Comments on: Art and Rebellion http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/ Photography and the Creative Life Mon, 21 May 2012 05:42:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Guy Tal http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14619 Guy Tal Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:25:45 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14619 Thank you, Allison! It's a fine line between confidence and over-confidence, and I admit to have crossed it on occasion. I still believe that most of what I said above is true, but am also working to refine some points so they are more consistent. I will have more to say about it in future posts. Guy Thank you, Allison! It’s a fine line between confidence and over-confidence, and I admit to have crossed it on occasion. I still believe that most of what I said above is true, but am also working to refine some points so they are more consistent. I will have more to say about it in future posts.

Guy

]]> By: Guy Tal http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14618 Guy Tal Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:23:29 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14618 Thank you for the kind words, Wesley! One of the things I love most about blogging is the interactive aspect of the medium. I've always been one to wear my heart on my sleeve and speak openly, knowing that doing so may put me at odds with others on occasion, and that every so often I may say things without fully thinking them through. Still, I'm also always open to conceding when presented with questions and alternate views that trump my original thoughts. The responses to this post certainly gave me much to think about, which I'm still in the midst of, and I'm grateful for the insights I received. In the portion you quoted, I deliberately used the word "limit". We are often accused of romanticizing the subjects we photograph. To me, that is not really a concern as I consider the purpose of (my) art to communicate an inner (or even invented) reality, rather than an objective one. What I wanted to tackle was the tendency by many to not only offer romanticized images, but to also insist that they are representative of the artist's deep understanding of, or connection with, the place. Certainly there's nothing wrong with photographing in aesthetically favorable conditions, but when the photographer's impression is limited to <em>just</em> these conditions, I feel that claims of a "connection" are disingenuous. Just like someone can't claim to know a person they only rarely see, and only in their finest moments, or to convey a deep truth about a poet when they only ever read their one most famous work; I don't think anyone can claim to have a connection with a place they only visit for an hour or a day and when that visit includes little more than a superficial impression of its most attractive features. Guy Thank you for the kind words, Wesley!
One of the things I love most about blogging is the interactive aspect of the medium. I’ve always been one to wear my heart on my sleeve and speak openly, knowing that doing so may put me at odds with others on occasion, and that every so often I may say things without fully thinking them through. Still, I’m also always open to conceding when presented with questions and alternate views that trump my original thoughts. The responses to this post certainly gave me much to think about, which I’m still in the midst of, and I’m grateful for the insights I received.
In the portion you quoted, I deliberately used the word “limit”. We are often accused of romanticizing the subjects we photograph. To me, that is not really a concern as I consider the purpose of (my) art to communicate an inner (or even invented) reality, rather than an objective one. What I wanted to tackle was the tendency by many to not only offer romanticized images, but to also insist that they are representative of the artist’s deep understanding of, or connection with, the place. Certainly there’s nothing wrong with photographing in aesthetically favorable conditions, but when the photographer’s impression is limited to just these conditions, I feel that claims of a “connection” are disingenuous.
Just like someone can’t claim to know a person they only rarely see, and only in their finest moments, or to convey a deep truth about a poet when they only ever read their one most famous work; I don’t think anyone can claim to have a connection with a place they only visit for an hour or a day and when that visit includes little more than a superficial impression of its most attractive features.

