• 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!

digital fine art photography

Greetings,

I would be interested to learn what you think.

Someone in germany with bigger brains than I recently wrote on "digital fine art photography":

It is the art to capture the technically perfect picture, followed by the optimum in post processing, and the best possible print output.

I would not sign that, and I guess I am asking, would you?

My thoughts are, this is too much of a limitation, striving only for "perfection" with the tools currently available, the latter change quickly as we know.

We can trace back to Graham Nash to define the roots. Today, is a description that is focussed exclusively on technical perfection accurate?
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Naw, I'm with you, George. I don't know what "digital fine art photography" is. But whatever it is, this person offers an extremely limited technician's definition.
 

Jim Galli

Member
There are at least two oxymoron's just in the title.

Oops. Oh wait a minute, this isn't APUG.

So what is perfection?

You say tomayto

I say tomahto.

I happen to think perfection just might be 8X10 film and a Pinkham & Smith lens with the right subject matter.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
It just occurred to me that this guy might actually be a chef who has borrowed his photographic definition from one of his cookbooks.. Consider the following edits to his declaration.

"It is the art to start with the best ingredients, followed by the optimum recipe and preparation, and the best possible presentation."
 
Well, :) in fairness, my english is far from perfect, and I might have not provided a propper translation, though, I think it is accurate enough.

FWIW, here is the german version:

digitale Fine-Art Fotografie, die Kunst der technisch perfekten Aufnahme, der optimalen Nachbearbeitung und des bestmöglichen Ausdrucks.

I had similiar reactions like you guys when reading it.

@Ken

"It is the art to start with the best ingredients, followed by the optimum recipe and preparation, and the best possible presentation."

LOL, in Hell's Kitchen there would have been one reaction for sure.... "Feck it! Just give me that Risotto NOW!" .... "Yes chef".... LOL
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Just in case someone is about to spend hard-earned money on a course!

I'm often taken a back when I hear of all the training being offered to make "technically perfect images and prints" by this or that Guru. While basic knowledge is needed, there is no great technical barrier to overcome! So I'd like to take advantage of the declaration by this German Gentleman to discuss the topic with view to people being less vulnerable to such technobators!

Someone in Germany with bigger brains than I recently wrote on "digital fine art photography":

It is the art to capture the technically perfect picture, followed by the optimum in post processing, and the best possible print output.

I would not sign that, and I guess I am asking, would you?

My thoughts are, this is too much of a limitation, striving only for "perfection" with the tools currently available, the latter change quickly as we know.

We can trace back to Graham Nash to define the roots. Today, is a description that is focused exclusively on technical perfection accurate?
Well Georg,

I'm glad you tell the guy was a German or I'd have been pointing fingers elsewhere! The term Digital fine Art can be referring to someone's master class, course, work camp or "School of Thought", so I'd like to not face that head on. Let me approach an answer this way. First let's break down digital fine art to two essential components about which we do know a lot.

"Fine Art" here encompasses several schools of thought as to what that might be. Simply put, (just for this discussion, but I promise we'll deal with this more honorably), "Fine Art" pictures are that which are displayed in museums, collected by collectors, sold in galleries or displayed in public buildings or homes.

The digital part is where there's confusion.

a. First let's dispose of the printing! In the digital age we can make prints of technical high standard on archival paper with relative ease. We can if we wish use the digital file to make a film inter-negative or else user a laser to expose film or regular silver gelatin paper. So the print method, itself, unless from a master printer of alternative or B&W photography, for example, can essentially be forgotten as any barrier to making the "Fine Art".

b. What part of this might be related what we call fine art? Obviously we do need some image file!

