What is meant and needed for "appreciating art" collected in art galleries.

Rachel Foster said:

"In the absence of specific conceptual guidance, "Nay". "


OK, this brings out an issue I've been hesitant to deal with. I think an image should stand alone, with no guidance. When you see an image, either you like it or you don't. I want an image directed by the image itself. If it cannot communicate without words, by just visual alone, I have failed.

I am most interested in others' views on this.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, Rachel!

All images require some qualification of the observer, same with music. To experience fully one needs a background and context. Here's my opinion on this:

Without some preparation, only the artist, when they re-experience their own work, can perceive what the importance, meaning or implication of the art might be. Everyone else needs some background and openness to new experience to qualify them to fully appreciate the same work of art in anything like the nature of the artist's intent or experience.

Exceptions, such a beauty of an infant, flower or sunset or physicality of a monumental pole might not require special insight or learning.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Nonsense, Rachel!

All images require some qualification of the observer, same with music. To experience fully one needs a background and context. Here's my opinion on this:

Without some preparation, only the artist, when they re-experience their own work, can perceive what the importance, meaning or implication of the art might be. Everyone else needs some background and openness to new experience to qualify them to fully appreciate the same work of art in anything like the nature of the artist's intent or experience.

Exceptions, such a beauty of an infant, flower or sunset or physicality of a monumental pole might not require special insight or learning.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, you are dead wrong. Are you saying that when a person walks into a gallery and looks at a work of art you need some background from the artist to appreciate it. The only time this might be true if an artist has a series that by viewing there is obvious connection between the pieces. Otherwise a work should stand on its own without comment from the producer.

Do you need to know the artist intent and reasoning when he created this work.

Appreciating the art in the full extent as intended!

Bill Miller said:

Asher, you are dead wrong. Are you saying that when a person walks into a gallery and looks at a work of art you need some background from the artist to appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Bill,

I must let you know that "Appreciate", as used in my writing about "appreciating art" is not meant to refer to merely sensing, detecting or reacting somehow to the physicality of something, like a weight falling on one's foot, seeing a pretty color, observing a flower or being confronted by a picture with bold bright colors and obviously made brush strokes and a form of some hallway and a man. As long as any person is alert and not challenged with processing sensations, reactions to what is experienced will occur and likely could be positive. That, however can be far from appreciation of that particular work. One could swop another object and get a like reaction. That would show that the observed reactions and what you term appreciation, are likely superficial and not really appreciation of that particular work. The latter case is my area of interest and writings: appreciation related to that unique work of art.

I use "appreciate" with this far more demanding purpose. It's so different from the trite examples, above, of "reactions" to art, or in the equally simple manner employed in your post. A unique work of Art requires more of us and then in return has more to offer and deliver.

That image you show cannot be missed! Like the cherry flavor of antibiotics given to a child, it can even give pleasure. That child has of course, no true appreciation of the value of the antibiotic to its life nor appreciation of the art in anything but a superficial perhaps visceral way. Even a teenager might still not be able to fully appreciate that spoonful of medicine nor much more the art. If either were so easily appreciated it would save a lot of funds devoted to education. So, to the "appreciation" of art:

I'm not saying that one needs some deep background to enjoy the artist's work to some extent. One can march into the gallery, look at your bright colored bold picture and be enthralled. Chances are, however, that far more extensive appreciation follows education, cultural assimilation or else a simple introduction. The reaction we have might may well be part of the array of reactions, experiences, feelings and ideas the artist had built into the form. Chances are, however, that there's more, much more!

You may find an exception, but from all my association with galleries, many visits and discussions with docents and curators, art needs introduction. Why? They all believe that without some orientating information, most works of art are not necessarily or even commonly, fully accessible, just on their own. There may be exceptions. I did give a few such as beauty, a child, a flower and such.

