At 13:34 3/24/03, Tris wrote:
To cite a gross example: it is why slide shows of the family vacation
given to others not related to the family have been traditionally and
notoriously so very boring. Photographs that span cultures and
sub-cultures to connect and deliver the same (or similar)
message/response universally are very, very rare . . . most especially
those that can do it over numerous generations.
Disagree (re the second sentence).
One example: nearly all "good" photojournalism proves capable to scale
this cross-cultural, -interest, -experiential hurdle. We expect a given
image to evoke reaction A here and reaction B there, but that is not to
argue that this work somehow failed but largely succeeded.
I don't think we're that far apart on the concept. For it to evoke
reaction "A" everywhere throughout time is exceptionally rare. That it can
evoke reaction B in a different place or at a different time (think in
terms of generations) is to be expected and, indeed could be the original
intention. Symbols and icons in particular are cultural phenomenon and the
same one can have a different meaning depending on spatial an/or temporal
context. Everything has meaning . . . it's the interpretation of things
that usually varies and indeed, several different interpretations can be
compelling.
Another example: competent street photography seems equally suited to hold
interest of widely-disparate peoples. I don't claim to know each
individuals' feeling, reaction to every image thus presented, but it is
reasonable to state these efforts seem to communicate in the most general
sense throughout and across societies as was, presumably, intended.
Consider this example: Take an "urban" image into a region such as remote
and rural Tibet, where an "urban" environ has never been seen before by
many inhabitants. They likely would not have any clue about what an LA bus
stop or NYC subway is, or what a traffic signal is . . . unless they have
traveled or been educated in some other fashion about what these things
are. Admittedly, this is an extreme example, and I engineered it that way
to highlight the point.
Of course we don't speak to photographic "art" in these cases but more to
the craft of the greater art and science known as photography--if I may
draw that distinction.
The craft and science are used to create . . . or perhaps a better term
would be "convey" . . . the art which is the message itself. I don't
believe "art" is the object itself (i.e. the work of art). The "art" is
what the object conveys to its beholder, which makes it an intangible
concept versus a physical object. IMO, it's why the object is called a
"work of art." I'm making distinctions about definitions very carefully
for the purpose if this discussion. Unfortunately, common English is a
very imprecise language. In other contexts, "craft" and "art" could easily
have nearly identical meaning.
Caveat:
All of the above are statements about photography as an art form in
general and are not directed specifically or solely at the photograph you
posted.
I'd rather have my work dissected critically. I never learned a thing from
a back slap.
Just wanted to make it clear I had digressed into a more philosophical
discussion applicable across photographic works in general.
The woman in question (in response to someone else's remark) is the wife
of the concert promoter, stationed just off stage to offer support to John
Stewart's infirm wife; this lady's enigmatic face reflects her
concentration on the music.
Yes . . . for me at least, knowing this provides more meaning to the
photograph, its elements and the connection between them.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|