But we haven't said what "Fine Art" is! Let's side track, for a moment and pretend! So just for the sake of this discussion, let's produce well-made prints that "seem like fine art" (i.e. subjects, genre and styles that are popular with some market segment of the museum or gallery world). Let's imagine that all one has to do is market them to the galleries and museums and we'd be eventually able to sell our treasured prints. Then obviously, what we sold was indeed "Fine Art"

Well, life's not fair and it immediately shows here! Sorry guys, we can't find one gallery that needs another digital artist. "We already have a full stable of artists, never mind "Digital" Fine Artists!" or some such reply. So we can make a website, self-publish a book, marry the daughter of the gallery owner or get a restaurant to decorate their walls for free with our framed "art". Now we sell some prints! Tralalala!

But are you selling fine art? Well, it looks like the sort of stuff that everyone else is showing and selling. Not having really defined "fine art" except in a circumlocuitous fashion, let's again feel we understand that our "Fine Art" we have sold, seems to be selling as the real thing from Art Galleries, so we no longer need to worry about the term, just making even better prints in that same vein.

Let's now get back to the aggravatingly bold statement on "fine art" It is the art to capture the technically perfect picture, followed by the optimum in post processing, and the best possible print output.

Relationship of technically perfect capture to fine art: It is to me patently absurd that a technically perfect picture (for "Art") can be even contemplated! Even in the act of contemplation, there will be doubts, uncertainties and lack of knowledge for a ruler to be made or imagined against which "perfect" could be measured. So "perfect" has to be dismissed. How about replacing perfect with "a technically very good capture"? Again this is a naive assertion because it seems to limit the creativity of the photographic artist who might prefer otherwise. Some talented person may require a digital capture which is under-exposed, over-exposed or has random light variation because that makes his/her creative juices flow! If all art needed was a "technically perfect capture", (and one would even be happy with a technically excellent capture), then every $150 digicam owner could set the camera to Auto and make "fine art" with little effort. After all, the file will be excellent and we've already dismissed printing (for this argument only) as almost a trivial last step.

So what sort of capture is needed? Simply this: whatever capture provides a digital file that inspires and drives the photographic artist who already has sufficient:

  1. Openness to new experience
  2. Imagination
  3. Intellect
  4. Originality
  5. Thinking,
  6. Motivation
  7. Discipline
  8. Playfulness
  9. Humor
  10. Passion
  11. Hubris
  12. Arrogance
  13. Insight
  14. Blind drive
  15. Informed drive
  16. Taste
  17. Skill
  18. Ability to experiment, fiddle and discover new paths
  19. Ability to settle on one idea and form some intention
  20. Ability to kill one's children
  21. Ability to engrave intent in an image
  22. Judgment
  23. Taste
  24. Iterative refinement and finally a measure of
  25. Genius to reach part of one's mind mix magic to make the picture live. That way, art has an existence in and for the minds of admirers. Then the art no longer depends on the continued life of the artist.

That picture could be blurred, poorly focused, sickly color or magnificently drawn. None of these technical matters alone will make it fine art without more than a few of the other far more difficult to acquire capabilities mentioned above. Furthermore, lack of such technical proficiency, will hardly ever prevent a talented photographic artist's work reaching the level of appreciation by collectors of "fine art".

Being a teacher! Is that what this declaration is all about? Yes, I think so! A merely competent teacher of photography, can make a great living selling the concept of "Digital Fine Art" to myriads of photo-enthusiasts. Usually the lessons are practical. However, the gurus push there wares! The seven things for this or the 5 secrets of that! Wait, there's more!

Any talented photographer can quickly acquire sufficient technical skills to make fine art. Beware of gurus and so many courses. Each of us will get much more incremental benefit by going to museums and galleries than by taking most courses. (One should only take a course after one has completed a new project or else one can become a seminar junkie. Still a course is a place for meeting new folk and can be a needed break from hard work.).

So beyond setting up the psychological groundwork for selling course work/ training materials etc to students, the concept of Fine Art:

It is the art to capture the technically perfect picture, followed by the optimum in post processing, and the best possible print output.

is such a poor description of the means by which fine art is made, that I must declare that assertion as so simplistic that it's of little practical value and in short, nonsense! We don't need to be ordained like a priest! A camera is a today merely a commodity. Digital processing is now no real barrier and adequately high quality printing is no longer the domain of the apprenticed printer.

