I reckon I just don't get it.

It was a few days ago, I think it was about a guy on a bicycle.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #19083669
.
It was a few days ago, I think it was about a guy on a bicycle.
.

.
I'm sorry, Terry, but without some more detailed information, I don't think any of us will be able to find it. . There are just so many posts to look through at that FB group's page, and the posts do not appear to be arranged in chronological order.

You did start a thread about this photo, so I figure that you must be very interested in discussing it with us.

If you are looking for some insightful discussion about this image and its artistic merits, we are going to have to have some way to see the image that does not require the tedious task of looking through hundreds upon hundreds of FB posts.

As I said earlier, you may not "get it" now, but there are many folks here on POTN who will be able to dissect the image down into its base elements and explain why those elements work together to form a composition that some people really like. . It's not hard to understand such things once they have been pointed out and broken down and well articulated. . That's what a good critique does, and there are many good, insightful image critiques issued here on this forum every day.

I'm sure we can get you on the road to understanding, if only you can find a way to show us the image.

.


.

'clubs' or 'perpetual judging' often subscribe to certain rules in an unbending and rigid way, even though just about ALL rules can be broken and result in artistically valid photos...a reason I have never wanted to participate in such critical reviews.

Those to adhere rigidly to a fixed set of compositional rules are the ones who 'don't get it', IMHO

For example, the rule to 'not bullseye' the subject of the photo...yet there are composition which do not work as well if the object were not centered in the frame. It might not induce the viewer's eye to move about the photo, but maybe the point is to deliberately focus and fix the viewer at one point.

.
Wilt,

I joined the group and took a look at about 100 of the photos there. . It does not appear that the group or its owner / admins have any hangup on any kind of compositional rules. . I know what you're saying, and I agree with you, but it just doesn't seem to have anything to do with this situation that the OP brought up, based on what I have seen on the group's page.

.

I haven't found the particular photo either, and even if I did I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable copying and pasting, or even posting a link to it.

I expect and appreciate C&C here when I post a photo, but I have no idea how any other photographer would feel about it. Out of respect for that person I won't post it even if I found it.

But there are similar examples throughout the group. I'll just keep looking and trying to understand what it's all about, and still post my photos. I get a few likes from time to time.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #19083717
I haven't found the particular photo either, and even if I did I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable copying and pasting, or even posting a link to it.

I expect and appreciate C&C here when I post a photo, but I have no idea how any other photographer would feel about it. Out of respect for that person I won't post it even if I found it.

But there are similar examples throughout the group. I'll just keep looking and trying to understand what it's all about, and still post my photos. I get a few likes from time to time.

Posting a link is the proper and appropriate thing to do. Copy = nono..

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19083632
The cool thing is that if you don't "get it", then you can learn to get it.

Very very true.

I don't agree with this though. Because I think that understanding leads to appreciation and more.

First of all, yes, I think art is an acquired taste. Of course, figurative, classic works of art are easy. Everybody can appreciate and like a painting of the real world when done well. But it gets more complicated with modern art, abstracts especially.

People who are not used to seeing art, will go into a museum of modern art and say "my 3 year old could do that". Maybe. But could that 3 year old have come up with the idea behind it? Take Picasso's Bull's Head. Just two bicycle parts put together. So easy to do. But who would think of that before Picasso actually did it in 1942? No one.

Another thing to remember is that artists' work often needs to be seen as part of a body of work, a series. Although I strongly believe that an image/painting/sculptu​re etc. should be able to stand on its own, understanding often comes from knowing the whole series and - very important I think - how it reflects the artist's personal development. From that comes appreciation.

Take Piet Mondriaan (Dutch spelling!) e.g. Also often ridiculed by people who know nothing of him and his development. Some squares of primary colours on a canvas, right? But it's not that simplistic. Mondriaan struggled and fought with the canvas and his (filosophical) ideas. He started out painting figuratively and wanted to strip it down to its very essentials. Knowing this, his work becomes more understandable. He painted a tree e.g. He painted it over and over again. It started as a normal tree. Then more and more things got stripped away, until only the basic form of the tree was left, the core. And then that still wasn't enough for him. The end was a canvas with squares of primary colours. The absolute tree form. Minimalism to its extreme. If you know this, if you have seen the, let's say in-between stages of the tree, you will never again be able to not see it when viewing the ultimate result. Or his other work for that matter.

