(OT) Okay, then...
Martin Francis
much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as "art", as
that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to be an artist.
I will have to decide what is going into my online portfolio and give
definitions based on what i've got.
Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people" section.
Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got rid of "fine
art" yet).
(yes, it is a misnomer; only some of the pictures will be from 6x6cm
cameras)
--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Photodad
site is a bit too stark right now. It feels very heavy.
Let us know when more is up.
Walt
in article c8tde6$7gs$1...@titan.btinternet.com, Martin Francis at
mcs...@com.btinternet wrote on 5/24/04 2:03 PM:
dslr
> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have
> pretty much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I
> do as "art", as that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I
> still wish to be an artist. I will have to decide what is going into
> my online portfolio and give definitions based on what i've got.
>
> Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
> stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people"
> section. Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got
> rid of "fine art" yet).
>
> http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
A couple of points, Martin - one of them very much personal preference, so
take them as you like.
Firstly, the fine grey text on a black background is not easy to read - or,
if the viewer is in a fairly bright room, even see.
Secondly, and this is the real personal preference, I'd much rather see
thumbnails from which I can choose which to look at - rather than being
forced to view in the order that the site has been set up.
HTH.
--
regards,
dslr
William D. Tallman
> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have pretty
> much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as "art",
> as that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to be an
> artist. I will have to decide what is going into my online portfolio and
> give definitions based on what i've got.
There are accepted themes that are commonly considered to be Art. B&W nude
photography is one of those, but there are others. If you are working in
that mode by intention, it's reasonable to label it as such on your site.
When you do that, of course, your work can then be legitimately compared to
other such, especially the best that set the standards for excellence.
If not, then don't label it as such.
> Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
> stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people" section.
> Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got rid of "fine
> art" yet).
>
> http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
>
> (yes, it is a misnomer; only some of the pictures will be from 6x6cm
> cameras)
>
> --
> Martin Francis
> "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
> no, and yes...."
Another poster suggests that it has a heavy feel. I agree. I think your
idea of the dark background allowing the images to pop out is a good one,
but there needs to be an image to make the format meaningful. In short,
you need one on the opening page. Doesn't need to be a photograph, but
does need to have some amount of light and color, I think.
I like your work!
Bill Tallman
Martin Francis
news:10b4fre...@corp.supernews.com...
> Another poster suggests that it has a heavy feel. I agree. I think your
> idea of the dark background allowing the images to pop out is a good one,
> but there needs to be an image to make the format meaningful. In short,
> you need one on the opening page. Doesn't need to be a photograph, but
> does need to have some amount of light and color, I think.
Hey, I only started yesterday! I haven't got round to an opening page (or
any other pages). FWIW, I noticed the grey was too dark on a (badly
calibrated) uni iMac today and plan to change it to a lighter tone. I tried
white but it seemed a little harsh.
> I like your work!
Ta. The B&W work is all new, mostly for my final university project. I am
doing a "yearbook" of portraits of everyone in the group, lecturers
included, and posting it on another site with a white/blue variant of the
same design (as well as providing higher res versions on CD-R).
My second project will be uploaded as soon as i've done it (1 more week to
go!)
Martin Francis
> thumbnails from which I can choose which to look at - rather than being
> forced to view in the order that the site has been set up.
I like the simplicity of the next/previous layout, and whilst i'm
considering a numbered list (sort of 1/2/3/4) of direct links to images I
have no plans to add thumbnails. I like to keep the design as minimal as
possible, largely out of consideration for people with slow connections
(like mine). I also have fairly limited webspace, as it is all from my ISP
and I need to host three small sites from it.
Matt Clara
news:c8tde6$7gs$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
In answer to your question: No and yes, no and yes...
Looks good. Yeah, get rid of the fine art title--seems pretentious. And
let's exchange links, yes?
And post more pics of Kelly.
;-)
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
dslr
>> Secondly, and this is the real personal preference, I'd much rather
>> see thumbnails from which I can choose which to look at - rather
>> than being forced to view in the order that the site has been set up.
>
> I like the simplicity of the next/previous layout, and whilst i'm
> considering a numbered list (sort of 1/2/3/4) of direct links to
> images I have no plans to add thumbnails. I like to keep the design
> as minimal as possible, largely out of consideration for people with
> slow connections (like mine).
Surely in that case, some form of navigation apart from next/previous would
be far better - assuming of course that you do want people to look at your
work?
How about the scenario that someone is on a slow connection and just doesn't
happen to like the first three images that they have waited to see? What are
the chances that they will actually persevere through to the rest?
If, on the other hand, you provide some thumbnails (they needn't be
particularly large or resource-hungry, perhaps 100x100 pixels max) people
can see what is there to look at without having to pass blindly and slowly
through parts that they might not be interested in before jumping in where
their interest does take them.
--
regards,
dslr
Mike
Konqueror (kHTML). I can't see anything besides a black background and a
title in dark grey.