So what makes "Fine Art" What is special is refining and developing some of the talents listed above and these are mostly inspired, fertilized and realized by both study of other art and by work and dedication to the life each image one tries to make. By this I mean the devotion and iterative passion with which one cares for a son or daughter. We imagine and dream of the child. Even after conception we seem to "will" it to develop from an embryonic fragile idea to get a beating heart . We treasure it from before it's born to birth, its first steps and each stage of joy until the infant is suddenly an adult. Then that adult takes a deep breath looks us in the eye and and departs on an independent journey. When a photograph is like that, it's fine art! I don't believe much of that can be taught. It can, however, be inspired in others.

The folk who do that are treasures and you just have to seek them out and work with them!

Asher
 
Last edited:
Hi Asher,

May I say, with affection, that all this is a bit overwrought. We should take our own work seriously when we strive for artistic expression. But to rail against an assertion of what makes fine art or digital fine art is a bit over the top. I can't define fine art, but I know when I see it :), or something like that. Let me ask any of you, how many examples of fine art have appeared on this site? I think there have been some excellent, even wonderful, pictures shown here, but fine art? I don't know. When I think of fine art I think of creations that I want to come back to again and again, creations that speak to me on more than one level and perhaps in different ways at different times. All of this stuff is very subjective. One only need remember the criticisms leveled against now famous works of art, by qualified critics, no less, to realize that in the present what we believe is fine art means little. History is the best judge of what is and what constitutes fine art.

-Nat
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Asher,

May I say, with affection, that all this is a bit overwrought. We should take our own work seriously when we strive for artistic expression.

Hi Nathaniel,

I too reply with a warm feeling. Yes, my writing is too long, LOL!

Your initial comments are a précis of all my long discourse. Your "Overwrought" applies to my bristling at the idea of digital fine art being described in terms of machine tool accuracy. Most of what is worried about, is not generally important to art. So I strongly dismiss any over-reaching assertion that digital Fine Art needs any technical excellence, never mind "perfection", whatever that might be!

I didn't give a formula for what actually defines Fine Art, I circumvented it, as you have. I did however share what I think may be the many skills and resources that are drawn on by the artist. What combination he/she uses is not defined either. However, we do know some of the characteristics that appear to be common. These I have merely listed. At least some of these seem to be needed, but not any set of arbitrary rules.

But to rail against an assertion of what makes fine art or digital fine art is a bit over the top. I can't define fine art, but I know when I see it :), or something like that.
The last statement is fine. I'd accept that as quite reasonable until we can find something better that would link to what others might think. Since art appreciation is an active process dependent on taste, your own opinion, for now trumps most anything else for your enjoyment. It's exactly for that reason that a definition that excludes less than technical "perfection" is ludicrous and misleading to any learning community.

When I think of fine art I think of creations that I want to come back to again and again, creations that speak to me on more than one level and perhaps in different ways at different times. All of this stuff is very subjective.
Yes, Nathaniel, that's why we must dismiss the ranking given to technical specifics.
One only need remember the criticisms leveled against now famous works of art, by qualified critics, no less, to realize that in the present what we believe is fine art means little.
Precisely is my point! They didn't obey academy rules or fit in some pigeon hole, so they were not fully celebrated in their time.

History is the best judge of what is and what constitutes fine art.

A marvelous idea. It does at least provide some link between interested constituencies. It represents some fusing together or people's development of openness to new experience and then reporting that to others. It also depends on at least a few being moved enough to secure the work for the future.