The reason is that, Art being a cultural thing has dependencies. We are, after all, each of us, from different parts and times of that changing phenomenon. It is highly unlikely that all of us will "get" a painting and thus "appreciate it" as the artist intended first time around without some introduction. There is no wish for us to have the same appreciation as the artist. We just need to be introduced to the context, references and dependences of that art. That way we have more access to the artists full aesthetic creation. The artist, no doubt, had some particular intent, some background and/or motivation. She or he had ideas that were in some context. All this influenced how the form of the art was made, that form itself, that particular technique and style and no others! It's all that to which I'm referring in "appreciating" art.

To appreciate the art of the artist as "this particular art of this particular artist" and what kinds of ideas and feelings they wanted to confer to us, requires some preparation.

Yes, we can enjoy, be entertained, amused or thrilled by the work, and in that sense "appreciate" it, but that's not the sense in which I use "appreciate".

One use is simple and has no necessary relationship to the artist while the other is more demanding, completing an arc of communication between the artist and the observer, even if the artist is no longer able to speak for him or her self.

I hope this is now clarified!

Asher

Bill Miller said:

Asher, you are dead wrong. Are you saying that when a person walks into a gallery and looks at a work of art you need some background from the artist to appreciate it. The only time this might be true if an artist has a series that by viewing there is obvious connection between the pieces. Otherwise a work should stand on its own without comment from the producer.

Do you need to know the artist intent and reasoning when he created this work.

Click to expand...

This particular piece of art by Van Gogh, is one of the more difficult classical works to understand, let alone enjoy or appreciate. One would have to recognize what such a building is being illustrated. Obviously there are many doors to choose from, but that's perhaps amusing or merely an annoyance. Someone from another cultural experience might not even think the sketch was really worth a second glance, as it's of little consequence to their own values.

This picture is bright but not beautiful. It presents a complex idea which requires particular knowledge to really enjoy.

When I first saw this picture, long ago, as a child, I thought it was interesting puzzle but had no idea of the intense feelings built into it. I had no sense this was even a dramatic narrative picture! I didn't know this was an asylum nor that such buildings existed! I just thought how smart it is to have door numbers!

Now here's a simple introduction to the work:

A Corridor in the Asylum by Vincent van Gogh

In his 1889 work, A Corridor in the Asylum, van Gogh painted the corridors of the asylum, just as he had painted the men's ward at the hospital in Arles. Here, only a single figure can be seen, passing from the seemingly endless hall into one of the anonymous rooms that stretch along the length of the corridor. The long, narrow hall in A Corridor in the Asylum, penetrating into the deep distance, conveys the sense of futility Vincent van Gogh experienced in confinement. Van Gogh's letters also reveal an increasing discontent, and he began to propose the possibility of leaving the asylum and living with supervision. Source.

Add to that the information that the artist was tormented and crippled by his mental illness and for much of his life was miserable. He even took to self-mutilation. He was eventually locked up!

Look at the work again! Would you now have a more relevant accurate, deep and a moore satisfying appreciation? Even with this so sparse an introduction, I think the answer is self-evident!

Asher

It is helpful to me, thank you.

Suppose you want to appreciate a work of art, but in this case in the form of literature. Don Quijote De La Mancha, a fantastic book. But you happen not to speak, read or understand a word in spanish....

Same thing with art. You need to be literate in the particular language of the piece. Same thing for music. First time I went to see a recital of Messiah in New York I got so bored as wanting to take a nap on the spot, but then my wife --who is daughter of a Japanese diplomat and much more cultured than me-- purchased the CD, and after frequently exposure to the music, I got first to know it and then love it. When we went to a recital next Christmas I related to the music in a different way.

What had changed was not the piece, but me.

Photography and art is absolutely artist-viewer dependent. You can say that most of the time a photo that is focused works better than one that is completely blurred, but for sure you cannot say that the image has to be in focus or otherwise could never be considered art.