Guy

]]> By: Wesley Picotte http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14617 Wesley Picotte Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:50:27 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14617 Guy, the energy contained in these words is fantastic. I question some of what you say, but the passion with which you write is obvious and admirable. Here's one question...maybe just a comment...you write: "And so we come to photography of natural things. A rewarding hobby to many, but one also fraught with cognitive dissonance. When those who practice it proclaim to seek a connection with the natural world, yet limit their involvement to short-lived and well-planned “magic” hours, beautiful images may be made; a connection is not. When a photographer adds nothing of themselves to the outward appearance of found scenes, beautiful images may be made; meaningful work is not. And when images are made that are not founded in personal conviction, original concept, meaningful interpretation, and ulterior purpose; beautiful they may be, but art they are not." I think I get what you're saying here, but you make a mental leap in doing so. I don't understand how photographing during the so called "magic" hours precludes a connection with the natural world. Even if a photographer's work truly is limited to these times, how does this alone prevent a connection? How can you say that this person adds nothing to the outward appearance of a place or scene? I just think this is terribly judgmental, and again, maybe it's simply how it has been expressed that I chafe against. I'd like to hear your thoughts. I have something similar to say about G Dan Mitchell's comment. Here he seems to develop an opinion about art based on an imaginary scenario, and the commentary seems as false as the opinion rendered. The ways in which a photographer pursues his art (and dare I say it, vision) is his alone to choose. And who are any of us to judge the scenario he describes as the pursuit of art in the first place? Maybe, like Joe alludes to above, it's a deeply personal experience this person is after and not art at all. It seems to me that Mitchell rails against something more than, or different than, what he actually says. In any case, this post made me think, and has added to the perspectives with which I think about and approach photography. Cheers, Wesley Guy, the energy contained in these words is fantastic. I question some of what you say, but the passion with which you write is obvious and admirable.

Here’s one question…maybe just a comment…you write: “And so we come to photography of natural things. A rewarding hobby to many, but one also fraught with cognitive dissonance. When those who practice it proclaim to seek a connection with the natural world, yet limit their involvement to short-lived and well-planned “magic” hours, beautiful images may be made; a connection is not. When a photographer adds nothing of themselves to the outward appearance of found scenes, beautiful images may be made; meaningful work is not. And when images are made that are not founded in personal conviction, original concept, meaningful interpretation, and ulterior purpose; beautiful they may be, but art they are not.”

I think I get what you’re saying here, but you make a mental leap in doing so. I don’t understand how photographing during the so called “magic” hours precludes a connection with the natural world. Even if a photographer’s work truly is limited to these times, how does this alone prevent a connection? How can you say that this person adds nothing to the outward appearance of a place or scene? I just think this is terribly judgmental, and again, maybe it’s simply how it has been expressed that I chafe against. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

I have something similar to say about G Dan Mitchell’s comment. Here he seems to develop an opinion about art based on an imaginary scenario, and the commentary seems as false as the opinion rendered. The ways in which a photographer pursues his art (and dare I say it, vision) is his alone to choose. And who are any of us to judge the scenario he describes as the pursuit of art in the first place? Maybe, like Joe alludes to above, it’s a deeply personal experience this person is after and not art at all. It seems to me that Mitchell rails against something more than, or different than, what he actually says.

In any case, this post made me think, and has added to the perspectives with which I think about and approach photography.

Cheers,
Wesley

]]> By: Allison Pluda http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14536 Allison Pluda Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:58:26 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14536 Thank you, for having the confidence to say these words that I'm sure a lot of us feel. Any artist needs to know their purpose, why they are taking this photo, and really feel it. Your words are inspiring and well put together. I hope more will read this and take a few minutes out of our way too busy days to reflect a bit... who knows what effect that might have! Thank you, for having the confidence to say these words that I’m sure a lot of us feel. Any artist needs to know their purpose, why they are taking this photo, and really feel it. Your words are inspiring and well put together. I hope more will read this and take a few minutes out of our way too busy days to reflect a bit… who knows what effect that might have!

]]> By: Guy Tal http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14521 Guy Tal Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:10:08 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14521 Joe, I honestly can't say. What I write about on this blog expresses my own perspective but how you define your work to yourself is obviously something anyone should do without deferring to the opinions of others. I am working on a series of posts addressing the responses to this thread. The first of these will be posted on Wednesday. Stay tuned... Guy Joe, I honestly can’t say. What I write about on this blog expresses my own perspective but how you define your work to yourself is obviously something anyone should do without deferring to the opinions of others.

