|
It's come to the end of the semester and is time for my Final Project for "Introduction to Digital Photography". I've thought a lot about what I am going to do. (We need 7 High quality images in RAW) and as a way to help me with my project and discuss this culture behind art I made this thread.
I always start by thinking what does or will this picture mean, and then try to capture a picture that matches that meaning. Thats when I started thinking about the Pretentious nature of art and how no matter what I take a picture of, I as the artist can give whichever meaning I want to it. If I take a picture of a cactus in a desert, I could say that it represents the human race. In an otherwise desolate land of kind human interaction there is hope, life, or even growth.
My point is, I decided I am going to try and take 7 photo's that capture pretentiousness in Art and I need your help. I've thought about just trying to take as simple photos as I can or even something like a solid black print and when people try to add meaning like saying it represents a void or depression during critique I will shut them down and say "No, its just black ink on paper, thats what I was going for."
What do you think is the best way to capture pretentiousness in Art within a Digital Photo, and how do you feel about it?
![[image loading]](http://idiommag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/the-true-artist-400x600.jpg)
The True Artist Makes Useless Shit For Rich People To Buy
created by Bert Rodriguez
Related Links:
A great interview with Bert Rodriguez
|
A lawn chair with a sepia tint.
|
|
|
When I was writing my "video games are not art" post where I compared video games to pretentious forms of art, I found the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Art surprisingly informative. It is highly NSFW so an ad/image blocker is highly advised. Wikipedia articles were helpful as well, if sometimes a bit hard to find.
Abstract art, dadaism, conceptual art, performance art, shock art, editorial cartoons, NEEN, just to say a few - these are all full of art trolls and are easy pickings for criticism and parody. Basically anything that claims to be art or have a deeper meaning, but fails to show any significance, effort or quality is wide open for attacks.
If I were you, I would try to recreate a few (in)famous pieces of art by substituting their key elements with something mundane, with even shoddier composition and quality, simple techniques misused and hyped as innovation, and deliberate misinterpretation with something like an absurd or out-of-place explanation. Really, just any exaggerated parody or commentary on the defects of existing pieces of art.
|
Isn't it pretty pretentious to say "I as the artist can give whichever meaning I want to it"
The viewer/listener is who gives art meaning, not the artist.
|
poop on a chair. sepia tint.
|
On December 08 2011 08:53 reprise wrote:
A lawn chair with a sepia tint.
Hmm.. Interesting lol.
This is what I have for an idea so far;
The first photo in the series of 7 will be Solid Black, the next few photos could be possible meanings viewers might give to the first one, such as depression (take a picture of something that represents depression) and have faded X's crossing out those photos and then for the 7th photo, repeat the black one.
Saying The solid black doesnt mean any of these things, it is just that.. A solid black paper.
|
How about a shot of a 7D?
|
On December 08 2011 09:02 Frigo wrote:
When I was writing my "video games are not art" post where I compared video games to pretentious forms of art, I found the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Art surprisingly informative. It is highly NSFW so an ad/image blocker is highly advised. Wikipedia articles were helpful as well, if sometimes a bit hard to find.
Abstract art, dadaism, conceptual art, performance art, shock art, editorial cartoons, NEEN, just to say a few - these are all full of art trolls and are easy pickings for criticism and parody. Basically anything that claims to be art or have a deeper meaning, but fails to show any significance, effort or quality is wide open for attacks.
If I were you, I would try to recreate a few (in)famous pieces of art by substituting their key elements with something mundane, with even shoddier composition and quality, simple techniques misused and hyped as innovation, and deliberate misinterpretation with something like an absurd or out-of-place explanation.
You do realize dada and a great deal of conceptual art along the Fluxus vein are active indictments of artistic meaning, or anti-art, meaning they contain within the skepticism you articulate. I hope I'm not simply misunderstanding you, but your critique of certain artistic movements seems ill-informed.
|
Photo of a blonde girl (model preferable) running through a corn field. She should be running away from the camera.
It's all in black and white, except, and here's the brilliant bit:
THE CORN IS STILL GOLDEN.
Call it something like "opportunity" or "new horizons".
Shit like that really annoys me.
|
On December 08 2011 09:02 stokes17 wrote:
Isn't it pretty pretentious to say "I as the artist can give whichever meaning I want to it"
The viewer/listener is who gives art meaning, not the artist.