Exhibit a) Image by Sugimoto Hiroshi

Convincing Example

Asher Kelman said:

Vincent van Gogh's A Corridor in the Asylum
(black chalk and gouache on pink ingres paper,
25-5/8x19-5/16 inches) belongs to New York's
Metropolitan Museum of Art as part of a
1948 bequest from Abby Aldrich Rockefeller[/CENTER]

This particular piece of art by Van Gogh, is one of the more difficult classical works to understand, let alone enjoy or appreciate. One would have to recognize what such a building is being illustrated. Obviously there are many doors to choose from, but that's perhaps amusing or merely an annoyance. Someone from another cultural experience might not even think the sketch was really worth a second glance, as it's of little consequence to their own values.

This picture is bright but not beautiful. It presents a complex idea which requires particular knowledge to really enjoy.

When I first saw this picture, long ago, as a child, I thought it was interesting puzzle but had no idea of the intense feelings built into it. I had no sense this was even a dramatic narrative picture! I didn't know this was an asylum nor that such buildings existed! I just thought how smart it is to have door numbers!

Now here's a simple introduction to the work:

A Corridor in the Asylum by Vincent van Gogh

In his 1889 work, A Corridor in the Asylum, van Gogh painted the corridors of the asylum, just as he had painted the men's ward at the hospital in Arles. Here, only a single figure can be seen, passing from the seemingly endless hall into one of the anonymous rooms that stretch along the length of the corridor. The long, narrow hall in A Corridor in the Asylum, penetrating into the deep distance, conveys the sense of futility Vincent van Gogh experienced in confinement. Van Gogh's letters also reveal an increasing discontent, and he began to propose the possibility of leaving the asylum and living with supervision. Source.

Add to that the information that the artist was tormented and crippled by his mental illness and for much of his life was miserable. He even took to self-mutilation. He was eventually locked up!

Look at the work again! Would you now have a more relevant accurate, deep and a moore satisfying appreciation? Even with this so sparse an introduction, I think the answer is self-evident!

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

Not being familar with the painting, I thought that it was the work of very young novice artist. The narrative that you added significantly strengthed my appreciation for the piece. Although, I must admit that the appreciation gained was more from an historical curiosity than an appreciation for the art itself. For those familar with the painting, I could see where the narrative would be unnecessary.

Asher Kelman said:

Bill,

To appreciate the art of the artist as "this particular art of this particular artist" and what kinds of ideas and feelings they wanted to confer to us, requires some preparation.

Yes, we can enjoy, be entertained, amused or thrilled by the work, and in that sense "appreciate" it, but that's not the sense in which I use "appreciate".

One use is simple and has no necessary relationship to the artist while the other is more demanding, completing an arc of communication between the artist and the observer, even if the artist is no longer able to speak for him or her self.

I hope this is now clarified!

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

It is only clarified with respect to your vision and interpretation of art. You look at a photo and want to know is there deeper meaning to it. Other then commercial photography, photos are a recording of a moment in time. To remind the person of a feeling, a birth, a wedding, etc., it is not Art. In reality they are a snapshot of a moment in time nothing more. This may sound mean, but sometimes the truth is. They are like cue cards an actor uses, only these cue cards remind them of a time past. Fact is they would never print the photo posted and hang it on a wall in their home or office. Only after the person is famous, like Picaso and dead would the photos be considered something. Until then they are just doodles, sketches, etc. but not Art.

You will drive yourself insane trying to determine the deeper meaning to postings. As volume increases frustration will set in. Quick evaluative decisions must be made, based only on the facts at hand and presented. These will be based on your knowledge at the time and the quality of the work nothing more nothing less.

Here is a link where a journalism student has their portfolio reviewed each month. http://www.sportsshooter.com/student_portfolio/student_portfolio_start.html?id=50 The only outside information is the caption on each photo.

Suggestion start a contest for the best photo each month. The winner is determined by a panel of 3-5 judges. No exif, caption, or photographer's identity will be known. The winner then determined.