I am working on a series of posts addressing the responses to this thread. The first of these will be posted on Wednesday. Stay tuned…

Guy

]]> By: Joe Becker http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14511 Joe Becker Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:14:54 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14511 Guy, you certainly gave thought-provoking post. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write more in response, but I did want to raise one issue. That is the issue of photographers pursuing images that have been done before, and that is not art. Perhaps not for the wider world, but can't that be art for the individual photographer - at least in the case where they did not seek to imitate another, but just wanted to make their own photographic in an iconic place? Case in point, last September I made a trip to the Southwest. One place I've always wanted to photograph is the House on Fire ruin. Yes, it's been done many thousands of times before, but does that mean I shouldn't want to go there on my own? Does that make me a trophy hunter? My photographs from there do look similar to others'. I believe I put something of myself into the image, and I did not set out to purposely copy others. But if it looks similar, can't my image still be art - if only to me? Guy, you certainly gave thought-provoking post. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to write more in response, but I did want to raise one issue. That is the issue of photographers pursuing images that have been done before, and that is not art. Perhaps not for the wider world, but can’t that be art for the individual photographer – at least in the case where they did not seek to imitate another, but just wanted to make their own photographic in an iconic place?

Case in point, last September I made a trip to the Southwest. One place I’ve always wanted to photograph is the House on Fire ruin. Yes, it’s been done many thousands of times before, but does that mean I shouldn’t want to go there on my own? Does that make me a trophy hunter? My photographs from there do look similar to others’. I believe I put something of myself into the image, and I did not set out to purposely copy others. But if it looks similar, can’t my image still be art – if only to me?

]]> By: Guy Tal http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14510 Guy Tal Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:07:39 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14510 Julian, you are correct. The "found beauty" theme was not my main intent for this post and it appears I have not given it sufficient attention. As I mention above, I am in the process of articulating it in a separate, dedicated post, which I hope to make available some time next week. I hope you check back again as I very much appreciate your feedback. Guy Julian, you are correct. The “found beauty” theme was not my main intent for this post and it appears I have not given it sufficient attention. As I mention above, I am in the process of articulating it in a separate, dedicated post, which I hope to make available some time next week. I hope you check back again as I very much appreciate your feedback.

Guy

]]> By: Julian http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14509 Julian Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:35:50 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14509 Having read the post, the replies and your clarification I can only say that your interpretation of the phrase 'found beauty' is diametrically opposed to my understanding of the term. I hope I'm correct in saying that what you're talking about is more in the direction of 'obvious beauty' or even 'received beauty' (in the sense of 'received wisdom'). My interpretation is beauty 'found' by truly looking at a fairly anonymous location and seeing the beauty that others might not - 'discovered beauty', perhaps. Having read the post, the replies and your clarification I can only say that your interpretation of the phrase ‘found beauty’ is diametrically opposed to my understanding of the term.

I hope I’m correct in saying that what you’re talking about is more in the direction of ‘obvious beauty’ or even ‘received beauty’ (in the sense of ‘received wisdom’). My interpretation is beauty ‘found’ by truly looking at a fairly anonymous location and seeing the beauty that others might not – ‘discovered beauty’, perhaps.

]]> By: Guy Tal http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14508 Guy Tal Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:40:57 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14508 Thanks for the kind words, Boyan, and you're not the only one to feel that way. You're right, I was a bit cranky while writing this and it appears I offended a couple of people as a result. I apologize for that; it wasn't my intention. I exchanged some private emails with others who felt that way and will have a follow up post in the next few days, as I think through these topics some more. Thanks for the kind words, Boyan, and you’re not the only one to feel that way. You’re right, I was a bit cranky while writing this and it appears I offended a couple of people as a result. I apologize for that; it wasn’t my intention.
I exchanged some private emails with others who felt that way and will have a follow up post in the next few days, as I think through these topics some more.

]]> By: Boyan http://guytal.com/wordpress/2012/01/art-and-rebellion/comment-page-1/#comment-14506 Boyan Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:48:59 +0000 http://guytal.com/wordpress/?p=2285#comment-14506 Guy, I love your work, I find it beautifully understated and mostly lacking they eye-candy aspect present in so many landscape images (mine included). But I must say that some of your writing lately has been on the cranky side, and can easily be interpreted in the way that prompted your reader's response. I myself was scratching my head a bit. Just sayin'... :-) Guy, I love your work, I find it beautifully understated and mostly lacking they eye-candy aspect present in so many landscape images (mine included). But I must say that some of your writing lately has been on the cranky side, and can easily be interpreted in the way that prompted your reader’s response. I myself was scratching my head a bit. Just sayin’… :-)

]]>