|
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?
|
OOO i think I get it... you want to create art that you feel has no meaning...
then when people attach meaning to it go "BOOM LOOK HOW PRETENTIOUS YOU ARE!!"
That seems pretty rude to your audience. If your art inspires emotion and is seen as valuable by your audience you should be appreciative and proud, seems like you just want to troll your class imo.
|
i think it's been mentioned but i think one nearly-surefire way capturing something pretentious is to be pretentious yourself. you can be a liar of sorts.. and use very conventional methods of photography to capture something simple or symbolic--- but in your case you would be using what you've learned in and out of the course.
of course, that's the simple explanation of how to go about it, but you can always try to step into the artist's shoes and attempt to read into who they were when they made something. then try to photograph it in a way you think they would try to.
|
On December 08 2011 09:39 stokes17 wrote:
seems like you just want to troll your class imo.
Which is perfectly fine, since trolling also is a art.
|
My friends who are in film school right now always make fun of pretentious and/or hipster photography (ironically, they are slowly becoming hipsters themselves). Their favorite thing to do is take a picture of something nonconsequential -- i.e. a street sign or park bench -- and then give it a b&w or sepia tone. Then they give it a caption of "BOOM! Art..."
Funny thing is, they're right :\
|
On December 08 2011 09:42 DMII wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 09:39 stokes17 wrote:
seems like you just want to troll your class imo. Which is perfectly fine, since trolling also is a art.
Well, yes and no. If you can straight face troll someone in a TV interview- props and well played
If you make a piece of art that people appreciate and relate to, and then go TROLOLOLOL this isn't really art NOOB, I just made it to show you how pretentious you all are. yea doing this is difficult because it involves creating a piece of art (read: not simply a picture),but you're also being an Ass and disrespecting the medium.
You, as an artist, don't have the luxury of defining what your art means. So saying it has no meaning, is also something you don't get to do as an artist, and attempting to do so in an Art class will probably come off as rude.
|
why not just let people do whatever they want to do? Just cos you think they're stupid or wasting their time doesnt mean you need to make sure everyone else knows you think so.
|
Maybe a picture of someone on a computer late at night?
|
Why is it that when a politician is purposely vague it's a vice, but when an artist is purposely vague it's a virtue? Basically if the artist has a mind of his own, he should have his own ideas about what is worth conveying artistically, and the courage to then convey it and stand by his choice. If he conveyed something other than what he intended then he failed; if he intended nothing then he didn't even try.
Also, it's your responsibility as an artist to come up with your own ideas, instead of simply painting imitations of other people's art which doesn't meet your approval. Otherwise why bother?
|
Ugh, I hate it when people do this. So what, you're basically going to insult your peers and your teacher and expect to be applauded for your wit and astute criticism of their chosen creative outlet? Sounds nice. Why not instead go back to looking at works you do like and try to emulate them, leave the criticism to the critics? Or, you know, go out and find something beautiful you think is worth capturing. Honestly, if you want a digital photo of pretension in photography, take a screen cap of your post.
I know some art is bad, but we don't need more bad art about bad art. It's not clever and it's boring.
|
When someone comes up with a pretensious meaning to your art, don't say, "It's just a black sheet of paper", just say, "I was lazy and didn't have any other paper so I put it up there to fill space." Someone could probably twist meaning out of your "black sheet of paper" answer.
|
On December 08 2011 09:27 Mortal wrote:
Modern art is pretense basically. Hipsters taking pictures of nothing.
sounds about right.
take pictures of anything you want.
stand in 1 spot on the street in a city and take 7 pictures. then babble about emotions. no work required ya?
anybody can buy a machine and click buttons.
|
take a decent art picture. (non-pretentious).
Take a picture of that picture. (art commentary)
Take a picture of that picture of a picture (pretentious + commentary)
|
On December 08 2011 09:35 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 09:12 Distortionz wrote: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?
The viewers assign meaning for the artist not for themselves. People will try and say things like "What Shakespeare meant was THIS" instead of This passage means this to me. I'm saying people assign meaning FOR the artist, instead of what the art means to them.
|
I want to walk into your gallery and say:
"The artist was trying to capture the pretentiousness of modern photography by taking purposefully meaningless photos. It's really a powerful statement about the art world and it's frivolous conceptualizations."
|
I have the freedom to do whichever I choose for my assignment, however I don't really have alot of interest in art and I'm only taking this class as a "Gen Ed.". The professor suggested I do my final project on "Why I hate art". (She wasn't being mean she just knows I don't have a huge interest in the subject) I shot her my idea's of doing the 7 deadly sins, or 7 colours of a rainbow etc and I decided it would be easier, and probably more beneficial if I did the project on my views on art since I don't "hate" it per say.