Asher
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
an article I read on digital fine art

JD Jarvis "Jungle Gym"
Software: Adobe Photoshop®
Photo-Manipulation and Collage

Photography, with its own long history as a populist image-making technology, turned mass-media-device, turned Fine Art, is both a model and a material for Digital Art. Digital imaging technology has served photographers well, with 2003 marking the first year that digital cameras outsold traditional film cameras. Beyond standard photographic techniques, digital tools open up a whole world of expanded image manipulation and printing techniques. In particular is the ability to resize, reposition, select, cut, paste, color and blend almost limitless layers of divergent photographic images into seamless and amazing digital Collages. These collages are often fantastic and surreal in their appearance and thereby often draw into question our modern dependency on the photograph to present a picture of truth and reality. Digital Art techniques have freed photography from its own finality. In the hands of a digital artist a photograph is just the beginning, neither real nor unreal.

for what it's worth- my 2 cents a squeeze of lime and a shot*

Charlotte
 

Charlotte Thompson

Well-known member
Asher

coming back to read your ideas in full this time
what you say and all of it I so agree with because in my mind "art any kind of art must never be defined or put into a box" if we do that then we don't evolve as artists- we stay under a rule of sorts-can't explore-can't see what other artists are trying to say and show us-
we must explore!
we must look at differences
we must respect other efforts

Charlotte
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher

coming back to read your ideas in full this time
what you say and all of it I so agree with because in my mind "art any kind of art must never be defined or put into a box" if we do that then we don't evolve as artists- we stay under a rule of sorts-can't explore-can't see what other artists are trying to say and show us-
we must explore!
we must look at differences
we must respect other efforts

Charlotte
...and then let history catch up!



Asher
 
Apart from the funny attempt of this german chap to put a nail to it, I guess I was stunned to read such a blunt technocratic view from an educated mind, further, I would offer to extend a somewhat "Hegelian view" of art being a product of history.

Here is some food for thought, and an explanation why I personally do not discuss this very often with people, be it online or in Galleries or on other venues:

The dual nature of artworks as autonomous structures and social phenomena results in oscillating criteria: Autonomous works provoke the verdict of social indifference and ultimately of being criminally reactionary; conversely, works that make socially univocal discursive judgments thereby negate art as well as themselves.

....

The cheap aestheticism of short-winded politics is reciprocal with the faltering of aesthetic power. Recommending jazz and rock-and-roll instead of Beethoven does not demolish the affirmative lie of culture but rather furnishes barbarism and the profit interest of the culture industry with subterfuge. The allegedly vital and uncorrupted nature of such products is synthetically processed but precisely those powers that are supposedly the target of the Great Refusal: These products are the truly corrupt.

That hits the nail doesn't it? ....
the affirmative lie of culture
.... How nice is that! :)

Put it this way, the very concept of art refuses definition.

Personally I think we witness some form of revival, sadly, reason has become an instrument of totalitarian control, again!

How can we discuss art without discussing the inherent culture industry? To me this would be the same as if we discuss the quality of a steak neglecting the quality of life the cattle was submitted to, as if it would not matter at all. - It bloody does matter! ;) -

Of course, from the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" written together with Max Horkheimer in 1947 to the "Aesthetic Theory" in 1970, Adorno's views and his relentless critic on the culture Industry of an advanced capitalist society was heavily influenced by the raise of fascism and racism in europe.

You know what?

The times we live in, it is time to read Adorno again and remember....

P.S.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/

http://www.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/archive/horkheimer_en.html
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Georg,

A glossary of anti-capitalist terms, (as the framework for discussion of art), is an interesting scheme for being a contagonist, but hardly allows much useful exchange of ideas.

Cultures are bridged by art. It's sometimes a slow process led by a few people who, in appreciating, nurturing and explaining it, are ahead of current ideas and history. Art, in being experienced, has elements of the present that are transient a sense of history too. Art is a physical medium on which ideas can move and in which creative minds can exercise imagination and so move boundaries. So art, far from being controlling, can also open up possibilities never contemplated by the artist, his culture or even, if they exist, his masters or if he's really, really lucky, his mistress!