BTW - I consider landscape photographers who make a living from their work commercial.

Image by Chris Gray (redirected here for non-commercial discussion purposes)

Photography is like paint. You can paint a wall or you can use it to make a work of art.
I don't think you can reduce photography to "photography, photos are a recording of a moment in time. To remind the person of a feeling, a birth, a wedding, etc.,"

It would be the same as stating that paint is used to decorate walls ...

If you work for a newspaper as sports photographer then the photo editor can tell you that one of your images is better than the other one because he has a narrow objective in mind, but a forum like this is wide open. For example, Will's recent image with the footnote that only stated:
"

Cannot be subject to the same criteria as the images presented by students to a photo journalism instructor. Is this image a "recording of a moment in time. To remind the person of a feeling, a birth, a wedding, etc.," probably in part, yes. But there could be a lot more than that. He may not wanted to remind himself of something but provoke a feeling in the intended target, that in this case is us, the photographers that read and comment here in OPF.

So, no easy solutions to the question of what is art and how photography relates to it all... but we can keep working at the problem..




Image by Will Thomson reproduced here to illustrate a point.

Beyond Art

Bill Miller said:

Asher,

It is only clarified with respect to your vision and interpretation of art. You look at a photo and want to know is there deeper meaning to it. Other then commercial photography, photos are a recording of a moment in time. To remind the person of a feeling, a birth, a wedding, etc., it is not Art. In reality they are a snapshot of a moment in time nothing more. This may sound mean, but sometimes the truth is. They are like cue cards an actor uses, only these cue cards remind them of a time past. Fact is they would never print the photo posted and hang it on a wall in their home or office. Only after the person is famous, like Picaso and dead would the photos be considered something. Until then they are just doodles, sketches, etc. but not Art.

You will drive yourself insane trying to determine the deeper meaning to postings. As volume increases frustration will set in. Quick evaluative decisions must be made, based only on the facts at hand and presented. These will be based on your knowledge at the time and the quality of the work nothing more nothing less.

Here is a link where a journalism student has their portfolio reviewed each month. http://www.sportsshooter.com/student_portfolio/student_portfolio_start.html?id=50 The only outside information is the caption on each photo.

Suggestion start a contest for the best photo each month. The winner is determined by a panel of 3-5 judges. No exif, caption, or photographer's identity will be known. The winner then determined.

BTW - I consider landscape photographers who make a living from their work commercial.

Click to expand...

Bill,

In a way, I tend to agree with you. Yet, the reality and truth of a candid photo deserves more merit than a modern era painting of a similar subject. For modeled subjects the opposite may be true as exhibited by Norman Rockwell's work. Using photographs as a foundation for his scenes, he choose to paint the scene in order to express his interpretations.

Bill Miller said:

Asher,

It is only clarified with respect to your vision and interpretation of art. You look at a photo and want to know is there deeper meaning to it. Other then commercial photography, photos are a recording of a moment in time. To remind the person of a feeling, a birth, a wedding, etc., it is not Art. In reality they are a snapshot of a moment in time nothing more. This may sound mean, but sometimes the truth is. They are like cue cards an actor uses, only these cue cards remind them of a time past. Fact is they would never print the photo posted and hang it on a wall in their home or office. Only after the person is famous, like Picaso and dead would the photos be considered something. Until then they are just doodles, sketches, etc. but not Art.

You will drive yourself insane trying to determine the deeper meaning to postings. As volume increases frustration will set in. Quick evaluative decisions must be made, based only on the facts at hand and presented. These will be based on your knowledge at the time and the quality of the work nothing more nothing less.

Here is a link where a journalism student has their portfolio reviewed each month. http://www.sportsshooter.com/student_portfolio/student_portfolio_start.html?id=50 The only outside information is the caption on each photo.

Suggestion start a contest for the best photo each month. The winner is determined by a panel of 3-5 judges. No exif, caption, or photographer's identity will be known. The winner then determined.