That's exactly what I am saying. The artist created a picture of X becuase of Y. This is what the picture means. But everyone takes thier own meanings of it and they attach them to the artist. "He (the artist) was trying to convey X, Y, and Z in his photos." Even though that was not the case at all
|
On December 08 2011 09:07 farvacola wrote:
You do realize dada and a great deal of conceptual art along the Fluxus vein are active indictments of artistic meaning, or anti-art, meaning they contain within the skepticism you articulate. I hope I'm not simply misunderstanding you, but your critique of certain artistic movements seems ill-informed.
Duchamp's Fountain is a perfect example of direct criticism on art, yet ironically it is revered as a great piece of art. The problem might not lie with the artist's intentions but the attitude of its audience. There's so many ways art can fail and so many ways to criticize it, so don't let little facts like these stand in your way. Also, hard to separate genuine stuck-up artists from trolls.
|
On December 08 2011 09:13 Frigo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 09:07 farvacola wrote:
You do realize dada and a great deal of conceptual art along the Fluxus vein are active indictments of artistic meaning, or anti-art, meaning they contain within the skepticism you articulate. I hope I'm not simply misunderstanding you, but your critique of certain artistic movements seems ill-informed. Duchamp's Fountain is a perfect example of direct criticism on art, yet ironically it is revered as a great piece of art. The problem might not lie with the artist's intentions but the attitude of its audience. There's so many ways art can fail and so many ways to criticize it, so don't let little facts like these stand in your way. Also, hard to separate genuine stuck-up artists from trolls.
Now that we can agree on :D
|
|
|
On December 08 2011 09:16 Zedromas wrote:
Bert or Bret? lol
Bert. (Fixed original)
|
I saw a piece of art once, it was a pile of hay. A stack if you will.
There was a whole bunch of thin golden threads wrapped around various parts of it. According to the little placard next to it, the thread was tied to one gold needle.
A needle in a haystack.
There was also a cute little stuffed dog (like an actual stuffed dog, not a plush toy but a dog that had been taxidermied) and it was holding up a sign that said "I'm dead!"
|
On December 08 2011 09:17 strongandbig wrote:
I saw a piece of art once, it was a pile of hay. A stack if you will.
There was a whole bunch of thin golden threads wrapped around various parts of it. According to the little placard next to it, the thread was tied to one gold needle.
A needle in a haystack.
There was also a cute little stuffed dog (like an actual stuffed dog, not a plush toy but a dog that had been taxidermied) and it was holding up a sign that said "I'm dead!"
![[image loading]](http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fv76Sn09T4KJ/x250.jpg)
Link to Art Fair (Stuffed Dog Image)
I don't think that conveys what I'm going for. it's like I'm trying to take pictures that have no meaning. They are what they are, but I'm not sure on how to do that.
|
Display a big Trollface on your computer/laptop/whatever you have. Take a picture of it.
There you go: Call it art, and the people will troll themselves by guessing what you want to say with it. Since it actually is trolling by not being art and putting it blatantly in the face of the viewer, it certainly is artful trolling. Which means it is art by not being art but pretending to be art.
... I think I just trolled myself with my own idea.
Anyways, if you do this, and they start talking about the meaning of it, you can simply say "I just wanted to troll you, that's what I was going for and as I see it has worked out perfectly."
edit: If you don't call it art it is just a device displaying a simple picture taken from the internet. The Trollface doesn't have any meaning if it is on its own, since there is nothing trolling about it. The trolling part comes from calling it art, which is not part of the picture, but rather the context you put the picture in, so it should satisfy the criteria of just being something without any special meaning.
|
Modern art is pretense basically. Hipsters taking pictures of nothing.
|
On December 08 2011 09:12 Distortionz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 09:02 stokes17 wrote:
Isn't it pretty pretentious to say "I as the artist can give whichever meaning I want to it"
The viewer/listener is who gives art meaning, not the artist.
That's exactly what I am saying. The artist created a picture of X becuase of Y. This is what the picture means. But everyone takes thier own meanings of it and they attach them to the artist. "He (the artist) was trying to convey X, Y, and Z in his photos." Even though that was not the case at all
I think you missed my point.
The value the viewer attaches to a piece of art... is its value. If I think "At Eternities Gate" is about a man at his absolute wits end about to end his life, then the artists opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Further if an artist is trying to force a singular interpretation onto his audience, he is not a very good artist.
Unless you want to talk about bad artists who try and force a singular interpretation onto the viewer? Or critics who try and force their interpretation onto the artist? I guess you are going for the 2nd? idn
Good artists aren't pretentious and good critics aren't pretentious... so why would you want to talk about bad artists/critics in your final project?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
