Bear in mind, I am writing this on a crowded bus stuck in traffic returning from a day trip to Boston.
I am happy that you are continuing the discussion started in the former “Rothko” post. I love thinking about and considering art in general, and photography in particular.
First, I apologize if my wording was clumsy in the previous comment. My intention was not to say that art is a tabla rasa or blank slate, but that there is an interaction between the viewer and the artwork, at least in the best case- assuming the viewer finds enough interest or merit to expend the effort. I suppose it is not the worst thing if it is Rorschach-like and it helps the viewer to derive some personal meaning and interpretation.
I think it is also important to consider that art? And photography, exists in a context. It has a history and it has a body of critical examination.
The audience may or may not be aware of that context, and there is no requirement for them to be. But sometimes, that may also affect or color their experience with the artwork. And in creating the work, the artist may be responding to some aspect of historical or critical context. Not to mention socio-cultural or political (gasp).
I admit that I am undecided about this: I struggle with both the “elitism” of post modern art, but also with art that seems to pander to superficiality and commercialism. So where does that leave us? Is it possible for art to be both accessible and aesthetically pleasing, but not overly simplistic and dull?
For me Rothko found that balance, but how many people look at his paintings and say “huh?”?
Hi Lucy: Sorry for the very long delay in responding to you! The month has gotten away from me. You weren't clumsy at all, but the comment provided an interesting opening; it's something I've talked a lot about with students. Yes, I agree that there is an interaction between viewer and art work and that each viewer brings something to the art. I, too, struggle with the elitism of post modern art--maybe more in literature than in visual art. There are poets whose writing is so obscure that it seems only a few close friends who were in on the joke "get it." How does that speak to the human experience, or connect us to each other? On the other end of the spectrum, we have artists that my students love, like Rupi Kaur, that I find facile. So... we have to start somewhere, yes? Hopefully, our tolerance and understanding grow the more time we spend with a wider array of forms and ideas. And then there's taste--I just don't like some things. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy.
Then, if we transfer this over into photography, what is the difference between a landscape photo that we've all seen a hundred times before in different incarnations, and something that startles us or stops us or makes us think? Between just pretty and art? Thanks for the conversation!
Hi Laurel: one of the things I like best about online communication is that it generally allows you to post at your own speed and at your convenience. So I like being able to digest a post or an essay such as yours and ruminate a bit before responding. Same for your response.
Yes, but the chicken was crossing the road because Juliet was on the other side. Also, neither Juliet herself nor her family would accept her pairing up with a chicken. This must have been a transgender chicken, since it was attracted to Juliet, well before the transgender animal acceptance movement and transgender animal acceptance day. It clearly wouldn't have gone this way had it been a rooster instead of a chicken. This ended badly for the chicken.
Bear in mind, I am writing this on a crowded bus stuck in traffic returning from a day trip to Boston.
I am happy that you are continuing the discussion started in the former “Rothko” post. I love thinking about and considering art in general, and photography in particular.
First, I apologize if my wording was clumsy in the previous comment. My intention was not to say that art is a tabla rasa or blank slate, but that there is an interaction between the viewer and the artwork, at least in the best case- assuming the viewer finds enough interest or merit to expend the effort. I suppose it is not the worst thing if it is Rorschach-like and it helps the viewer to derive some personal meaning and interpretation.
I think it is also important to consider that art? And photography, exists in a context. It has a history and it has a body of critical examination.
The audience may or may not be aware of that context, and there is no requirement for them to be. But sometimes, that may also affect or color their experience with the artwork. And in creating the work, the artist may be responding to some aspect of historical or critical context. Not to mention socio-cultural or political (gasp).
I admit that I am undecided about this: I struggle with both the “elitism” of post modern art, but also with art that seems to pander to superficiality and commercialism. So where does that leave us? Is it possible for art to be both accessible and aesthetically pleasing, but not overly simplistic and dull?
For me Rothko found that balance, but how many people look at his paintings and say “huh?”?
Hi Lucy: Sorry for the very long delay in responding to you! The month has gotten away from me. You weren't clumsy at all, but the comment provided an interesting opening; it's something I've talked a lot about with students. Yes, I agree that there is an interaction between viewer and art work and that each viewer brings something to the art. I, too, struggle with the elitism of post modern art--maybe more in literature than in visual art. There are poets whose writing is so obscure that it seems only a few close friends who were in on the joke "get it." How does that speak to the human experience, or connect us to each other? On the other end of the spectrum, we have artists that my students love, like Rupi Kaur, that I find facile. So... we have to start somewhere, yes? Hopefully, our tolerance and understanding grow the more time we spend with a wider array of forms and ideas. And then there's taste--I just don't like some things. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy.
Then, if we transfer this over into photography, what is the difference between a landscape photo that we've all seen a hundred times before in different incarnations, and something that startles us or stops us or makes us think? Between just pretty and art? Thanks for the conversation!
Hi Laurel: one of the things I like best about online communication is that it generally allows you to post at your own speed and at your convenience. So I like being able to digest a post or an essay such as yours and ruminate a bit before responding. Same for your response.
Thank you for the thought provoking writing.
I am generally enjoying Substack.
In honor of Poetry Month and in honor of Rothko, I offer a poem:
Office Worker, 1967
Chuck each flap under the next,
Shuffle them like cards. Absolutely
Cover your heart. Crease
The boss’s dictums into perfect
Thirds before you shimmy them in.
Now splay the envelopes
Across the stained beige counter
So only the flaps show, and smear
A sponge across them all.
Turn the flaps down the way you turned
Yourself down, and smooth them shut.
Start home along the pale clay
Tinge of Chicago brick, ice water curbs,
Gray wind, the shoulders
Of people passing. Then, at the Art Institute,
Mark Rothko. Yellow
Proclamations holding the sun.
Light, a secret life you might step into.
Hope you never die.
Gail Howard
Yes, but the chicken was crossing the road because Juliet was on the other side. Also, neither Juliet herself nor her family would accept her pairing up with a chicken. This must have been a transgender chicken, since it was attracted to Juliet, well before the transgender animal acceptance movement and transgender animal acceptance day. It clearly wouldn't have gone this way had it been a rooster instead of a chicken. This ended badly for the chicken.