Maybe its because the HTML you wrote isn't valid?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sixbysix.co.uk
--Mike
Alan Browne
> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have pretty
> much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as "art", as
> that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to be an artist.
> I will have to decide what is going into my online portfolio and give
> definitions based on what i've got.
>
> Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
> stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people" section.
> Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got rid of "fine
> art" yet).
>
> http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
>
> (yes, it is a misnomer; only some of the pictures will be from 6x6cm
> cameras)
>
Good start. Is the high res site called fiftysixbyfiftysix.co.uk ?
On a few images (at least three) the cropping is bad (slices of light on
lower left).
People with badly calibrated monitors are going to have trouble with the
text of the webpage and some photos (like the mug shot of the guy who's
starting to bald...)
Add an index strip underneath?
Cheers,
Alan
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Gordon Moat
> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have pretty
> much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as "art", as
> that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to be an artist.
> I will have to decide what is going into my online portfolio and give
> definitions based on what i've got.
Martin, I think you give up too easily. It is anything you want to define it.
Anyway, if this helps you at all, here is an idea I have been kicking around
for my site redesign. I currently have a painting section, yet I feel that
converting that to a "Fine Art" section might be better. My criteria for what
to include their comes down to those works that have previously been exhibited.
What that means is that they have been in public, in a gallery, a juried
exhibit, group exhibit, select group exhibit, or some other public space, but
would not include images, or paintings that had been published. This criteria
would separate it from commercial work, and includes paintings and photography.
Perhaps a similar approach might work for your site.
>
> Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
> stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people" section.
> Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got rid of "fine
> art" yet).
>
> http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
>
> (yes, it is a misnomer; only some of the pictures will be from 6x6cm
> cameras)
That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark text is a
little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little easier.
Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Tony Spadaro
then that's my story and I'm going to stick with it. Three are schools
churing out no-talent jerks every year, and these guys call themselves
artists on the basis of that degree - they have no more right to the term
than you or I.
I'll check out you rsite after midnight when roadkill is back up to
reasonable speed.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8tde6$7gs$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Martin Francis
news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
> That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark text
is a
> little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little easier.
> Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
Annika1980
>Anyway, feel free to have a gander at my site; it's in early prototype
>stages at the moment, and there are only photos in the "people" section.
>Bear in mind the titles will be changed soon (I haven't got rid of "fine
>art" yet).
Where is your dead people gallery?
That is a very serious omission, especially right now when pics of dead people
are so in vogue. C'mon Marty, go with what you know!
I'll echo the comments that the interface (in it's infancy stage) is a bit
cumbersome to use. But hey, it's better than MY web site, seeing as I never
have gotten around to creating one. Perhaps I'll pattern mine after yours, with
sections labeled, "People with Jewel, Fine Art of Jewel, Portraits of Jewel,
Misc pics of Jewel, and Info about the Mighty Jewel. And a few bird and
cheerleader pics as well.
Anyway, I'll bookmark your site and come back later to taunt you further.
Bandicoot
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
> > That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark
text
> is a
> > little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little
easier.
> > Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
>
> Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
>
I didn't see it pre-update (busy day, couldn't be on Usenet all day
y'know...) but I certainly like the updated version. Both the design and
the photography.
My own meagre site is looking veritably cluttered these days...
Peter
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
> > That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark text
> is a
> > little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little easier.
> > Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
>
> Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
The title text is more readable, but the links text is still dark. Not sure
what else I could tell you, it is just slightly tough to read. Some alt text,
or a javascript description might help. Maybe a different font might work
better.
Another thought is you can run a small javascript that puts a random image into
the opener each time the page is visited. There are some freely available
examples of that, or some editing software has that capability.
William D. Tallman
> Martin Francis wrote:
>
>> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have
>> pretty much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as
>> "art", as that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to
>> be an artist. I will have to decide what is going into my online
>> portfolio and give definitions based on what i've got.
>
> Martin, I think you give up too easily. It is anything you want to define
> it.
>
> Anyway, if this helps you at all, here is an idea I have been kicking
> around for my site redesign. I currently have a painting section, yet I
> feel that converting that to a "Fine Art" section might be better. My
> criteria for what to include their comes down to those works that have
> previously been exhibited. What that means is that they have been in
> public, in a gallery, a juried exhibit, group exhibit, select group
> exhibit, or some other public space, but would not include images, or
> paintings that had been published. This criteria would separate it from
> commercial work, and includes paintings and photography. Perhaps a similar
> approach might work for your site.
Gordon makes a good point here, I think. Fine Art is commonly
differentiated from Commercial Art, following the academic world's sort of
the issue, I guess. As to what these two categories comprise has some
common agreement, but is not cast in stone, AFAIK.
Obviously, Commercial Art is intended for use by commerce: advertising,
logos, and that sort of thing. Perhaps stock photography is a species of
Commercial Art, if it's intended to be licensed per use to the user who
intends to somehow generate a profit therefrom. In that regard, the
painting factories where wall paintings are cranked out on an assembly line
could be regarded as Commercial Art, though it seems evident that it is
intended to be presented as Fine Art. Dunno, these are open for specific
definition in a specific case, I suppose.