Art, like culture, generally supports a view of itself, yet even in this, it's deferential to talent. I'd not worry too much about the media industry to the extent that it affects fine art. I'm sure it does, but it will not make a mother nursing a child not beautiful nor a sunset uninteresting. It may just enhance our ability make sense of things, despite deceptive propaganda, if we have the education and sense to do so.

I believe we are able to support, nurture, make, experience, enjoy and critque art for art's sake.

We do not need to defer to capitalism, anti-capitalist rhetoric (which is often hypocritical), religion, moral or other needs purposes or imperatives. Art, itself, I have come to believe, is a favorable tool by which we are amused, informed and inspired about what things might have been, are or might be in relation to anything. This freeform tool merely allows us to explore and build new connections, ideas approaches and appreciations. That must be beneficial to humans or we would in all likehood not have art as one of our passions and pastimes.

I consider that art, this essentially disinterested human activity, is an evolutionary selected tool. It's so open and disconnected with any specific purpose. It doesn't "aim" to do anything in particular, but may well exist simply because it has, in the past, allowed new ideas to come to be. Art is merely a way of orchestrating experiences and feelings in ourselves.

So, please lets put political restraints aside, because in the long run, they will be lost in the garbage of history as we may discard barriers as easily as we build them.

Asher
 
Last edited:
Art, itself, I have come to believe, is a favorable tool by which we are amused, informed and inspired about what things might have been, are or might be in relation to anything.

Right! LOL

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Personally, I found Adorno always to be a rich source of insight and truly interesting for exchange of ideas, particulary when it comes to art. YMMV .... of course.

Now, if Konrad Lorenz was wrong as you stated, Th. W. von Adorno is a contagonist to you and does not allow for a useful exchange of ideas, now there is a mouth full, well, then I seriously don't know and just leave it at that Asher.....
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Right! LOL

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Personally, I found Adorno always to be a rich source of insight and truly interesting for exchange of ideas, particulary when it comes to art. YMMV .... of course.

Now, if Konrad Lorenz was wrong as you stated, Th. W. von Adorno is a contagonist to you and does not allow for a useful exchange of ideas, now there is a mouth full, well, then I seriously don't know and just leave it at that Asher.....
Then Georg I'm either locked in a bubble of delusion, merely don't understand the language or follow the argument or else perhaps, free of Lorenz and von Adlono, I'm just being rational.

Asher
 
I'm with Jim Galli on this one.

"Digital Fine Art Photography" probably is oxymoronic and when art scholarship finally catches up with it, maybe in a hundred years, it will be seen as a mechanisation of tradition painting and drawing; same standards, same values. Instead of the eye-brain-hand cycle of traditional art we just have an analogous camera-computer-printer cycle. Traditional art has had at least 800 glorious years in Western culture and digital art may be headed for another 800 years of excellence.

Until then I'd like to stay open minded but not so open minded that my brains fall out.
 

doug anderson

New member
"...my bristling at the idea of digital fine art being described in terms of machine tool accuracy."

I am a fellow bristler. Bristle on!

I've known some technical perfection types that were absolutely terrible photographers, but they didn't know it. They would discourse daily about how perfect their technique was, and bore the rest of us to death. Technique is supposed to be at the service of art, and not the other way around.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I believe we are able to support, nurture, make, experience, enjoy and critque art for art's sake.

I consider that art, this essentially disinterested human activity, is an evolutionary selected tool. It's so open and disconnected with any specific purpose. It doesn't "aim" to do anything in particular, but may well exist simply because it has, in the past, allowed new ideas to come to be. Art is merely a way of orchestrating experiences and feelings in ourselves.

So, please lets put political restraints aside, because in the long run, they will be lost in the garbage of history as we may discard barriers as easily as we build them.

Asher

C'mon Asher
Art has always been related to politic!

