Roger Hicks
Mentor
gns
Well-known
Roger,
I will look for a copy to (re)read. If I remember, it is a pretty thin volume. Surely there must be some other good reads (satirical or otherwise) on the state of the art world in the last century. Anybody?
BTW. My "Surreal" comment was not about your book recommendation. More a reference to the odd juxtaposition of the tax code and "What is art" discussions.
Cheers,
Gary
I will look for a copy to (re)read. If I remember, it is a pretty thin volume. Surely there must be some other good reads (satirical or otherwise) on the state of the art world in the last century. Anybody?
BTW. My "Surreal" comment was not about your book recommendation. More a reference to the odd juxtaposition of the tax code and "What is art" discussions.
Cheers,
Gary
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Obviously some people believe it can be relevant today or it would not have been recommended as a part of this thread. If you have read it, you may disagree. The fact that we all didn't pop out of the same mold is what makes the world go around.
MickH
Well-known
Dunno about relevance, bit If I interpret Roger's coining "Artspeak" correctly then it could prove interesting as a then vs. now bullsh1t comparison. TBH there is more cack talked about art than almost anything else with the exception of carp fishing.
I AM NOT TROLLING against anything posted here in what is an interesting thread written by grounded human beings, but when one listens to some of the complete hooey spoken by so-called art afficianodos in the media one realises how incestuous the "art world" can be. Sadly, this is the side most of us see.
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Okay Mick, the gloves are off! You want to trash talk coarse fishing? I'm going to report this to the NFA in Britain then you'll see what serious hobbists are all about!
j/k
On a more serious note. This thread is my "thread of the month" it's like there are two separate worlds at the table, tax consultants and philosophers. The line up in this thread is definitely qualified and it's first rate. It doesn't get better than this!
Last edited:
MickH
Well-known
Fred, of course you are correct. Most of us get our arts from the telly or tabloids and I s'pose they give a very one sided view... "How much for that picture/installation/sculpture/etc. etc. that my kid could've turned out?!!" It's a bit shrill I agree.
I was actually sniping more at the cosy type of critic who preaches to the converted and excludes those "not in the know"... OK I'll name my chief suspect: Brian Sewell. He is the most famous of the bunch but is typical of a particular breed. He seems to treat art as his personal domain and if it needs to be explained, then you simply don't and will never understand it. He is a caricature, maybe he's parodying the whole thing & I'm too dumb to see it, I dunno.
Others: Andrew Graham Dixon, Waldemaer Januszczak and Andrew Collings to mention three are obviously passionate and like to spread the word and educate us proles. These are the good guys in my book.
Jan, I'm with you mate, this is one of the best threads going right now. And, off topic (maybe we should start up a fishing thread?) I simply meant that there is so much rubbish talked about secret methods etc etc that it makes no sense to anyone other than afficionados (hem-hem).
I was actually sniping more at the cosy type of critic who preaches to the converted and excludes those "not in the know"... OK I'll name my chief suspect: Brian Sewell. He is the most famous of the bunch but is typical of a particular breed. He seems to treat art as his personal domain and if it needs to be explained, then you simply don't and will never understand it. He is a caricature, maybe he's parodying the whole thing & I'm too dumb to see it, I dunno.
Others: Andrew Graham Dixon, Waldemaer Januszczak and Andrew Collings to mention three are obviously passionate and like to spread the word and educate us proles. These are the good guys in my book.
Jan, I'm with you mate, this is one of the best threads going right now. And, off topic (maybe we should start up a fishing thread?) I simply meant that there is so much rubbish talked about secret methods etc etc that it makes no sense to anyone other than afficionados (hem-hem).
Last edited:
rolly
Member
Jan said,
On a more serious note. This thread is my "thread of the month" it's like there are two separate worlds at the table, tax consultants and philosophers. The line up in this thread is definitely qualified and it's first rate. It doesn't get better than this!
__________________
I agree, as well that this is a very interesting and animated discussion. I was asking myself why-- how could taxes and aesthetics possibly mix and be interesting, even stimulating?
I wonder if it is because we are trying to see if there is some standard outside of our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer? As this thread has gone along, I note that it swings like a big river from the high-toned to the tax code, from the tax code to experiences of our own with taxes and with galleries and with selling work, and then it swings again towards loftier considerations.
So then I started reflecting on my own pictures. Ruben was saying that Wikipedia has a list of the Fine Arts, and then he made the statement that true art might or might not be part of that list-- again, that notion that there is some kind of standard or some kind of True Aspiration that goes on. When I go shooting, I love to just shoot, to get into a rhythm, to get "lost" in that rhythm. I love to just see. This is why for me it is often very enjoyable to shoot with another photographer, who also gets it, that wonderful activity part, rather than sightseeing with my wife and forcing her to wait for me or me for her, etc etc.
