say with more than 5MP, then it was to collect technical information, so I could measure details of railway wagons, etc. Interspersed with those are, if you like, snapshots, holiday records, dog, sunsets, whatever. Some of my landscape photos, maybe others would be considered as art by some folk, but not by me. I would place them in my 'could be sold category'. But, with some expert photoshopping, then maybe raised to my 'gallery standard'.

Last year, I spent some time trying to capture dragonfiles in flight, but to get the results I wanted, I needed more technology, or put it another way, whatever I did with the equipment I had, if it was placed beside a photo taken with better gear, it would not say dragonfly (maybe mosquito). It is the technology of the photographic process that takes it out of the art realm. Look how many chemical based photographers struggle with digital processing, and even the chemical based stuff is too much technology to be considered as art, in my book. However, for me, some of the most interesting macro type shots I saw, at the time I was impressed, were by a guy with little money, who made his lens from cheap magnifying glasses. This pinhole camera stuff, it is trying to get back to art, more like art in my definition, almost, making life difficult, to get an effect, when easier with L-glass.

I also struggle with some of the other so called art out there, the pickled cows, the piles of bricks, the unmade beds, etc. If I was that interested, then I would spend time on whatever forums they were on, maybe buy a new canon bed to be unmade, or whatever they discuss.

The whole thing, depends where you are coming from, where you are, where you are going. The journey is the destination.

I objected to Asher referring to what I saw as a technical record sort of photo as art. I thought he was being overwhelmed by the subject, not the artistry of the photographer. You yourself, stated your intent, asking for technical comments re the lighting. I am not saying that what you have done with the images so far are not skilful, lighting wise, etc. and as I mentioned previously, to get it into what I would refer to as art, would be difficult. I am sincerely hoping, once you are happy with the lighting, you, maybe all of us, can get some creativity going, somehow, and you and I can see that vital spark, the creative 'Art' thing.

Now, fortunately, I had to rethink, a day or so ago, because I found a couple of pictures, both by the same guy, and I think I slipped, actually called him an 'artist'. In truth, I think the difference is luck - for the images he took, the skill was probably the same as yours, light, camera, lens, pp, whatever, but I think there was a whole load of luck dished out - the iso god was shining those times.

On many photo forums, folk post a photo, others say nice whatever, good bokeh, what lens, etc. I'm glad it is not like that here. I sincerely hope you are too.

Best wishes,

Ray (who once owned a mandolin, (and luckily no camera!) but that was half a century ago...)
 
Ray West said:
Hi Charles,

-snip-

I also struggle with some of the other so called art out there, the pickled cows, the piles of bricks, the unmade beds, etc. If I was that interested, then I would spend time on whatever forums they were on, maybe buy a new canon bed to be unmade, or whatever they discuss.

The whole thing, depends where you are coming from, where you are, where you are going. The journey is the destination.

I objected to Asher referring to what I saw as a technical record sort of photo as art. I thought he was being overwhelmed by the subject, not the artistry of the photographer. You yourself, stated your intent, asking for technical comments re the lighting. I am not saying that what you have done with the images so far are not skilful, lighting wise, etc. and as I mentioned previously, to get it into what I would refer to as art, would be difficult. I am sincerely hoping, once you are happy with the lighting, you, maybe all of us, can get some creativity going, somehow, and you and I can see that vital spark, the creative 'Art' thing.

Now, fortunately, I had to rethink, a day or so ago, because I found a couple of pictures, both by the same guy, and I think I slipped, actually called him an 'artist'. In truth, I think the difference is luck - for the images he took, the skill was probably the same as yours, light, camera, lens, pp, whatever, but I think there was a whole load of luck dished out - the iso god was shining those times.

On many photo forums, folk post a photo, others say nice whatever, good bokeh, what lens, etc. I'm glad it is not like that here. I sincerely hope you are too.

Best wishes,

Ray (who once owned a mandolin, (and luckily no camera!) but that was half a century ago...)

Ray,

I certainly am not in any way offended by this critical examination of my photo, motives, technology, and/or creativity. As I said in my "Challenging Discussions" thread, I find these discussions interesting and thought provoking.

I left art school before completing the course, because I began to see myself as a technician rather than an artist. I was more concerned with the technology of making pictures than the content of those pictures. When I came back to photography a few years ago, I realized that digital photography had removed many of those technological challenges, and I began to focus once again on content.

Now my quest is to create art. Not merely pretty pictures of places, people, or things, but images that evoke emotional responses in my viewers, that make a "connection" with my viewers. But, I also believe that a certain technical facility is necessary to create images that evoke those responses and make those connections. The mandoling picture is a step toward that technical facility. But in some, Asher in particular, it does evoke emotional responses, beyond those that the thing itself would justify. In specific, I believe that the picture under discussion makes connections to the boat-like character of this particular mandolin (which is of an unusual style and shape). And to respond to an earlier comment, I believe that someone else might not have seen or made that connection.