As to Fine Art, I suspect that one has to have accreditation in the field of
Fine Arts to be able to identify Fine Art. So I won't try that one; I am
not a Fine Arts expert, nor am I a Fine Artist of any kind.
That might suggest, Martin, that you could separate your personal work from
that which you do for money, if that's feasible.
Bill Tallman
Nick J
>
> That might suggest, Martin, that you could separate your personal work from
> that which you do for money, if that's feasible.
>
but he already has Bill, this photgraphy site is his personal work. You
wouldn't want to visit a site showing what he does for money... ;-)
Nick
Al Denelsbeck
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
>> That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark
>> text
> is a
>> little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little
>> easier. Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
>
> Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
Looking fine, crisp, moves well.
One small note: Move the Prev/Next links up above the images, or
potentially move the main menu to the left. While it varies on how the
browsers are configured, your format is screen-sized for 800x600 res,
mostly, but the nav links and copyright notice go off the bottom, requiring
minor scrolling. Vertical scrolling isn't a no-no, but if you're this
close, it might as well be eliminated, hey?
Include a space on either side of the dash in the bio, otherwise
you're making a new hyphenated word.
Otherwise looks good (and works on Opera, which is more than can be
said for a lot of newer sites). Glad to see you went with thumbnails, which
I'd consider a necessity.
Now, or course, you've created a monster. You know websites need
constant attention, don't you? ;-)
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
William D. Tallman
LOL!!!
Bill Tallman
William D. Tallman
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
>> That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The dark
>> text
> is a
>> little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would be a little easier.
>> Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
>
> Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
Oh *much* better!
Cluster of thumbs works like a charm. Looks good in Konqueror and Galeon
(Gecko). BTW, the gifs for your links are cut too tight, the letters are
trimmed too close. Probably should redo them with a bit of padding, I
would think.
Still could use something in the first page, though.....
How about an abstract design of something, perhaps in a complimentary muted
bronze to give it some focus against the muted silver... hmmm... a
stylized line drawing of an SLR square shooter, your choice of brand..
Rollei would be elegant... just a thought.
Bill Tallman
sun lei
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
>
> Still could use something in the first page, though.....
>
> How about an abstract design of something, perhaps in a complimentary
> muted bronze to give it some focus against the muted silver... hmmm... a
> stylized line drawing of an SLR square shooter, your choice of brand..
> Rollei would be elegant... just a thought.
>
But we all know Martin _can't_ choose a brand....
;-)
Peter
Bandicoot
Traditionally the division was between Fine Art and decorative arts, aka
'craft'. Fine art was where 'the art' was the end product - a painting,
sculpture, whatever - and decorative art where it was some 'thing' that was
decorated by the 'art' - a piece of furniture with carving on it, a pot,
whatever. Of course the boundaries blurred, and the snob factor was a major
feature - hence architecture being recognised traditionally as a fine art,
even though it is pretty plainly 'craft' by the original definition.
Note that 'skill' or the difficulty of execution of the work has nothing to
do with this original definition. Neither, come to that, has artistic
vision, or even intrinsic merit.
Photography of course messes this up, because it meets the definition of
fine art in exactly the way that painting does (end result is 'the work',
but it can then be used to decorate, illustrate, etc.) but many in the past
didn't want to accept photography as capable of creating art, still less of
'being' one.
This simply tells me that the old definition was never very useful, and is
even less so where photography is concerned.
For me, photography is commercial, craft, decorative, applied art, if I am
working to a brief - even the 'notional' brief that shooting for stock
implies. It is 'art', which might as well be called 'fine art' only when I
am shooting to satisfy no one's criteria but my own. Such works may appeal
to others, or they may not. This definition, of course, would exclude
virtually all renaissance painting - so definitions have to move with the
times and be flexible!
Of all the pictures I've sent to the SI, only my rogues' gallery one falls
into this category of work done to please my own artistic criteria rather
than to fit a brief - even where that brief was only the SI mandate. And,
predictably, it is the one of those I sent that had the widest range of
comments. Among people who've seen it in my portfolio (it's at the back,
last page, after a lot of work that is much more avowedly commercial)
everyone seems either to say it is their favourite, or they simply don't
notice it at all.
>
> As to Fine Art, I suspect that one has to have accreditation in the field
of
> Fine Arts to be able to identify Fine Art. So I won't try that one; I am
> not a Fine Arts expert, nor am I a Fine Artist of any kind.
>
> That might suggest, Martin, that you could separate your personal work
> from that which you do for money, if that's feasible.
>
That is sort of what I was thinking. The 'fine art' work might still be
intended for sale, but you are not doing what someone else has told you to
do, or even what you _think_ someone else wants to see. You are doing
what _you_ want to see, and if anyone else likes it then that's good and
if they don't it doesn't matter.