BTW - I consider landscape photographers who make a living from their work commercial.

Click to expand...

Bill,

This reply you have given is so off the point of the topic. You are talking about "my search for meaning" in posted pictures as if it is some quest. That totally misses my meaning. You simply are like the energy bunny, LOL!

I do appreciate that you originally objected to my ideas on the frequent need we have to introduce a Photograph or work of art. In post # 3 above,

Bill Miller said:

Asher, you are dead wrong............. etc

Click to expand...

This served a good purpose. We were induced to write our rationale for OPF policy and what might help folk approach the collected photograph and art.

Reread and you'll find it's a search for context and dependences. You may limit your view of photography, outside commercial work to mere "snaps" of moments in time or doodles. The Photographs so valued in our culture represent much more than that. "Snaps" and mere memory aids are concepts you are fixed on.

Feast on Fahim's threads on Nepal and look at his photographs. They bring the wonders of a distant land that has breathtaking beauty and fascinating glimpses in a unique society. David Librach's migrant worker picture is another such picture and to call it a "snap" would be laughable.

So review what I Ken and others have written and look the migrant worker of Lange and Librach. If you still think they are snapshots, then such work pass you by. They all transcend the simple factive nature of the picture.

So please don't post more on this subject in the same dismissive way or repeating your assertions of futility to find meaning, as it serves no purpose. In OPF we are interested in why pictures are important to the photographer and to us. We have sections covering many avenues photographers can work in to earn a living or explore creativty.

This includes making a picture

• Physically impressive

• Beautiful

• Serve a commercial purpose

• An expression of some creative idea or creation in a physical form

• A structure to capture, invite or exercise our imagination

• Transmit an idea or retune values

and all the facets of art than can be added to the value of the artist's work or the photograph.

We just want to know from the photographer what they have in mind. We also want to celebrate those pictures that offer repeated enjoyment and or meaning to our different human cultures, not just serving as snapshots but, yes, sometimes including that.

The pictures posted here are not meant to be trivial and are offered for their value to us too. Consider what I have written as an instruction to people who post photographs in OPF or might wish to improve their own work. To discuss a picture here in OPF we do often need to know why we should care or how we should approach the image. We do like Ken's question, "Why is this photograph compelling to you?"

Hopefully a few photographs shared here in OPF will help people make pictures that better serve their purposes. We're be thrilled as photographer people reach milestones in their dreams and have success beyond these pages.

Our critiques are directed to that.

Many of the photographs we treasure and admire have much more depth intended by the photographer and they use creativity, imagination, planning, skill and insight to evoke an aesthetic physicality into the picture. This is what we go to the museums for. This is what great portraits and nudes and other artistic works can bring. Most of Edward Weston's pictures, for example hold intense experience ready to be evoked almost as if running one's hands over a sculpture made of some medium like stone, but warm to the touch.

One of the conditions needed to appreciate that is "openness to experience". This is a cross cultural physiological trait that people have to some extent or another as part of their personality make up. This can be worked on and I listed an approach I use.

I'm not going to repeat a proof that DNA codes for life, nor try to persuade you further on this. So please, just re-read what I have already written on

1. What art might be,
   
2. Introduction to people's photographs in OPF
   
3. Collections of Photographs in Museums and art Galleries

Asher

Asher, that was what I was thinking exactly, but more, much more elaborate and eloquently put.

If I might be allowed to veer off topic and be a bit of a heretic..I hate that Van Gogh piece!

leonardobarreto.com said:

Asher, that was what I was thinking exactly, but more, much more elaborate and eloquently put.

Click to expand...

Leonardo,

That's a kind comment, but still your "Photography as paint" metaphor is far more succinct and pictorial. I was admiring the simplicity and clarity of this metaphor

We also seek to raise the quality of photography shown here by pushing folk to, as Ken so aptly put's it, tell us "Why is the photograph so compelling for you." With our current online work, we can afford to ask more of people.