So there is the act of photographing. Then there is evaluating. I am happiest when I just KNOW the picture I am taking or just took is going to be a good one. I am often puzzled at how I know, and how often the prints prove me right. And then there are the surprises-- wow, I forgot I took that one. That really came out good! As if someone else took the shot! There are also the ones that are probably going to be good, but I know I'll be doing some work on the print. Work in the sense that I didn't quite nail it, but it's good. It's going to be good enough. And of course most of what I shoot is dross. But, I am learning something from the duds, and you could say the errors, mistakes, grab shots, the hurried shots, the tourist shots, all the clunkers nevertheless are part of the path to those moments of knowing the shot was a winner or those surprises when it was as if another person shot that...
Isn't this sort of involvement in our own unique individual way, part of what art is, and what being an artist is? To raise our own inner bar by both practice and study-- in other words, Ruben's idea of "True Art?" Or is this too subjective?
On a more serious note. This thread is my "thread of the month" it's like there are two separate worlds at the table, tax consultants and philosophers. The line up in this thread is definitely qualified and it's first rate. It doesn't get better than this!
__________________
I agree, as well that this is a very interesting and animated discussion. I was asking myself why-- how could taxes and aesthetics possibly mix and be interesting, even stimulating?
I wonder if it is because we are trying to see if there is some standard outside of our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer? As this thread has gone along, I note that it swings like a big river from the high-toned to the tax code, from the tax code to experiences of our own with taxes and with galleries and with selling work, and then it swings again towards loftier considerations.
So then I started reflecting on my own pictures. Ruben was saying that Wikipedia has a list of the Fine Arts, and then he made the statement that true art might or might not be part of that list-- again, that notion that there is some kind of standard or some kind of True Aspiration that goes on. When I go shooting, I love to just shoot, to get into a rhythm, to get "lost" in that rhythm. I love to just see. This is why for me it is often very enjoyable to shoot with another photographer, who also gets it, that wonderful activity part, rather than sightseeing with my wife and forcing her to wait for me or me for her, etc etc.
So there is the act of photographing. Then there is evaluating. I am happiest when I just KNOW the picture I am taking or just took is going to be a good one. I am often puzzled at how I know, and how often the prints prove me right. And then there are the surprises-- wow, I forgot I took that one. That really came out good! As if someone else took the shot! There are also the ones that are probably going to be good, but I know I'll be doing some work on the print. Work in the sense that I didn't quite nail it, but it's good. It's going to be good enough. And of course most of what I shoot is dross. But, I am learning something from the duds, and you could say the errors, mistakes, grab shots, the hurried shots, the tourist shots, all the clunkers nevertheless are part of the path to those moments of knowing the shot was a winner or those surprises when it was as if another person shot that...
Isn't this sort of involvement in our own unique individual way, part of what art is, and what being an artist is? To raise our own inner bar by both practice and study-- in other words, Ruben's idea of "True Art?" Or is this too subjective?
rolly
Member
sorry, typo in one of the lines.
our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer?
should read
our subjectivity which makes us feel this OR that definition is truer?
our subjectivity which makes us feel this is that definition is truer?
should read
our subjectivity which makes us feel this OR that definition is truer?
JohnTF
Mentor
So there is the act of photographing. Then there is evaluating. I am happiest when I just KNOW the picture I am taking or just took is going to be a good one. I am often puzzled at how I know, and how often the prints prove me right.
I was thinking of the same thing, that sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for. Some days it happens several times, but in unrelated settings, and it is a PITA that you cannot make it happen, the situation takes on a life of its own.
Then the humbling days when you know you were just going through the motions. Many more humble days than proud ones?
Then the shots that never happened because you did not have a proper camera or lens with you.
Now, back to carp fishing, the woman in my Normandy shot raved about Christmas Carp in Brno, and made sure I ate some, as I had laughed at someone actually buying carp for the table. Now if she did my taxes I could tie it all up in to a unified theory?
Regards, John
I was thinking of the same thing, that sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for. Some days it happens several times, but in unrelated settings, and it is a PITA that you cannot make it happen, the situation takes on a life of its own.
Then the humbling days when you know you were just going through the motions. Many more humble days than proud ones?
Then the shots that never happened because you did not have a proper camera or lens with you.
Now, back to carp fishing, the woman in my Normandy shot raved about Christmas Carp in Brno, and made sure I ate some, as I had laughed at someone actually buying carp for the table. Now if she did my taxes I could tie it all up in to a unified theory?
Regards, John
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Surely the point about fine art and taxes is that the IRS is at least as good an external validator of 'Fine Art' as Brian Sewell.
It's like the misuse of the word 'professional', as in 'professional camera', or using the word 'amateur' as a synonym for 'incompetent'.
Whether you get paid or not -- and whether you are accepted by the contemporary Art Establishment or not -- is substantially irrelevant. The creation of art and the general recognition of the artist's ability are separate phenomena, which may be contemporaneous or separated by decades.