Hi Nicolas,

Agendas, purposes, political prejudices and paths to salvation and to God are not necessary parts of art. Art can be for art's sake, alone, just like fishing, climbing mounts or religion.

Art, like any tool, can be used for various purposes including propaganda. Still, in the long run, when history has claimed the art for our delight, the political uses can be put aside. Still, much of art is devoid of political considerations and celebrates beauty.

Is Renaissance lost in the garbage of history?

If you re-read my discussion you'll see that it's the patina of historical connections that gets devalued with time, while the inherent artistic value, even of a battle scene may no longer stir up nationalistic fervor.,

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Nicolas,

Agendas, purposes, political prejudices and paths to salvation and to God are not necessary parts of art. Art can be for art's sake, alone, just like fishing, climbing mounts or religion.
Art has always existed to celabrate or to deny events and facts… otherwise it is not art but decoration… Art is not to be delightfully seen but to help one to remember - good or bad- let one think, not wowing only.
Art is expression of ideas and feelings, not technics to achieve it (though technic is necessary but not the aim/intent in itself)

Art, like any tool, can be used for various purposes including propaganda. Still, in the long run, when history has claimed the art for our delight, the political uses can be put aside. Still, much of art is devoid of political considerations and celebrates beauty.

Following your assesment, one looses the context. Without context there is no art… (see previous)

If you re-read my discussion you'll see that it's the patina of historical connections that gets devalued with time, while the inherent artistic value, even of a battle scene may no longer stir up nationalistic fervor.,

Asher

Nationalistic fervor has nothing to do with (though it does exists) art. Testimony yes…

Artists are witness of their/our world… hence strongly, deeply involved with politic. Would they wish or not.
Ok, let's put aside landscape (for Georg's sake ;-)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Nicolas,

I'm glad we can discuss this topic. After all, great European minds have already tackled this matter.

Art has always existed to celabrate or to deny events and facts… otherwise it is not art but decoration…
Do you mean that art must have a purpose outside of art or else it's not art? If you really mean that you are going against major schools. While academics would assert that art can be great art even if it is made for some other ulterior motive, the consensus is, TTBOMK, that that no such characteristic is ever required.

It seems, however that you really mean your assertion that art must have some purpose outside of beauty itself!

Art is not to be delightfully seen but to help one to remember - good or bad- let one think, not wowing only.

This complex assertion is an unsupported assessment or point of view. I don't recognize that "helping to remember" is part of what art has to be.

This next statement has resonance with me and seems to me a substantial part of what goes into making art.

Art is expression of ideas and feelings, not technics to achieve it (though technic is necessary but not the aim/intent in itself)

However, I've come to think that art is more than that, but at least this last statement is broad enough to accept much of what we call art that's in museums, galleries and bought be collectors.

Asher
 

doug anderson

New member
How can we discuss art without discussing the inherent culture industry? To me this would be the same as if we discuss the quality of a steak neglecting the quality of life the cattle was submitted to, as if it would not matter at all. - It bloody does matter! ;) -

Of course, from the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" written together with Max Horkheimer in 1947 to the "Aesthetic Theory" in 1970, Adorno's views and his relentless critic on the culture Industry of an advanced capitalist society was heavily influenced by the raise of fascism and racism in europe.

You know what?

The times we live in, it is time to read Adorno again and remember....

P.S.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/

http://www.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/archive/horkheimer_en.html

George: I agree wholeheartedly. I think mass culture is the dream of Orwell's tyrants. As far as I know, only a few PhD students read Horkheimer or Adorno. Think of how useful mass electronic culture would have been to Hitler, who had an instinct for manipulating the reptile brain of the masses (like his descendant Karl Rove). Another idea of Horkheimer's that applies here is that human beings themselves will become the commodity fetish. Think of the plastic surgery/beauty/mass porno industry that passes for our ideas of beauty.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
George: I agree wholeheartedly. I think mass culture is the dream of Orwell's tyrants. As far as I know, only a few PhD students read Horkheimer or Adorno.