I talked to her about how I don't like the culture behind art and even literature where too much meaning is given to simple things. Nothing ever seems to be good enough just as it is. Why cant the picture of the sunrise just be a picture of a sunrise, or a "nice-looking" picture. There always seems like there needs to be a meaning behind the picture regardless of what or why the artist took the picture.
So maybe we are getting a bit off topic; My goal is to, with your help come up with an idea for my final project. I can't simply take a picture of a "troll" on my laptop as I need a series of 7, and preferable a series that relates to one another.
My best idea is to have a picture of solid black, almost like that of Kazimir Malevich and his "Black Square" art piece.
Kazimir_Malevich - Info
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Malevich.black-square.jpg/605px-Malevich.black-square.jpg)
Black Square, 1915, Oil on Canvas, State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg
Following the similar style photo, I would have 5 photo's that abstractly represent the meaning others might give to the black square. The meanings people have given to his "black square art" ranges from "It is a feeling", "Represents a void", "painting beyond painting", "Black square is god", and so on. I would take the pictures in a way that you could get the idea that it represents these things, without directly stating it. All of these "meaning" photos would have a light X mark placed over the photo trying to say This is not what this photo mean and then the last photo would either be the black square again, or something that represents itself, like a solid black photo with only the words. "This is it" or something along those lines.
Link to Black square meanings
Please let me know what you guys think. How do you think I could go about this better or if I need/should change my thought process.
|
On December 08 2011 08:26 Distortionz wrote: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?The True Artist Makes Useless Shit For Rich People To Buy created by Bert Rodriguez Related Links: A great interview with Bert Rodriguez A quote I enjoy and keep on my mind all the time while writing and creating music:
What's the point of creating art for expression if the artist just explains it?
|
Uhh, I never understand discussion like this.
There is no special substance to art that you can measure. All the "worth" is implemented by the individual consumer of said piece. This in turn is why man feels the need to create art and why it "works".
Objectively measured art is worthless. Of course same can be said for anything related to humans.
|
What you're irritated by is artists clumsily forcing or stating a meaning. I'm guessing you don't have a problem with Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening for example, because it's not clumsy.
In addition, you don't like idiots, which is quite universal.
The difficult thing would be to actually attempt the project. Google Henri Cartier Bresson. He didn't care about his photos or what they meant, so I think you would like him.
|
I always like to dig at my alma mater's reknowned photography program.
I will never understand getting a university degree in photography. What's a photography final exam? Take a picture of a broken fence in winter?
|
I generally like your design concept. I would be hesitant in explaining it as an expose on the pretentiousness of art because that seems to be somewhat different from the point you're going for. As I understand your criticism, it is that art has a tendency to inflate objects with meaning beyond that which they hold (or which the average person ascribes to them). In other words, why can't a tree just be a tree? Pretentiousness carries a connotation of intentionality that I don't think you're going for. It's pretentious if I deliberately ascribe meaning to something I myself think is BS in order to put on a show of being cultured. If I actually see meaning in it, then there is no pretense. It seems like you're most interested in the object rather than the culture around art, and I think focusing on that avoids a lot of the ad hominem arguments that tend to pop up.
Another thing to think about is what you see as left when you strip all of these meanings from an object. Is it a kind of pure, simple beauty or is there nothing left? Or would you prefer to say that it's an empty vessel that's sitting there to be filled with whatever meaning someone puts into it (this is a potential metaphor you could run with)? I do like the idea of a series of images.
|
there is art in photography, as in dance and literature and music, etc.
only pretentious people make pretentious art!
you can quote me on that.
|
On December 09 2011 02:05 Kardrion wrote:
I generally like your design concept. I would be hesitant in explaining it as an expose on the pretentiousness of art because that seems to be somewhat different from the point you're going for. As I understand your criticism, it is that art has a tendency to inflate objects with meaning beyond that which they hold (or which the average person ascribes to them). In other words, why can't a tree just be a tree? Pretentiousness carries a connotation of intentionality that I don't think you're going for. It's pretentious if I deliberately ascribe meaning to something I myself think is BS in order to put on a show of being cultured. If I actually see meaning in it, then there is no pretense. It seems like you're most interested in the object rather than the culture around art, and I think focusing on that avoids a lot of the ad hominem arguments that tend to pop up.
