Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2016, 04:46 PM - 1 Like   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Dewman's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Idaho
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,665
Very high and mighty of me?

You might think my thoughts and opinions about these particular people and their work are very "high and mighty" of me and totally disrespectful. I don't mean it to be disrespectful in the least. but I'll speak my mind, just for the sake of beginning some discourse on the matter.

Henri Cartier Bresson. I've read about his thoughts on photography and viewed a great deal of his portfolio. I'm not all that impressed with it. Some of it really piques my interest, others are just so-so in MY opinion. It appears to me that he was "full of himself," and rode that train as far as it would carry him. Obviously, I'm in the vast minority, because the man is akin to a God in many eyes. Not mine. I find his statement, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept," to be preposterous and very subjective at best. Certainly, there are times when sharpness is detrimental to the photographer's overall intent, but.... I don't know, it just seems to be a stupid statement on the whole. If his statement is true, then why is the main barometer of a lenses worthiness usually it's sharpness? But, who am I? Just an old, retired carpenter with arthritic knees and at times, a grumpy attitude.

Andy Warhol. A group of Campbell's tomato soup cans is art.... worth literally millions of dollars? Really? Nine purple Elvis's in a row? Art? Really?
Jackson Pollock's work, in MY eyes, fits in this same class. I realize that like beauty being in the eyes of the beholder, so is art.... but.... I guess I'm just too out of touch. Too old and in the early stages of senility. Too Old school. Andrew Wyeth's "Christina's World"? That's more my speed.

Frank Lloyd Wright. Squares, rectangles and straight lines! It shows absolutely NO imagination in MY opinion. His so-called "masterpiece," Falling Water,.... it's like a kindergartner stacked up wooden blocks in a picturesque setting, only on a grand scale..... and declaring it "magnificent." I have a background in architecture, drafting and building construction as well as building custom furniture and for the life of me, I just can't see what all the fuss is about. But, there I go again..... dissing the work of the masters.


How dare I!

01-07-2016, 05:12 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,218
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
You might think my thoughts and opinions about these particular people and their work are very "high and mighty" of me and totally disrespectful. I don't mean it to be disrespectful in the least. but I'll speak my mind, just for the sake of beginning some discourse on the matter.

Henri Cartier Bresson. I've read about his thoughts on photography and viewed a great deal of his portfolio. I'm not all that impressed with it. Some of it really piques my interest, others are just so-so in MY opinion. It appears to me that he was "full of himself," and rode that train as far as it would carry him. Obviously, I'm in the vast minority, because the man is akin to a God in many eyes. Not mine. I find his statement, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept," to be preposterous and very subjective at best. Certainly, there are times when sharpness is detrimental to the photographer's overall intent, but.... I don't know, it just seems to be a stupid statement on the whole. If his statement is true, then why is the main barometer of a lenses worthiness usually it's sharpness? But, who am I? Just an old, retired carpenter with arthritic knees and at times, a grumpy attitude.

Andy Warhol. A group of Campbell's tomato soup cans is art.... worth literally millions of dollars? Really? Nine purple Elvis's in a row? Art? Really?
Jackson Pollock's work, in MY eyes, fits in this same class. I realize that like beauty being in the eyes of the beholder, so is art.... but.... I guess I'm just too out of touch. Too old and in the early stages of senility. Too Old school. Andrew Wyeth's "Christina's World"? That's more my speed.

Frank Lloyd Wright. Squares, rectangles and straight lines! It shows absolutely NO imagination in MY opinion. His so-called "masterpiece," Falling Water,.... it's like a kindergartner stacked up wooden blocks in a picturesque setting, only on a grand scale..... and declaring it "magnificent." I have a background in architecture, drafting and building construction as well as building custom furniture and for the life of me, I just can't see what all the fuss is about. But, there I go again..... dissing the work of the masters.


How dare I!
You make valid points. As far as Pollard is concerned, in the mind of the "Artist?" it is art. I can draw a parallel and mention Pablo Picasso's rendering of "Guernica" representing how the small Spanish village suffered 6,000 deaths of innocent people while nearly laying to waste the village itself (by German planes) in an armed conflict. I am reminded of the young college student who urinated in a glass and stuck a crucifix in it and called it, "Art." Art, in itself is a nebulous media, subjected to one's own interpretation and intent. Good to hear from you and thanks for your input.

Tony
01-07-2016, 05:22 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rockaway Beach NYC
Posts: 5,759
I would love to live in any of the homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Chris
01-07-2016, 05:22 PM   #4
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 12,293
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
How dare I!
I don't think anyone can justifiably criticise you for your appreciation (or lack thereof) of another person's art.

Personally, I am vocal about those artists whose work I appreciate, and pretty much silent about those I don't - but that's just me.

As far as Henri Cartier Besson's work is concerned... some of it I like, some of it I'm not so taken with. I'm interested in all of it, though, since there is something in it that has captured admiration from a huge audience. I absolutely love a majority of Andy Warhol's work, though there are numerous pieces that leave me cold. "Falling Water" is one of my favourite pieces of residential architecture design, but I couldn't say that I am or am not a Frank Lloyd Wright fan, as I haven't reviewed much of his work.