Well, Doug, what about you, for a start, LOL? Also wouldn't these be useful for training PR and advertising professionals or even religious leaders, or are all these people merely "naturals" at harnessing these energies to harvest the masses to their cause? Think Manson!

Think of how useful mass electronic culture would have been to Hitler, who had an instinct for manipulating the reptile brain of the masses (like his descendant Karl Rove).
Doug,

Your priorities are right on! Also these reservations apply to making kids march to nationalistic songs and, dare I be so foolish as to say it, flag waving or flag burning. It is amazing how well Hitler succeeded with just radio, mass rallies and goose-stepping marching. Him and Mussolini harnessed fear, paranoia and hunting pack mentality well enough to explode the world.

Another idea of Horkheimer's that applies here is that human beings themselves will become the commodity fetish. Think of the plastic surgery/beauty/mass porno industry that passes for our ideas of beauty.

You are so right. But we are really there! Just three examples.

1. Cable man: I wanted a particularly great repair man to follow up on the cable work and called the company while he was sitting in front of me. I gave them his name. They asked instead for his number as that's what they go by! So I got his number for them and she informed me, "I've found him. Yes, he's an 83% FTE (full time equivalent) and so he's on another list!

2. Health Care: Medical Groups with patients are bought and sold. The number of patients is valued in "lives". The elderly have medicare may have 1.5 lives and may get greater reimbursement to the health plan from the government then from the harsher and less generous insurance companies.

3. The Web: advertising is sold on a concept of so many thousand of "eyeballs" per day or just "clicks"

Asher
 
George: I agree wholeheartedly. I think mass culture is the dream of Orwell's tyrants. As far as I know, only a few PhD students read Horkheimer or Adorno. Think of how useful mass electronic culture would have been to Hitler, who had an instinct for manipulating the reptile brain of the masses (like his descendant Karl Rove). Another idea of Horkheimer's that applies here is that human beings themselves will become the commodity fetish. Think of the plastic surgery/beauty/mass porno industry that passes for our ideas of beauty.

Hi Doug,

What we have now available for manipulation of masses, sure Goebbels could not have imagined that in his wet dreams, beyond doubts.

Commodity fetishism was pointed out by Marx in the Captial, and yes, both, Adorno and Horkheimer understood his thesis. "Fetishism is the religion of sensuous apptetites."

As far as I am concerned, not much changed. The methodology is still the very same, although we advanced in technology and other disciplines, Ortega y Gasset's work, (Revolt of the Masses, 1930) is still valid.

Art always was a reflection of "Zeitgeist", the times we live in dictates what art is all about, socially acceptable or not wanted, which does not concern the true artist in the ideal world, but the prospective art buyers, as they often have a different interest in art, profits are their motivation, or dys proportionate egos, people with more money than sense, jabbering about art all their life, reading books of other better informed jabber professionals, opening galleries, showing their butt on every flippin possible occaison, to be seen, slurping Cliquot and talking through their arse, having created nothing themselves, but judging artwork left, right and center.

I meet a lot of that particular breed, and I have no time for them.

I stumbled across Adorno because of my music education, always needed two more books beside his writings, greek and latin dictionaries, major pain in the butt! LOL ;)
 

doug anderson

New member
Hi Doug,

What we have now available for manipulation of masses, sure Goebbels could not have imagined that in his wet dreams, beyond doubts.

Commodity fetishism was pointed out by Marx in the Captial, and yes, both, Adorno and Horkheimer understood his thesis. "Fetishism is the religion of sensuous apptetites."

As far as I am concerned, not much changed. The methodology is still the very same, although we advanced in technology and other disciplines, Ortega y Gasset's work, (Revolt of the Masses, 1930) is still valid.