Another thing to think about is what you see as left when you strip all of these meanings from an object. Is it a kind of pure, simple beauty or is there nothing left? Or would you prefer to say that it's an empty vessel that's sitting there to be filled with whatever meaning someone puts into it (this is a potential metaphor you could run with)? I do like the idea of a series of images.
Perhaps the best, and most helpful post yet by far. I think you nailed it spot on. So if I don't run with the idea of pretentiousness, what would I call it, and do you think I should go with the series I have in mind, or change it a bit?
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
While some forms of modern art can be rather questionable, there still is some good art out there with a lot of thought behind it. Banksy produces some really nice stuff.
|
On December 09 2011 03:23 MoonBear wrote:
While some forms of modern art can be rather questionable, there still is some good art out there with a lot of thought behind it. Banksy produces some really nice stuff.
I'm a big fan of Banksy actually. I love his art
|
Black and white photo with a tilted fence and a bicycle on the side and nothing in the center. Behind it would seem like an abadoned lot, often showing that the city still has its blotches, its warts of discontent and abandonment. This empty lot represents everything that we miss, that the city hides under the rug, the carpet and financially ignores with laughter and poor politics. The kids play here, the poor sleep here, but no one works; contributes to the great market scheme that boils from above on the 18th and 20th floor of the neighboring skyscrapers judging the poor man who begs in that empty lot.
The fence is to keep people in, not out. Out from the working world, the contributing society and into the invisible lot that everybody sees, but chooses not to look.
Try a photo like that, can't get any dumber to make shit up about it
|
As soon as people make art for art's sake, when poets try to define poetry instead of enjoy it, when painters realize that its merely color upon a canvas, when film makers break the 4th wall just to make their film edgy, etc. All of these things make one pretentious.
Don't even get me started on things like the film, Adaptation, which uses a self referencing pretentious story about a self referencing pretentious story to tell us that self-reference pretentiousness is bad.
|
On December 09 2011 03:53 Fishgle wrote:
As soon as people make art for art's sake, when poets try to define poetry instead of enjoy it, when painters realize that its merely color upon a canvas, when film makers break the 4th wall just to make their film edgy, etc. All of these things make one pretentious.
Don't even get me started on things like the film, Adaptation, which uses a self referencing pretentious story about a self referencing pretentious story to tell us that self-reference pretentiousness is bad.
Woody Allen disagrees on the fourth wall thing.
|
All aesthetic appreciation of art is a form of self-expression.
|
On December 09 2011 03:53 Fishgle wrote:
As soon as people make art for art's sake, when poets try to define poetry instead of enjoy it, when painters realize that its merely color upon a canvas, when film makers break the 4th wall just to make their film edgy, etc. All of these things make one pretentious.
Don't even get me started on things like the film, Adaptation, which uses a self referencing pretentious story about a self referencing pretentious story to tell us that self-reference pretentiousness is bad.
pre·ten·tious
Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Who are you to say what is valuable and what is not??
|
On December 09 2011 08:41 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 03:53 Fishgle wrote:
As soon as people make art for art's sake, when poets try to define poetry instead of enjoy it, when painters realize that its merely color upon a canvas, when film makers break the 4th wall just to make their film edgy, etc. All of these things make one pretentious.
Don't even get me started on things like the film, Adaptation, which uses a self referencing pretentious story about a self referencing pretentious story to tell us that self-reference pretentiousness is bad. pre·ten·tious Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. Who are you to say what is valuable and what is not??
Philosophically...the only person whose opinion has any meaning for him as far as art is concerned. That's who.
Literally...he may be an art critic who knows? lol
|
Go into a room with a large mirror directly in front of you and a large mirror directly behind you, take only one photo of it. Turn that in as all 7.
|
a boring park with no meaning alone.
|
Honestly, if you don't like the way art is being protrayed right now (because if I am reading this right, you don't like the need to attach a meaning to every little picture) then why don't you do your project on being free and have pics of a bunch of people expressing themselves. IE child smiling in cute pose, or some kid jumping. Whatever.
Then if you want to make a statement about pretentiosness, take that picture of someone expressing themselves, print it, and then throw a bunch of paint on it and take a picture of that. Use the same process and have like a dying flower without a pot sitting in front of the freespirit picture. I would recommend that whatever obstructions you use should be shot in the center of the photograph, or framed in whatever way best gives a sense of surrealism. This should be contrasted with the freespirit picture being shot in the way that it gives the impression that it was done in the spur of the moment.
|
art died with the beginning of the 20th century
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