A few years ago, I went to a Damien Hirst exhibition at the Tate in London (I was living a few hundred yards away at the time, and a regular paid-up member of the Tate for some years). I'm not a fan of the vast majority of Hirst's work, but I came across a piece - one of his pills cabinets - that I fell in love with and, to this day, would include in my favourites list.

What am I really saying? Well, I think it's too broad-brushed to judge an artist on their entire portfolio of work. Individual pieces speak on their own merits, to individual people. Also, I think it's fine that some people appreciate a particluar piece or artist, and others don't. Long live independent thought. Where I *don't* appreciate someone's art, I can appreciate that others do, and I can certainly appreciate the success they've had in creating art that others appreciate...

EDIT: I forgot to say that I cringe at the art critics' general fawning over, or dismissal of, a particular artist "en masse"... It reveals just how shallow a large portion of that community can be. I'm equally critical of the fashionistas following trends driven by the critics


Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-07-2016 at 05:43 PM.
01-07-2016, 05:36 PM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,520
You have all rights to think what you think, it's your opinion.
Ones upon a time I learned from a friend of mine, great musician and conservatory professor, one thing. He judged even obviously poor performance with one phrase: "I don't understand it".
I picked that from him, and with time realized that it's so wise and so true. I don't like it- I don't understand it. I either want to understand, or I just don't; it's up to me, and don't think if I'm having high standards, or just supid.

The only art which touch my feelings or pleases my taste is the real art for me personally. The other art - I just don't understand. End of the story.
01-07-2016, 05:37 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,351
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewman Quote
You might think my thoughts and opinions about these particular people and their work are very "high and mighty" of me and totally disrespectful. I don't mean it to be disrespectful in the least. but I'll speak my mind, just for the sake of beginning some discourse on the matter.

Henri Cartier Bresson. I've read about his thoughts on photography and viewed a great deal of his portfolio. I'm not all that impressed with it. Some of it really piques my interest, others are just so-so in MY opinion. It appears to me that he was "full of himself," and rode that train as far as it would carry him. Obviously, I'm in the vast minority, because the man is akin to a God in many eyes. Not mine. I find his statement, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept," to be preposterous and very subjective at best. Certainly, there are times when sharpness is detrimental to the photographer's overall intent, but.... I don't know, it just seems to be a stupid statement on the whole. If his statement is true, then why is the main barometer of a lenses worthiness usually it's sharpness? But, who am I? Just an old, retired carpenter with arthritic knees and at times, a grumpy attitude.

Andy Warhol. A group of Campbell's tomato soup cans is art.... worth literally millions of dollars? Really? Nine purple Elvis's in a row? Art? Really?
Jackson Pollock's work, in MY eyes, fits in this same class. I realize that like beauty being in the eyes of the beholder, so is art.... but.... I guess I'm just too out of touch. Too old and in the early stages of senility. Too Old school. Andrew Wyeth's "Christina's World"? That's more my speed.

Frank Lloyd Wright. Squares, rectangles and straight lines! It shows absolutely NO imagination in MY opinion. His so-called "masterpiece," Falling Water,.... it's like a kindergartner stacked up wooden blocks in a picturesque setting, only on a grand scale..... and declaring it "magnificent." I have a background in architecture, drafting and building construction as well as building custom furniture and for the life of me, I just can't see what all the fuss is about. But, there I go again..... dissing the work of the masters.


How dare I!
re HCB - his statement, "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" is not a condemnation of sharp lenses, poor focus, etc. For his primary genre of shooting - street shots - the sharpness of the image is far subordinate to the context and composition. Let me put it this way: do you think Jimmy Page is a poor guitarist because of sloppy technique? Do you think Jim Plunkett was a poor QB because he was not an accurate passer?

re Frank Lloyd Wright - given that you claim to "have a background in architecture", if you can't recognize and understand what he did, how he did it, and his impact on American architecture, I honestly don't know what to say. I doubt I could effectively describe the color "orange" to Stevie Wonder.
01-07-2016, 05:46 PM   #7
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 12,293
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I doubt I could effectively describe the color "orange" to Stevie Wonder.
No disrespect to the OP, but... Damn, that's some come-back, LOL

---------- Post added 01-08-2016 at 12:47 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
You have all rights to think what you think, it's your opinion.
Ones upon a time I learned from a friend of mine, great musician and conservatory professor, one thing. He judged even obviously poor performance with one phrase: "I don't understand it".
I picked that from him, and with time realized that it's so wise and so true. I don't like it- I don't understand it. I either want to understand, or I just don't; it's up to me, and don't think if I'm having high standards, or just supid.

The only art which touch my feelings or pleases my taste is the real art for me personally. The other art - I just don't understand. End of the story.
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
01-07-2016, 05:56 PM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Quartermaster James's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 653
Art is what you can get away with.