But above all I think Tom is right in that art is very much an acquired taste. You actively have to learn to appreciate and like it. It takes effort. And the way you do that is exposing yourself to great art. This will train your eye and your senses. So go to museums, galleries, look at world class art. Learn. At some point you will start to "get it" where you didn't in the past. Yes, it really does work like that.

As an example, take a look at this painting. It was done by Moshe Kupferman, an Israeli artist. Not very well known by the general public but his work is in some of the big museums across the world, like the MoMA. I had been a big admirer of his work and unexpectedly had the good fortune to meet him as I was asked to lead a project in the museum of the kibbutz he lived and worked in. The kibbutz was founded by eastern European survivors of the Shoah and is called Kibbutz Lohamei Hagetta'ot (The Ghetto Fighters Kibbutz). Kupferman was one of the founders and lived there until his death. His work reflects the horrors of what he lived through and more, and moved me to tears when I first saw it. All his work is abstract.

This is a (crappy pic of the) reproduction of one of his paintings in my living room. To me this is raw and powerful and moving. My best friend when she is here, can't sit facing it, but always sits with her back to it as it unsettles her too much. What do you all see?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

.
Thank you so much for that post, Levina!

I have learned a lot from reading what you wrote, and now I have a lot to look up; a lot of Googling to do and a lot of studying to do.

I had not been aware of Moshe Kupferman before reading your post, but now I am inspired to learn more about him, and to seek to learn from his work. . In a way he reminds me of a group of our own native Americans who invented ledger art as a result of their exile and imprisonment. . Without hardship and oppression, these art forms would not have come into existence.

Neither had I been aware of Piet Mondriaan, but now that I looked him up, I recall having seen quite an array of products over the years that were obviously influenced by his work. . Derivatives of his primary color squares, on white and outlined in black, have been used on countless coffee mugs, plates, wall and floor tile patterns, shower curtains, upholstery, etc.

There are a few pieces by Mondriann that I find so beautiful! . Not his trademark primary color blocks, but other works that he did that exhibit a wonderful display of diversity within a pattern.

I really gotta learn more about these artists and their work. . As you say, an understanding of this type of art is learned. . I don't think that it is a case of someone either "just getting it" or "just not getting it". . Rather, it is a case of someone either taking the time to learn about it, or not wanting to bother learning.

I have studied other artists and a little bit of art theory, and it is amazing how much of what I have learned from that has come into play when I am out in nature photographing birds, deer, rabbits, lizards, and whatnot. . The things we learn about abstract art can be applied to non-abstract images of regular things, and they will be more powerful images as a result.

The gap between abstract imagery and photos that are "of things" is not nearly so wide as some may think.


.

Levina, I see a lot of things in the photo, but not sure I understand it. My first thought was a broken cross surrounded by hindrances, which meant to me that the Christian faith so bound up in details, that the real message can't get out. Then I remembered the artist is probably Jewish, so that theory went down the drain. Perhaps a broken Swastika?

Anyway, from my point of view something or someone is trapped inside the tangle of piping and can't escape. It actually reminds me of some dreams I've had way back in the distant past.

Am I anywhere close?

If you look at my profile, you'll see a pretty good description of me. I'm somewhat intelligent in a very few things, and dumber than a bag of rocks in a whole lot of things. I used to think I was pretty smart, but the older I get the dumber I get.

Used to be a theory floating around that one half of your brain is the logical, detailed half, and the other half is the artistic half. Not sure that's still a valid theory, but if it is, I know which side of my brain is the controlling side.

Example, when I look at beautiful landscape photos, I want to know what that little bitty thing that I can barely see is all about. I'd rather photograph the details of a single flower than a field full of flowers.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19083780
This is a (crappy pic of the) reproduction of one of his paintings in my living room. To me this is raw and powerful and moving. My best friend when she is here, can't sit facing it, but always sits with her back to it as it unsettles her too much. What do you all see?