Peter
dslr
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:40B26917...@attglobal.net...
>> That's really a good URL. I like the simple and direct look. The
>> dark text is a little tough to read, so maybe slightly lighter would
>> be a little easier. Anyway, it looks to be a nice start.
>
> Feedback taken on board, y'all. Updated http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
Much better - I like it. The thumbnails are just right - enought to see
what's there but not excessively large.
I do agree with other posters that the front page needs "something", though.
If you want some javascript to do a random selection from the images already
on the site (minimal overhead that way), drop me a line and you're welcome
to use that which I use for the purpose on www.dslr.co.uk
--
regards,
dslr
Gordon Moat
> Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help you
I looked through that site, but I cannot find anything about how to
integrate the results into a web page. Is there some code export function
that does that. Seems to me that it is an e-mail only solution.
Lewis Lang
>From: "William D. Tallman" wtal...@olypen.com
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 2:31 PM
>Message-id: <10b4fre...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Martin Francis wrote:
>
>> Fine art clearly is a bad idea for a "category" for my site- I have pretty
>> much felt uncomfortable with the idea of defining anything I do as "art",
>> as that would be the job of others; nevertheless, I still wish to be an
>> artist. I will have to decide what is going into my online portfolio and
>> give definitions based on what i've got.
>
>There are accepted themes that are commonly considered to be Art.
SNIP
Wrong, themes in and of themselves, whether done by artists or not in the past
are not fine art it is the concrete (and abstract) treatment of those themes
that are Art. Up till Duschamp (sp?) toilets weren't considered an Art theme,
only after he signed one prefabricated toilet as "R. Mutt" did others begin to
commonly accept/see it, and later other prefabricated items which became the
basis for Pop Art. Even elephant dung can be the subject of art, whether
Guiliani thinks it is Art is another matter entirely. Art is not about the
themes, it is about seeing. Any subject or topic can be the basis for "Art",
that doesn't mean that certain subjects are or are not "Art" based on the
inherent nature of the subject/topic/thmem itself. Its the
treatment/handling/vision about such a theme that makes it art, not how many
artists have done the subject or genre. Some B&W nudes are Art and some are
NArt ("not art"). Art is more than a commonly accepted subject/topic/theme(s) -
its all in the handling, the treatment, the seeing the vision.
This post is...
Š 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and flushes) Reserved
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 6:40 AM
>Message-id: <10854830...@lotis.uk.clara.net>
Definitions, like rules, were made to be broken ;-). 'STRANGE TRINITIES" was
done on assignment for Shutterbug, but, like most if not all my work, both
"commercial" and self-assigned I do what I like to please myself regardless so
all I do may be considered "fine art" since I always try to please myself
first, regardless of whether I am getting paid any money to do it. People may
tell me what to do, and even pay me at times for it, but that doesn't stop me
from always trying to please myself first. For the most part people pay me to
be me. I do not consider myself a fine artist at times and a commercial artist
at other times. I am a self-expressionist (and no, this is not an art movement
or a label, I just care more about expressing myself more than what others
think/say or pay me for or as opposed to having to "communicate" with others,
which I do, but that's a secondary if not last consideration). I do what
pleases me. What I "do" is me - pure self expression. Its the thoughtfulness
and vision and inherent worth of what I do that makes it "Art" or not...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 6:01 PM
>Message-id: <Cgusc.56886$V_.26...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
>
> My standard is - if anyone at any time ever called any thing I did "Art"
>then that's my story and I'm going to stick with it.
:-)
Three are schools
>churing out no-talent jerks every year,
and these guys call themselves
>artists on the basis of that degree
Speaking as a talented jerk, I call myself an aritist even though, no
especially because I didn't finish Brooks (photography school), even though I
got into the Master's program there specifically to stop them from trying to
assign me crap I didn't want to do.
- they have no more right to the term
>than you or I.
My turtle is an artist, he graduated from Shell University ;-).
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Martin Francis
news:R3zsc.9744$XI4.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Oh yeah, like he hasn't seen THAT site already.
Martin Francis
news:20040524192956...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> Where is your dead people gallery?
> That is a very serious omission, especially right now when pics of dead
people
> are so in vogue. C'mon Marty, go with what you know!
What do you think those broom handles coming from the back of all those
people's shirts are for?
Long live dead celebrities; Vegas is waiting for me, baby!
> I'll echo the comments that the interface (in it's infancy stage) is a
bit
> cumbersome to use.
Working on it. Seems my old lecturer's site is actually similar in design,
so i'm taking a couple of hints from him. Should look better by tonight.
> Anyway, I'll bookmark your site and come back later to taunt you further.
Ya, my father smells of elderberries. Heard it all before, sod-whopper.
William D. Tallman
Umm... well, unless the viewer can recognize the vision, it can't be
shared. It takes an agreement between the artist and the viewer to create
Art. Otherwise, the "artist" is at liberty to call anything Art. In
general, it is the treatment of recognizable subject material (themes)
according to the artist's vision that makes it possible for the viewer to
assess the value/worth of that vision.