01-07-2016, 06:06 PM - 1 Like   #9
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 12,293
QuoteOriginally posted by Quartermaster James Quote
Art is what you can get away with.
With respect, I actually disagree with that. I'd say "art is what it is". You can like it, dislike it or be indifferent. It doesn't change the art, and doesn't make it "good" or "bad" (which is completely subjective)... Example - my photography, and more recently, my graphically-artistic photography (unrefined though it may be!!) is "my art". I'm not trying to get away with anything, it's just what I produced through photography as an artistic outlet. You and/or others may or may not like it, but it is what it is. Now, some artists may have different motives - specifically, commercial - but it doesn't change the fact that art is art.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-07-2016 at 06:14 PM.
01-07-2016, 06:31 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,602
Of course, all art is subjective, and there's no point in arguing what is and isn't "art" or what is "good" or "bad" or "better" art - you are getting into the part of the brain where faith lives, and there's no reasoning there.

While some of Cartier-Bresson's work appeals to me, his pithy aphorisms are just his opinions.

I might like to visit homes designed by Frank LLoyd Wright, but I wouldn't want to live in them. They are interesting and appealing to the eye, but they just don't look comfortable to me. His wooden chairs in particular look downright painful - but that's speaking as a person of above-average height and rather awkward dimensions. No one would want to live in a house designed by me, because I would make all the counters and sinks a foot higher.

I remember being in an art museum where a docent was leading a school group through the Impressionists. I don't think she actually used the word "better" in comparing Cezanne's work to Monet's, but she made it pretty clear she felt that way because Cezanne's work was "more evocative". I thought she was doing the kids a disservice by inflicting her tastes upon them. I enjoy both, but Monet, being mostly sunny landscapes, tends to be "happier", which should be a perfectly acceptable emotion to evoke. (I realize some people simply don't enjoy being happy and go out of their way to avoid it. )
01-07-2016, 06:45 PM - 1 Like   #11
Pentaxian
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,592
Even bad art is art.
01-07-2016, 06:56 PM   #12
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,288
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
the sharpness of the image is far subordinate to the context and composition.
There's a lot here that hate that concept. All anyone wants to talk about is sharpness and MTF.

It's nice we have Besson to slap them back in their place.
01-07-2016, 06:58 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 775
there are artists I dont get, and some I like and I don't know why, like Rothko. I really like Rothko and I don't know why and I totally get why someone would not like his paintings. I don't understand Annie Leibovitz, I really don't like the photos I have seen. So I don't think it is high and mighty to not like 'masters' it is just what appeals to you.

but I do think Frank Llyod wright is cool, I have toured 2 houses. at Kentuck Knob, he also built all the furniture, inside the house. the doors were too small to bring the furniture in from somewhere else, they had be built inside the house. When the owners bought a chair, they had to take out a window to get in the house. That just cracks me up. The house is pretty cool. Faillingwater and kentuck knob don't seem very practical, but it's the inside of the houses that I find more interesting.
01-07-2016, 07:12 PM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,218
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There's a lot here that hate that concept. All anyone wants to talk about is sharpness and MTF.

It's nice we have Besson to slap them back in their place.
Okay Mr. Normhead, I must plead ignorance. What is MTF? Please.

Thanks,

Tony
01-07-2016, 07:20 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,288
Personally, I have books by Richard Avedon, Sherman Hines, Robert Maplethorpe, Freeman Patterson, Edward Weston, Courtney Milne, nothing by Ansel Adams but I had one of his calendars once. I really don't care about what people don't like.
But I like to hear about what they like.

I was just looking in my cupboards and the only two photography influences from my youth apart from Langfords photgroahy textbook, at Alvedon's Nothing Personal, a big influence, and and even bigger one, was the influence of Popular Photography's Photography Annual 1969. group of photographs I studied over and over again. It was a different age. 35mm photogprahy was just taking off. I owned that magazine as a 21 year old, lost it, and found it in Tess' grandfather's basement and brought it home a second time, 45 years later.

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 09:22 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote
Okay Mr. Normhead, I must plead ignorance. What is MTF? Please.

Thanks,

Tony
A measure of sharpness. It was redundant in that sentence.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
approach, art, artist, artists, awareness, child, clothes, disrespectful, execution, eyes, feelings, field, ideas, influence, judgement, mind, objective, opinion, photography, piece, response, self, sharpness, statement, time, times, todd, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Me And Mini Me (Courtesy Of Austin Powers) Kerrowdown Post Your Photos! 15 12-21-2015 01:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax KX and ME Super film cameras - both in very good condition HenrikDK Sold Items 6 06-09-2014 05:04 AM
Very very weird Pentax ME Super light meter readings, please help! Carlota_Nonnumquam Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 03-18-2012 06:34 PM
People The Very Best of Me Volume : 1 janury87 Post Your Photos! 4 07-09-2011 08:36 PM
Example of AF, DR, high ISO and high shutter speed on K-5 benisona Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 11-30-2010 02:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top