Jaded Tastes in Imagery

We use mediums in order to explore who we are and
to grow and help others be brave to grow too. This
is what makes us artists. This is what true art is, if
we really understand this in our hearts, there is
no way our art will be boring to ourselves or to others,
for we are all in a human experience together which
connects us automatically.


hello!

photogkellyrae wrote in post #10876634
We use mediums in order to explore who we are and
to grow and help others be brave to grow too. This
is what makes us artists. This is what true art is, if
we really understand this in our hearts, there is
no way our art will be boring to ourselves or to others,
for we are all in a human experience together which
connects us automatically.

hello!

Hi Kelly Rae

You sure are right about that! It reminded me of a quote "The artist finds a greater pleasure in painting than in having completed the picture."

DStanic wrote in post #10713519
I'm not sure if I agree with this. Emotions are emotions, they don't all have to be good ones. Care to further elaborate? Perhaps I am missing something (regarding the "degenerate" part.) While I am a spiritual person I don't subscribe to faith based religious ideas (but let's not go there).

Yeah you're right that not all emotions necessarily have to be "good" ones. For example, anger can be good if it is justified as righteous indignation. Anger can also be bad if it is derived from envy. The same emotion of anger can be either good or bad based on the context in which it is felt.

Context of emotion can be what separates great art from degenerate art. Dark spiritural reponses are based on harmful things like lust,sensuality or greed etc. Any artistic endeavor that provokes these types of responses are at their core degenerate. Art must provoke a noble response based on virtue in order for it to be considered great art.

I'll try and go back to what I said previously about how anger as an emotion can be either good or bad depending on context. In the arts, if a viewer is provoked to anger from viewing a work then it must be based on a justified anger (like indignation) in order for the work to be considered great art. On the contrary, if the viewer is provoked to anger for something that isn't justified (like envy) then the work is degenerate.

You admitted to being a spiritual person but not necessarily religious. That's fine because as long as you're able to discern noble and virtuous qualities then that also makes it possible to distinguish between degenerate art and great art.

I take it you understand the baggage that comes with the phrase 'Degenerate Art'?

jetcode wrote in post #10708258
Is the bottom line requirement of an image to generate interest in the viewer?

... and income for me.

And I don't mean that sarcastically.

I'm told by family and friends (the non-photographer type) who periodically go with me that I'm "no fun to go with any more."

It used to be that I would take pics of everything - every scene, abstract line, texture or shape.

It was fun.

Now everything I do is clouded with "business." Every opportunity is prefaced and filtered with the question "Is it sellable?" If the answer is "no", I move on.

It's not as much fun any more.

So, yea, I guess I've become jaded.

Spacemunkie wrote in post #10876981
I take it you understand the baggage that comes with the phrase 'Degenerate Art'?

I did a quick GOOGLE to try and get a better idea of what exactly is referred to as "Degenerate Art", and came across mostly German/Holocaust stuff. So what is degenerate art really? Art that does not follow political or religious ideals? I will admit that I don't know my history all that well, as much as I like watching Discovery Channel.


Going back to your previous post:

So in a nutshell are you saying...

Images that provoke emotions of lust, envy, or a mocking tone (whatever that means exactly) can never be great art?

Images that provoke noble (positive) emotional responses- love, dedication, "promote the family"- THAT is great art?

Art that contains dark messages that either A: Satisfies people with "dark spirits" or B:Causes depression (or any negative emotion) in "normal people" can not be considered great art because it does not meet the requirements of some ideology. That is how I take it.

Lets not just focus on photography as art, but art as a whole, and let's include music because there is some very very dark stuff out there. Perhaps some of the great music out there that is full of anger and emotion is indignation as you say.

I don't believe that art should be graded based on principles and morals. Art is an expression of self, and it can be anything. In the end I think that "Great Art" can mean something different to everybody.

I am not trying to argue your response or debate it (even though it would look that way) but rather try and explain how I think of art for myself. And I hope that I am not offending. I hope that you will reply to my post with any corrections to assumptions I have made, or further explain your theory about "degenerate" art. This is a fascinating thread.

DStanic wrote in post #10887706
I did a quick GOOGLE to try and get a better idea of what exactly is referred to as "Degenerate Art", and came across mostly German/Holocaust stuff. So what is degenerate art really? Art that does not follow political or religious ideals?

"The official **** exhibition of Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) opened in Munich on the 19th July 1937, one day after the first "Great German Art Exhibition" premiered. A culmination of Hitler and Goebbels' purge of all remaining modern art held in both public and private collections in the Reich, the exhibit was designed to ridicule and denegrate creative works not upholding "correct" National Socialist virtues."

http://www.olinda.com …ntLike/entartet​eKunst.htm

I certainly have issues with the phrase being bandied about by folk who are simply projecting their own moral compass on to the creative output of others. One would hope that the learned denizens of this forum would see Art as something deeper than a pretty picture that makes you feel all warm and fluffy inside....

Even the forum doesn't like the word ****!

Spacemunkie wrote in post #10887795
Even the forum doesn't like the word ****!

LOL.. that is why I edited and put "German/Holocaust stuff".

" Art as something deeper than a pretty picture that makes you feel all warm and fluffy inside...." --I completely agree.

Is it possible to have a discussion with people that think n*zis are hiding under their bed. That's totally psycho LOL

That's like a totally new level of psycho...even for POTN

GV, I saw an exhibition at the Met in NY of pre Soviet and post Soviet Russian art. What struck me was the pre Soviet art rivaled any art from anywhere in the world. The variety of techniques and expression was astounding, the post Soviet art was one dimensional and frankly soulless. There was similar work being done in other parts of the world, including the US but it was only a small part of the masses of work being done. So I guess there's a lesson to be learned, never allow politicians to dictate what artists can do.

breal101 wrote in post #10889350
GV, I saw an exhibition at the Met in NY of pre Soviet and post Soviet Russian art. What struck me was the pre Soviet art rivaled any art from anywhere in the world. The variety of techniques and expression was astounding, the post Soviet art was one dimensional and frankly soulless.

You're very fortunate to have attended that show. I would have loved to seen it Yes, I'm familiar with what happened at the turn of the century. It's worth noting that Russian art flourished under the Christian Czar, and became "souless" under the Bolshevik Athiests. You're correct to point out that there might be a lesson in there somewhere.

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #10889397
"souless"

Sorry, I can't translate this word. What does it mean?
Discussion became interesting.

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #10889298
Is it possible to have a discussion with people that think n*zis are hiding under their bed. That's totally psycho LOL

That's like a totally new level of psycho...even for POTN

Sorry, just pointing out your ignorance of the historical and political connotations of a phrase you seemed very happy to use in a similar context. I'll wager you won't be using it again....

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #10889397
It's worth noting that Russian art flourished under the Christian Czar, and became "souless" under the Bolshevik Athiests. You're correct to point out that there might be a lesson in there somewhere.

In your opinion. Some people might suggest that it was the catalyst for several important movements (Constructivism in particular) that have had a profound impact on art, design and photography. Have a look at the photos (and other works) of Alexander Rodchenko for example...