Once an artist has established that value/worth, new and hithertofore
unrecognized subject material can be presented to the viewer. The viewer
now has some sense of the artist's vision, and can attempt to discern it in
the new material. If successful, the new material can be treated by
another artist, who is very likely to avoid going too far afield from what
was initially accepted. Continued success in such treatment qualifies the
subject material as an acceptable theme.
Your assertion that Art must be an expression of the artist's vision is an
acknowledged truism. From the artist's standpoint, having the vision and
being able to express it are the main concerns. But in order to be
accepted by the viewer, it has to be something the viewer can recognize or
it simply does not succeed.
The history of Art records some number of cases where an artist offered what
was unrecognizable, and sometimes because of the subject, only to meet with
rejection. Later, when the subject became accepted, the artist's offerings
were then open to analysis and the possibility of acceptance as Art.
In the case of our discussion here, Martin evidently does not assert that
his work is Art, though acknowledges that it might be. In presenting his
work, therefore, recognizing that there are generally accepted themes
considered as potential for Art can perhaps help him sort his presentation.
I should probably have qualified that statement thus: There are very often
generally accepted themes used in works presented as candidates for
acceptance as Art.
I am a victim of the very thing I've tried to avoid!!!! ARGGHHH!!!
LOL!!!
Does that make sense, Lewis?
Bill Tallman
TP
>But we all know Martin _can't_ choose a brand....
Oh yes he can ... he chooses several at once!
;-)
Lewis Lang
>shared. It takes an agreement between the artist and the viewer to create
>Art.
No, it doesn't. It takes an artist to create art (and sometimes non-artists may
accomplish art as a side effect of merely trying to record what they see.
Communication is not the sine' quo non (sp?) of art, self-expression without an
audience understanding or agreeing to something intended as (good or bad) art
is nonetheless art too.
Otherwise, the "artist" is at liberty to call anything Art.
Anybody can call anyhting anything, art retains some of its art qualities
through how people view/value the artwork and some are inherent. Van Gogh's
paintings would have been just as brilliant artworks had nobody viewed them or
approved of them as art. Each new modern art movement has been derided before
being accepted, from Impressionism to R. Mutt's toilet. There are both art
works and possibly art movements that may never have had an audience beyond the
maker/artist making the art for themselves, that doesn't make them any less
"art."
In
>general, it is the treatment of recognizable subject material (themes)
>according to the artist's vision that makes it possible for the viewer to
>assess the value/worth of that vision.
>
Why is a viewer neceesarily an appraiser? There doesn't have to be a triangle
between artist, work and audience, sometimes there can be a circle and/or a
line between just the artist and the work itself. Sometimes an audience may
come to appreciate an artwork after the artist's death and sometimes, not --
that (lack of an audience to appreciate/understand an artwork) still doesn't
make a work or a body of work any less "art". Some art is done not to have
recognizable themes or modes but purely as self-expression.
>Once an artist has established that value/worth, new and hithertofore
>unrecognized subject material can be presented to the viewer.
Here we agree, but its the artist establishing the worth of his work, value is
not dependent upon an audience. Somethings are simply worth doing because they
are simply worth doing -- whether they are understood or appreciated or not is
besides the point.
The viewer
>now has some sense of the artist's vision, and can attempt to discern it
>in
>the new material. If successful, the new material can be treated by
>another artist, who is very likely to avoid going too far afield from what
>was initially accepted. Continued success in such treatment qualifies the
>subject material as an acceptable theme.
>
Don't care about the viewer or another artist or what is or isn't accepted
and/or considered "successful" -- "the value of the work is the value of the
work" (quote of/from myself), in other words, regardless of how an audience or
other artist(s) value a work there are inherent qualities within that work
itself regardless of how its approved, understood, copied, built upon and/or
accepted.
>Your assertion that Art must be an expression of the artist's vision is
>an
>acknowledged truism.
Truism/shmuism -- its the definition of an artist. "We hold these truths to be
self-evodent" in other(s) words.
From the artist's standpoint, having the vision and
>being able to express it are the main concerns. But in order to be
>accepted by the viewer, it has to be something the viewer can recognize
>or
>it simply does not succeed.
>
...only if you measure success by other's opinions of your work. "The value of
the work is the value of the work." Validation and acceptance of an artist or
an art work or even an art movement is noce but not necessary because "the
value of the work is the value of the work."
>The history of Art records some number of cases where an artist offered
>what
>was unrecognizable, and sometimes because of the subject, only to meet with
>rejection. Later, when the subject became accepted, the artist's offerings
>were then open to analysis and the possibility of acceptance as Art.
>
Yes, exactly what I said a bit above but where I differ with you is whether or
not the artist or the work or his subject becomes accepted or not, if its art
its still art, art history be damned.