That's quite apart from fashion. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema was the darling of his age. When I first saw his work in the 1960s, maybe 80 years later, he was completely out of fashion. Now he's in again.
Cheers,
R. (Mutt)
It's like the misuse of the word 'professional', as in 'professional camera', or using the word 'amateur' as a synonym for 'incompetent'.
Whether you get paid or not -- and whether you are accepted by the contemporary Art Establishment or not -- is substantially irrelevant. The creation of art and the general recognition of the artist's ability are separate phenomena, which may be contemporaneous or separated by decades.
That's quite apart from fashion. Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema was the darling of his age. When I first saw his work in the 1960s, maybe 80 years later, he was completely out of fashion. Now he's in again.
Cheers,
R. (Mutt)
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Jeez John, we're having enough fun and difficulty trying to agree on what "Art" is. Now you want a "unified theory" ... that's just adding another layer of difficulty
JohnTF
Mentor
Last edited:
JohnTF
Mentor
Amateur really should be someone who is doing it for the love of it, which probably means most artists, as we seem to agree fine work rarely pays the light bills. Probably the word professional is equally misused as well, and then the contemporary "Mode" or fashion is indeed a fickel beast.
You can easily fall in to the "I know it when I see it" definition, which may not be a definition at all, but perhaps some things are not meant to be tightly defined. Certainly my tax preparing friend finds questions the IRS cannot answer.
No matter how serious we wish it to be, aesthetics is not going to be tightly defined.
You may end up with "working" definitions, for the duration of a discussion.
The IRS has their share of those.
Or perhaps you can go to Olympic style judging, giving a 10 for composition, 9 for exposure, 8 for subject choice, 7 for some merit, and 6 for execution, etc. until you can reach a combined score that sends it to art. I would appoint you Roger, for your broad interests and well grounded background, plus you are a Brit married to an American living in France, so you must have dealt with some confusion at one time or another. Am jealous BTW.
I do not really think it can be broken down so far, but are there characteristics just as those of a sound wine that can be examined as a matter of course?
My good friend Alain in Ville Juif seems to have similar taste in wine to those who know, and I just include myself, not because of expertise, but I very often agree with his wine tastes. Perhaps he knows more of the reasons why he likes a particular wine?
When I see an image I like, I have an overall impression, and the specifics come later. Their effect may be working on me before I am aware of what they are. Sometimes I try to separate what I like from what I think is good, but that also takes more time.
When I was with a newspaper, I attended a concert and noted our critic leaving to beat deadline. He gave a tepid review, and I told him I was at the same concert, and he told me he did not like his seat.
Now I can understand his feelings, I cannot understand how freely he shared them. And, yes, he was the professional voice.
Please, have a Rose with this post, do not think it is ready for Red.
Regards, John
Last edited:
MickH
Well-known
I thought it looked quite artistic.
rolly
Member
A project idea?
A project idea?
John, above, says "sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for."
Would an interesting project for this group of Philosophers and Taxmen be to post a picture that is an example of what John said? A picture where what you saw the moment you shot it turned out to be what you were looking for in the way of a photograph?
Another way of saying it: One of my favorite American poets was William Stafford. Bill was an avid photographer as well. He used to say that the reason you write a poem is NOT because you know what to say. It's because when you are really writing a poem, you discover what you to say.
To me this applies so well to photographing, and maybe it would be fun to have a run at taking the thread back to pictures?
PS-- I would post something here but, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know how to get a picture from my computer into this thread and if anyone would kindly demystify that process I'd be much beholding.
A project idea?
John, above, says "sometimes you are looking through the viewfinder and you just know it is a shot you have been looking for."
Would an interesting project for this group of Philosophers and Taxmen be to post a picture that is an example of what John said? A picture where what you saw the moment you shot it turned out to be what you were looking for in the way of a photograph?
Another way of saying it: One of my favorite American poets was William Stafford. Bill was an avid photographer as well. He used to say that the reason you write a poem is NOT because you know what to say. It's because when you are really writing a poem, you discover what you to say.
To me this applies so well to photographing, and maybe it would be fun to have a run at taking the thread back to pictures?
PS-- I would post something here but, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know how to get a picture from my computer into this thread and if anyone would kindly demystify that process I'd be much beholding.
MickH
Well-known
Click & drag your cursor over the text. It highlights it & makes it visible.
MickH
Well-known
It is a pain. Oddly when I change the skin to a dark background the text colour of my input and that of all posts changes to a visible colour obviously designed to avoid black text on a black background.
Probably less a bug, more an oversight, but a pain in the bum no less.
Probably less a bug, more an oversight, but a pain in the bum no less.
MickH
Well-known
I have to admit that "Silver Favourites" has always been one of mine.
A bit of a guilty pleasure really, I quite like the pre-raffs that I have seen.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Mick,
Of course! So obvious as soon as you say it!
But I'd never thought of it. Thanks.
Cheers,
R.