Art always was a reflection of "Zeitgeist", the times we live in dictates what art is all about, socially acceptable or not wanted, which does not concern the true artist in the ideal world, but the prospective art buyers, as they often have a different interest in art, profits are their motivation, or dys proportionate egos, people with more money than sense, jabbering about art all their life, reading books of other better informed jabber professionals, opening galleries, showing their butt on every flippin possible occaison, to be seen, slurping Cliquot and talking through their arse, having created nothing themselves, but judging artwork left, right and center.

I meet a lot of that particular breed, and I have no time for them.

I stumbled across Adorno because of my music education, always needed two more books beside his writings, greek and latin dictionaries, major pain in the butt! LOL ;)

More than one person has said that we are in the "Roman Circus" phase of our culture.

By the way, I've been reading John Banville a lot lately and finding his searing vision of the world suits me.

D
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Doug,
Commodity fetishism was pointed out by Marx in the Captial, and yes, both, Adorno and Horkheimer understood his thesis. "Fetishism is the religion of sensuous apptetites."
Georg,

Just because some art is explained that way does not mean it's a general property of art, rather, like the knife which can cut a throat, can also repair a failing heart or deliver a child who'd otherwise die. What people will do with art or with knives, for that matter, reflects the society not the tool, which in itself is neutral, not good, nor evil.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Georg Bauman said:
Art always was a reflection of "Zeitgeist", the times we live in dictates what art is all about, socially acceptable or not wanted, which does not concern the true artist in the ideal world, but the prospective art buyers, as they often have a different interest in art, profits are their motivation, or disproportionate egos, people with more money than sense, jabbering about art all their life, reading books of other better informed jabber professionals, opening galleries, showing their butt on every flippin possible occasion, to be seen, slurping Cliquot and talking through their arse, having created nothing themselves, but judging artwork left, right and center.

I meet a lot of that particular breed, and I have no time for them.

Come off it Georg, :)

You comment on lenses but you never made one, LOL! We all have our points of view. Art critics too are a mixed bag. The people who might follow them or go to a charity, sip a cocktail and buy my art or yours can be similarly ridiculed. Again they are mostly a product of their times. Some critics and collectors, however, are able to look at art from a different perspective and see patterns disconnected from motivation, fashion and petty bourgeois expediency you refer to. These are the ones who rescue art made before its time.

We could say people who use Epson printers and Nikon Cameras and go on about their great paper; color gamut and show of their prints are as petty as the babble of the art critics you have dismembered above. However in doing so you might be flushing a lot of great artwork down the toilet! Me? I'd not have a chance!

With all this negativity why should we even bother to photograph anything at all? Thinking this, shouldn't we just admit everything human is worthless, a vanity and has no long-term value? We might then just as well get drunk, go to a rooftop and blow our brains out!

Well, Georg, I'm not for that! I do feel we can enjoy art, not take ourselves to seriously, laugh and then brush off work we don't like or value and be humbled by something else that holds us breathless. I embrace life in every path I travel. I'm not wiling to have such a negative view of art nor accept such a cynical drive that demotes the efforts at art critique, at social engagement with such ridicule.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Georg,

Yes, the art world isn't as good as we'd want but far better for us than the bleak picture you appear to draw. Let's find common ground. I think we might agree on these three things:

  • Much good is buried before it gets its feet.
  • Yes, we take out trumpets for work that really is not so special.
  • Despite this wasted effort, enough fine work survives bias and our unpreparedness.

I do find your literature sources fascinating and it does widen my horizon. Despite that, I'm upbeat, impressed and enthralled about where art has come from, traveled to and what it has brought to us in the last 200 years. In this journey, the art critic himself was bruised and learned a lot. Today we are much richer for having struggled through the imperial and religious delusions that were painted into art. All this patina, anyway, loses its political imperatives with time and is seen for its silliness. Then, with history on our side we get better able to see past the pettiness to the beauty of art itself.

"Art is indeed a beautiful dagger!" "No!”, I'd say, “What a beautiful suit that dagger is wearing today!"

Asher
 
Top