>In the case of our discussion here, Martin evidently does not assert that
>his work is Art, though acknowledges that it might be. In presenting his
>work, therefore, recognizing that there are generally accepted themes
>considered as potential for Art can perhaps help him sort his presentation.
>
Again, learn how to separate art from themes -- themes, accepted/done as art or
not are not art, the individual work (or group of works) is/are.
>I should probably have qualified that statement thus: There are very often
>generally accepted themes used in works presented as candidates for
>acceptance as Art.
>
That makes more sense in terms of clarity, though I see that as a principle its
a pretty poor one to be guided by - the work(s) either is art or it "ain't".
>I am a victim of the very thing I've tried to avoid!!!! ARGGHHH!!!
>
>LOL!!!
>
>Does that make sense, Lewis?
>
Not really. But jokes, like art, even if not understood aren't any less funny.
Just because somebody doesn't understand your language doesn't make it any less
a joke or less "art". A joke in French is still funny (or not) whether you can
speak/understand the language or not. If anything, at least the maker hopefully
gets a kick out of the joke. Same thing with art, and especially my art which
to some may be less understandable than French ;-).
>Bill Tallman
This post is very funny (and art) because I see/say it is and is...
Š 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and funny bones) Reserved
William D. Tallman
<snip>
Lewis, I'm not in a position to argue this matter with you, so I won't. I
will simply observe that 'art' is a cultural term and not proprietary to
any given school of artists. It is virtually always a designation granted
in retrospect, when some amount of informed agreement in that regard has
been reached.
Besides, you already have your own very successful proprietary term:
LEWISVISION!!! Which means you shouldn't need to discuss art at all, I
would think. Your own views and understandings are part of what defines
"LEWISVISION" Also, I don't doubt for a second that everything you've
argued is true from the point of view of a generation of artists. Thus it
has always been. Cultural history makes this abundantly clear.
What you argue greatly resembles the sound of one hand clapping in a forest
where no one was present to hear a tree fall. That excludes all the rest
of us, and I suggest that's probably not very useful. But experience
itself is the final arbiter of these issues, not I.
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <10b86sa...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Lewis, I'm not in a position to argue this matter with you, so I won't.
> I
>will simply observe that 'art' is a cultural term and not proprietary to
>any given school of artists.
Agree.
It is virtually always a designation granted
>in retrospect, when some amount of informed agreement in that regard has
>been reached.
>
Not necessarily. There are artists who work or who have worked with no other
audience than themselves. Some are recognised during their lives, some only
after their deaths and some are never discovered and/or approved as artists at
all. Other's opinions does not define _as the final word_ an artists or an
artwork, it/they merely redefine it.
>Besides, you already have your own very successful proprietary term:
>LEWISVISION!!! Which means you shouldn't need to discuss art at all, I
>would think.
Having my own views does not preclude the need or inclination to discuss art,
regardles of whatever impact or lack thereof it has on my work or my views.
Your own views and understandings are part of what defines
>"LEWISVISION"
OK, here we agree ;-).
Also, I don't doubt for a second that everything you've
>argued is true from the point of view of a generation of artists.
Can't say about a generation, I only speak/think from my own views, other's may
coincide or not.
Thus
>it
>has always been. Cultural history makes this abundantly clear.
>
Cultural history is not the only construct artists may work under, neither is
the art system/business of museums and galleries and their acceptance and/or
rejection (of an artist's work). I am anti-cultural and pro art, I prefer my
culture in a yogurt not in some approved institutionalized construct of what is
or isn't art by what amounts to a homind's Terran snob convention and an art
market more ludicrous in shifting and unrealistic valuation than the stock
market.
>What you argue greatly resembles the sound of one hand clapping in a forest
>where no one was present to hear a tree fall.
A song whistled in the dark or to one's self is just as sweet and trees make a
better and more appreciative audience than people sometimes ;-). Personally I
prefer a hand clapping in 4:4 time to the tune "I'll Be Back" by Lennon &
McCartney.
That excludes all the rest
>of us,
It neither includes nor excludes the rest of you, I am usually fairly open in
showing my work even though I haven't exhibited since the 20th century and
really have no desire to do so any more outside of books and magazines and the
like where people will pay me to use/view my art ;-).
and I suggest that's probably not very useful.
Its very useful and more personal - I'd rather go to an artist's house than an
art museum/gallery where they'd try to prepackage my response in an exhibit.
Also, I find artists more fun to talk with than walls, one hand clapping in a
forest or not ;-).
But experience
>itself is the final arbiter of these issues, not I.
>
>Bill Tallman
>
There is no "arbiter" of these issues. Art is a personal matter, that may be
shared... and/or not. No one person or group(s) of people can define it in
total and excluding one's work from these groups doesn't make it any less art.
William D. Tallman
<snip>
I think we agree on these things.