Of course people can share snaps just for fun in Layback Café. Individuals can each have their own thread devoted to their personal long term project in Riskit! or post with little text for example, in Themes or a thread like this of Animals in Action where we really want to go faster.

In a case like Panorama Photography the work does indeed speak for itself but often there still are questions! In the latter case, Bill Miller wanted to know the number of pictures used. So when possible, think ahead and introduce your amazing pictures because people likely want to compare technique that we can choose.

Asher

Rachel Foster said:

If I might be allowed to veer off topic and be a bit of a heretic..I hate that Van Gogh piece!

Click to expand...

Actually, i think your remark is a bulls-eye here, and also relevant to the other thread of yours. What if this piece had been introduced to you (as a psychologist) in one of the following ways?

- A painting created by a 5 year old girl bordering on being a savant in painting. She painted this work in approximately 20 minutes using standard non-toxic finger-paint pigments as part of her regular kindergarten class work. Renee Bartholdi, her teacher, found it on the floor near the girl's seat after class had been dismissed.

- A painting created by an 87 year old woman who has lost all recognizance of color, only has sight in one eye, and paints by moving a virtual brush on a virtual canvas since she's mostly paralyzed. The painting required three years of almost daily work for her to complete and was printed on canvas (62" x 77") through the generosity of an anonymous benefactor and is currently on display at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.

- A late 19th century painting by a 36 year old Dutch man rapidly reaching the bottom of an abyss of insanity that would end his short life less than one year from this painting's completion.

Context can matter, sometimes quite powerfully, with regard to appreciation of artwork. No matter which of these back-stories was offered (the 3rd is, of course, the truth) you'd probably give the work at least another, closer, look. You may still not "like" it but you might now "appreciate" it. (A feeling I have about much art.)

Contrary to popular public lore, "appreciation" is not a synonym for "adoration". Appreciation requires only that you strive to acquire some sense of the context and objectives of art works, whether they be visual or performing arts. You might not care for ballet, for example, but you appreciate it for the skill, graceful physical expression, and athleticism it requires. Still, the end result might bore you at least at your current stage of life.

With regard to that other thread, if you perform an honest private self-analysis of what you find ugly or bothersome about this van Gogh painting you may be able to get a better fix on your photographic tastes and perspectives.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I get the point!

Asher, I remember when I was able to follow the forum and even see must of the images, and that is not so far in to the past, but now I don't know how you do it, I just follow some topics. Same way as with a 150 channel cable service where you keep at HBO, CNN and MSNBC, for example.

My favorite topics are art, and politics (I'm obsessed by what is going on in Nicaragua, but don't want to even mention it here). I also like to discuss about religion and PC vs. Mac, but don't feel I have to prove anything in this two topics.

Art and photography is a never ending topic and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember being discussed so much in the past here. But anyway, it is a good topic and I want to say something before the post matures and dies...

When I lived in Japan -I was there for about 4 years in the mid 90's- I went to see a lot of photography galleries. All of the major camera brands have one, Nikon salon, Pentax, Fujifilm etc. there was a lot of high quality photography fantastically printed and mounted. The themes where mountains, flowers, girls etc. in other words, good photography but nothing to write home about it. I have seen images like that in some forums where people say: "is this art or what".

On the other side there was one gallery -that went under with the bubble burst- that exhibited many artists from outside of Japan like Michel Kenna and some Japanese, the Photography Museum of Tokyo that had a show of the best contemporary photographers and in New York all the shows that the Internation Center of Photography put up.

This are different genres of photography same as Jazz and pop, or Salsa and opera.

I think that we could appreciate all "fields" of photography, I did go to the "Nikon Salons" and find something from the list you posted:

Quote by Asher

But I remember being much more satisfied when the photographer was after something more than showing how good the Nikon, Pentax or Fujifilm camera/film was...