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=190​83780&i=i266783460
forum: General Photography Talk

I see imprisonment. The enclosure is crudely constructed, perhaps assembled in a hurry, by amateurs, with little concern for any builders' principle but strength. I took the "+" as representing Christianity, but I'm not sure that's its primary intent.

Although the enclosure has an aura of brutality, it doesn't occupy the whole frame. There's space above and below. Perhaps these spaces belong to the past and future (outside) of a person who escaped. Or: upper space, hope; lower space, coping by being grounded, concentrating on immediate survival from day to day.

I don't know what to make of the smeared and spotted band in the middle, except that it emphasizes the white spaces elsewhere.

Did the artist explain the painting?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19083839
.
Thank you so much for that post, Levina!

I have learned a lot from reading what you wrote, and now I have a lot to look up; a lot of Googling to do and a lot of studying to do.

I had not been aware of Moshe Kupferman before reading your post, but now I am inspired to learn more about him, and to seek to learn from his work. . In a way he reminds me of a group of our own native Americans who invented ledger art as a result of their exile and imprisonment. . Without hardship and oppression, these art forms would not have come into existence.

Neither had I been aware of Piet Mondriaan, but now that I looked him up, I recall having seen quite an array of products over the years that were obviously influenced by his work. . Derivatives of his primary color squares, on white and outlined in black, have been used on countless coffee mugs, plates, wall and floor tile patterns, shower curtains, upholstery, etc.

There are a few pieces by Mondriann that I find so beautiful! . Not his trademark primary color blocks, but other works that he did that exhibit a wonderful display of diversity within a pattern.

I really gotta learn more about these artists and their work. . As you say, an understanding of this type of art is learned. . I don't think that it is a case of someone either "just getting it" or "just not getting it". . Rather, it is a case of someone either taking the time to learn about it, or not wanting to bother learning.

I have studied other artists and a little bit of art theory, and it is amazing how much of what I have learned from that has come into play when I am out in nature photographing birds, deer, rabbits, lizards, and whatnot. . The things we learn about abstract art can be applied to non-abstract images of regular things, and they will be more powerful images as a result.

The gap between abstract imagery and photos that are "of things" is not nearly so wide as some may think.


.

I'm so glad you liked my post, Tom. Thanks!

The examples I mentioned were just examples of course as there are so many more artists, so many great works of art that are usually not so much beautiful, but powerful, unsettling, unforgettable. Art that, basically, changes you. Which I think is what great art does: you have to come away from it slightly different than how you went in.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #19084019
Levina, I see a lot of things in the photo, but not sure I understand it. My first thought was a broken cross surrounded by hindrances, which meant to me that the Christian faith so bound up in details, that the real message can't get out. Then I remembered the artist is probably Jewish, so that theory went down the drain. Perhaps a broken Swastika?

Anyway, from my point of view something or someone is trapped inside the tangle of piping and can't escape. It actually reminds me of some dreams I've had way back in the distant past.

Am I anywhere close?

If you look at my profile, you'll see a pretty good description of me. I'm somewhat intelligent in a very few things, and dumber than a bag of rocks in a whole lot of things. I used to think I was pretty smart, but the older I get the dumber I get.

Used to be a theory floating around that one half of your brain is the logical, detailed half, and the other half is the artistic half. Not sure that's still a valid theory, but if it is, I know which side of my brain is the controlling side.

Example, when I look at beautiful landscape photos, I want to know what that little bitty thing that I can barely see is all about. I'd rather photograph the details of a single flower than a field full of flowers.

OhLook wrote in post #19084068

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19083780
This is a (crappy pic of the) reproduction of one of his paintings in my living room. To me this is raw and powerful and moving. My best friend when she is here, can't sit facing it, but always sits with her back to it as it unsettles her too much. What do you all see?

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=190​83780&i=i266783460
forum: General Photography Talk

I see imprisonment. The enclosure is crudely constructed, perhaps assembled in a hurry, by amateurs, with little concern for any builders' principle but strength. I took the "+" as representing Christianity, but I'm not sure that's its primary intent.