What seems to be the case is that you are unable to manage the point of view
of the viewing (vidience? lol!!!). But this is almost certainly
necessary, as you cannot stop being the artist. Even if you tried, I
suspect... <grin>
And the same is true of the viewers as well; it's highly unlikely they are
able to comprehend the point of view of the artist. You have to be there
to understand, and neither the artist or the viewer can switch places to
really acquire that understanding, or so it appears.
For me, it's not possible to listen to music without a critical point of
view, and I find it virtually impossible to comprehend how others can avoid
doing so, even though I know they cannot be expected to do what they do not
know how to do. So I understand, at least to that extent, your situation.
Good discussion, Lewis!!
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <10b9uq0...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>I think we agree on these things.
>
>What seems to be the case is that you are unable to manage the point of
>view
>of the viewing (vidience? lol!!!). But this is almost certainly
>necessary, as you cannot stop being the artist. Even if you tried, I
>suspect... <grin>
>
By "manage", do you mean control my audience's reaction, handle their reactions
or both? Or even something different? For the most part I just accept that
everyone will come to their own opinions about my/other's work, and since that
is what art is about if it is to be "a living thing for each person" it doesn't
matter to me whether they get their take on my work (or anybody else's for that
matter) right by hitting the nail on the head with every subtle insight seen
and appreciated or whether they are so far off that they see a portrait and
comment "wonderful landscape" ;-). Since nobody tells me what to do (how to
make my art) and their (e)valuation has nothing to do with my aelf-expression,
its just like passing a car on the highway, they have their lane (line of
thinking) and I have mine. What they think or feel neither adds or subtracts
from my (or anybody else's for that matter) work. That's the way it is. And
that's the way it should be and that's the way I prefer it. The value of the
work should be inherent in the work itself, not in the hype and not in the
criticism, even if it comes from an agreed upon concensus by "so called" and/or
real authorities or Joe Schmoe, art critic. The work either works or it
doesn't. Art or Nart.
>And the same is true of the viewers as well; it's highly unlikely they are
>able to comprehend the point of view of the artist.
Sometimes they get it bang on, sometimes they go off on an interesting but
insightful tangent that may or may not be related to/reflect the actual work as
much as reflect their own predilictions and emotional/psychological history,
and sometimes they are so far off basis you wonder whether they are looking at
art or making up sci-fi fantasy stories of their own choosing.
You have to be there
>to understand, and neither the artist or the viewer can switch places to
>really acquire that understanding, or so it appears.
>
No, sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't -- even without being me and
"being there" -- it all depends if you're both on the same wavelength. Just
like the joke analogy I mentioned in an earlier post, if you both speak the
same language (come from a common experience(s)/emotions/attitude/mental mind
set) then you get the joke and the joke either moves you to laughter or not
(though I don't consider my own work "jokes" it has this in common with them).
And its not only a matter of linguistics as far as languages go. American might
find some British humor dry or boring and another type of British humor (Monty
Python?) the most hilarious thing they've ever heard in their life. So it would
seem that some experiences/attitudesrapport/etc. cross beyond national
boundaries and languages into common human experiences that everyone can relate
to (silent films, with their emphasis on visuals, broad emotions and music
(another "universal language" of sorts, if not a perfect trans-cultural
language) also have this ability to speak across cultures and languages). But
this can occur also without a common concensus of agreed upon
authorities/critics. Your audience doesn't have to walk a mile in your rotten
sneakers to know that when shoes fall apart its both funny and/or sad. Some
things, some inherent qualities and values transcend artist/audience
differences enough so that those differences don't matter anymore.
>For me, it's not possible to listen to music without a critical point of
>view, and I find it virtually impossible to comprehend how others can avoid
>doing so, even though I know they cannot be expected to do what they do
>not
>know how to do.
I can appreciate music both without critical framework as well as with, I guess
its different for each person, though. I can't stand, rap, disco, much of Latin
music, much of heavy metal and a wgole slew of music and abstract expressionist
art and no amount of critical enlightment has helped me enjoy these anymore
than I already detest them, however, I used to hate peanut butter and tonic
water, I believe, so tastes can change, but its a personal thing that may or
maynot be aside from whatever education you taste or taste buds get ;-).
So I understand, at least to that extent, your situation.
>
You do? What is it you understand about it?
I just want to do what I love and I don't care who likes it or dislikes it...
unless they pay me money for my work and then the value of their opinion is at
least worth a coffee malted or three...
>Good discussion, Lewis!!
>
>Bill Tallman
>
Thanks but what was the topic? I'm too hungry now to remember!
William D. Tallman
>>Subject: Re: (OT) Okay, then...
>>From: "William D. Tallman" wtal...@olypen.com
>>Date: Wed, May 26, 2004 4:17 PM
>>Message-id: <10b9uq0...@corp.supernews.com>
>>
>>Lewis Lang wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I think we agree on these things.
>>
>>What seems to be the case is that you are unable to manage the point of
>>view
>>of the viewing (vidience? lol!!!). But this is almost certainly
>>necessary, as you cannot stop being the artist. Even if you tried, I
>>suspect... <grin>
>>
>
> By "manage", do you mean control my audience's reaction, handle their
> reactions or both? Or even something different? For the most part I just
Poor use of the word, I guess. The complete phrase should have been:
"manage to achieve the point of view..."