In my opinion, it is the role of the artist to make more of the thing that it is. Thus, in transforming my mandolin from musical instrument to vessel of discovery, I have made the thing more than it is.

Ray West said:
The whole thing depends where you are coming from, where you are, where you are going. The journey is the destination.

That's exactly what I am trying to say. Thanks for saying it for me.
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Charles,

at seven years old, I used to play with the mandolin, as a boat. Not being an expert, I remember it as looking like yours, same sort of shape, but no butterfly, not as good nik.

Well, it depends how far you want to go, is your mandolin going to be 40 years effort to get it just right, or it is going to be matchwood, as you vent your frustration?

If you see it as a boat, then maybe work on that. Choose a view that says 'boat', and get some sea, a seagull, whatever. Play, the million monkey's tune to get the shakespeare. Once you've sketched it out, then apply the art skills, to either make it real, or surreal.

Sorry, seems like I'm telling you what to do, didn't mean that, if thats how it came over. I'm a great believer in playing, to learn, thats all.

Best wishes,

Ray
 
Ray West said:
Hi Charles,

-snip-

If you see it as a boat, then maybe work on that. Choose a view that says 'boat', and get some sea, a seagull, whatever. Play, the million monkey's tune to get the shakespeare. Once you've sketched it out, then apply the art skills, to either make it real, or surreal.

-snip-

Ray

But what if I want to only allude to the connection between boat and mandolin, or leave the seagull to the viewer's imagination? Does that make it less artistic? Is it necessary to beat the viewer over the head with BOAT in all caps, or don't you think that I can just leave it to the viewer to make the connection between mandolin and boat?

I believe that the best pictures are those that leave something unsaid. That leave the viewer wondering "what's going on here?" or "where does that lead?"

In the case of making a connection between mandolin and boat, I'm not trying to literally make one into the other, I'm trying to suggest the connection through shape, light, and mood.

But I think that's the essence of where we differ in our definition of art.

Enough of this. I'm going to stop talking about art and go make some art, by taking photographs of objects, whether beautiful or ugly.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray West said:
Hi Charles,

If you see it as a boat, then maybe work on that. Choose a view that says 'boat', and get some sea, a seagull, whatever. Play, the million monkey's tune to get the shakespeare. Once you've sketched it out, then apply the art skills, to either make it real, or surreal.

Sorry, seems like I'm telling you what to do, didn't mean that, if thats how it came over. I'm a great believer in playing, to learn, thats all.

Best wishes,

Ray

Some sea and a seagull: why? The metaphor of the mandolin, implying a vessel on a journey, works after all! It's not needed to add waves and the bird unless the're needed to express what the artist imagined. After all, in writing, we only need to use words sufficient to carry the intended thoughts with the required force.

I'm not saying that adding birds or waves wouldn't be pretty, interesting or even breathtaking. I'm not saying it would not make great art. How can I, since I have no idea of your vision and how you might wish to (or think you could) implement it.

You have offered what would be necessary to implement your idea of what Charles' vision might be. These are the first parts of the arc of creativity. Now you must return to that and ask yourself, what indeed would be the minimum to convey such a great idea such as this?

Play, the million monkey's tune to get the shakespeare. Why say that? To devalue the very concept of creating art by photography of a mandolin? Well, one billion monkeys could not write one sonnet, forget the rest! While the flippency has a nice bounce to it, it devalues the debate.

Unless you allow yourself the possibility that a photograph can transmit meaning beyond the subject photographed, we can't bridge the gap between us. However, I'm convinced you are moving towards some acceptance of a language of art that might apply to photography too.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Charles L Webster said:
.............

In the case of making a connection between mandolin and boat, I'm not trying to literally make one into the other, I'm trying to suggest the connection through shape, light, and mood.

But I think that's the essence of where we differ in our definition of art.

Enough of this. I'm going to stop talking about art and go make some art, by taking photographs of objects, whether beautiful or ugly.

Still, Charles, this discussion does provide some insight in what some viewers might bring to one's work. As we are more educated, the images become symbolic and say much more than the symbols as they inherit all the meanings they have had.

That's the power of symbology. I believe that every so often, it's good to argue with someone to tests the givens of our culture so when you go back, you know what to whack.

Ray does this. Instinctively, something new comes over the horizen, "BANG!" he shoots it! Then, he might or might not ask "What was it I shot?" However, there's good in this since a lot of the the stuff that flies as art, should be brought to earth.

Ray is a practical guy but has no evil, thank goodness! If he dis, I wouldn't sleep at night!

You can now pat yourself on the back for your forbearance! You might also congratulate Ray for letting you start him on the 18 step program to the perfect print without paying the $1,000 course fee!

Asher
 
Top