Although the enclosure has an aura of brutality, it doesn't occupy the whole frame. There's space above and below. Perhaps these spaces belong to the past and future (outside) of a person who escaped. Or: upper space, hope; lower space, coping by being grounded, concentrating on immediate survival from day to day.

I don't know what to make of the smeared and spotted band in the middle, except that it emphasizes the white spaces elsewhere.

Did the artist explain the painting?

The cross in the middle of the painting? Funny how you both mention it. I never even gave it a thought. I doubt it is a Christian symbol, seeing as Kufperman was Jewish. Although maybe it was an allusion. I have no idea. I never dissect an image but let its entirety speak to me. Kupferman's painting to me shows confinement, imprisonment, just like you say, OhLook. But I see a very specific imprisonment. I clearly see a concentration camp. I see barbed wire and I see total chaos, a struggle for life and death. And incredible pain.
I also see the painter's struggle to get away from that place within himself. And it's heartbreaking. Especially since he can never escape it as it's within him. And the past cannot be changed. Terry, your interpretation of somebody being trapped inside and not being able to get out, yes, I agree.

See?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19084076
The cross in the middle of the painting? Funny how you both mention it. I never even gave it a thought. I doubt it is a Christian symbol, seeing as Kufperman was Jewish.

It could represent being persecuted under the distorted version of Christianity that the persecutors created to rationalize their actions. They did the same thing with science, using physical anthropology as a cover for declaring their victims inferior.

Very interesting discussion but I have a different perspective. When I look at that painting/print, I see nothing but a random jumble of lines. It means nothing to me what so ever. I can sit back and invent some story to put some meaning to the randomness like the upper right quadrant reminds me if a air boat screen, the thing at the bottom looks like a broken antique carbon arc brazing handle, and the smear across the lower 1/2 looks like a smear across the lower half so the artist angrily scrolled a big X on it, but it's just made up things, kind of seeing animals in clouds. Not if my folks would look at it having been in Dachau, they might have a completely different viewpoint. But from my perspective, if I have to be guided through the process and taught what I need to see, it doesn't work for me. It's just random stuff anyone can scrawl on a paper.

gjl711 wrote in post #19084103
Very interesting discussion but I have a different perspective. When I look at that painting/print, I see nothing but a random jumble of lines. It means nothing to me what so ever. I can sit back and invent some story to put some meaning to the randomness like the upper right quadrant reminds me if a air boat screen, the thing at the bottom looks like a broken antique carbon arc brazing handle, and the smear across the lower 1/2 looks like a smear across the lower half so the artist angrily scrolled a big X on it, but it's just made up things, kind of seeing animals in clouds. Not if my folks would look at it having been in Dachau, they might have a completely different viewpoint. But from my perspective, if I have to be guided through the process and taught what I need to see, it doesn't work for me. It's just random stuff anyone can scrawl on a paper.

You seem to not understand that the painting is not a true representation of the world. It's an interpretation based on the personal experiences and emotions of the artist. For me the painting as a whole works. I don't think of or theorize about parts of it. I never do.

And "random stuff anyone can scrawl on a paper" is in the same category as "my 3-year old could do that".
Oh well...

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19084120
You seem to not understand that the painting is not a true representation of the world. It's an interpretation based on the personal experiences and emotions of the artist. For me the painting as a whole works. I don't think of or theorize about parts of it. I never do.

And "random stuff anyone can scrawl on a paper" is in the same category as "my 3-year old could do that".
Oh well...

Exactly, I am sure that for the artist it has meaning based on his/her personal experiences and emotions. I do not have the same personal experiences and emotions thus for me, all I can do is look at it and try to assign some meaning based on my personal experiences and emotions or try to guess what the artist what thinking. Basically, assigning some random meaning to the work based on something I can make up. For me it is no better than the scrawling my 3 year old does which does have meaning to me as I was sitting there with her as she did her scrawling and listened to her story. You would look at her drawings and say.. It looks like the random scrawling of a three year old because you don't know her and were not there. You might try to assign meaning to it, but you would just be making up your own story. With this kind of art all I can do is look at it and say "I like it" or "does nothing for me".