<snip>
> So I understand, at least to that extent, your situation.
>>
>
> You do? What is it you understand about it?
I understand that the only invariant is the Vision. The rest is optional,
even the realization of the Vision. Sometimes one is successful and
sometimes not. Some work is more successful than others. The involvement
of others is largely incidental, sometimes entertaining, sometimes
profitable; it is never fundamental or required.
It is the Vision that validates the life lived in its pursuit. All that is
required is the ability to perceive the Vision, and the opportunity to
engage it. It provides the focus that makes life worthwhile, whatever
happens.
Waylon Jennings sang:
"There are only two things
that make life worth livin';
Guitars that tune good
and firm feelin' women."
For Waylon, that was the entire substance of his vision: to set to music,
and offer to his fellows, shared understanding of what it's like to be
human.
All the rest is incidental, negotiable, arbitrary, etc. Rules, if any, may
or may not apply.
What of these insights are invalid or wrong?
And what did you have for lunch??
LOL!!!
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <10bcbs8...@corp.supernews.com>
Tuna sandwhich.. and you say it better than Waylon even sings it! :-) Now that
I (finally ;-)) completely understand what you said above I have nothing more
to say than I am in complete agreement with your above comments. I'd rather eat
a tuna fish than try to tune it", no that's not my philosophy or vision but it
works, tuna sandwhiches taste better than they sound ;-). My vision (or at
least my taste buds) are more like a good coffee malted ;-).
William D. Tallman
<snip>
>>And what did you have for lunch??
>>
>>LOL!!!
>>
>>Bill Tallman
>>
>
> Tuna sandwhich.. and you say it better than Waylon even sings it! :-) Now
> that I (finally ;-)) completely understand what you said above I have
> nothing more to say than I am in complete agreement with your above
> comments. I'd rather eat a tuna fish than try to tune it", no that's not
What, you no tuna you fish??? Sorry, couldn't resist.... lol!!
> my philosophy or vision but it works, tuna sandwhiches taste better than
> they sound ;-). My vision (or at least my taste buds) are more like a good
> coffee malted ;-).
That's what life's all about, Lewis, for some it's a good 5 cent cigar; for
you it's a coffee malted. For me, I believe........
I'll have a second helping of my wife's wonderful spaghetti and Pesto
sauce!!!
This has been fun!!!
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <10bdjoj...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>And what did you have for lunch??
>>>
>>>LOL!!!
>>>
>>>Bill Tallman
>>>
>>
>> Tuna sandwhich.. and you say it better than Waylon even sings it! :-)
>Now
>> that I (finally ;-)) completely understand what you said above I have
>> nothing more to say than I am in complete agreement with your above
>> comments. I'd rather eat a tuna fish than try to tune it", no that's not
>
>What, you no tuna you fish??? Sorry, couldn't resist.... lol!!
>
>> my philosophy or vision but it works, tuna sandwhiches taste better than
>> they sound ;-). My vision (or at least my taste buds) are more like a
>good
>> coffee malted ;-).
>
>That's what life's all about, Lewis, for some it's a good 5 cent cigar;
>for
>you it's a coffee malted.
SNIP
Only for (some of) my earthly desires, for my heavenly desires I hope to spend
eternity with Jesus, with or without film or malteds ;-).
Lisa Horton
interesting and perceptive insights in some of your posts. That's why I
think you may find the saga of Scott Abraham and RSA (rec.skiing.alpine)
interesting.
The pocket summary would be that in 1999, Scott Abraham, a regular in
RSA, met up with Anthea Kerrison and perhaps other RSA regulars at a ski
area. Something happened, which may or may not involve SA
propositioning AK in some way. It moved to RSA as a flame war, which
apparently went on for some time and got very heated. Then, it moved to
real life, with SA contacting one of his adversary's employers and
getting him fired, an action that was then applied to SA himself.
Ultimately, SA's victim was able to obtain a restraining order
preventing SA from posting in RSA for 6 months, which has now long since
passed.
If you Google for Scott Abraham, you'll find some stuff on the web about
this (the restraining order, a unique first, got more than a little
media attention), and in RSA you can see the history, and you can see it
continuing today.
The whole thing is quite sordid, with elements of alleged childhood
abuse, repressed memories, the men's movement, and more.
Lisa
Doug Payne
> You've shown some
> interesting and perceptive insights in some of your posts. That's why I
> think you may find the saga of Scott Abraham and RSA (rec.skiing.alpine)
> interesting.
To me, it's just kind of sad, rather than interesting. Sure makes a good case
for filters and killfiles and other technical means of quietly ignoring the
trash-talk that goes on incessantly. (I recall the beginnings of that one).
Lisa Horton
This was supposed to be email. Bad day.
Lisa