Objections to objectification

I'm a bit late getting into this discussion but here goes. A photo can be manipulated before, during, and after the shoot to portray whatever the artist wishes. (I say artist, not photographer, because some noted toggers never touch a camera, leaving such trivia to menials.) A painter or sketcher or collage-maker adds material to their work to gain desired results. Photographers generally eliminate elements till only what they desire is visible, very much like sculptors.

A skilled togger portrays an aspect of the character of their subject, whether human or other animal, structure, rock, plant, land- or sky- or sea- or city-scape, etc. Every good photo is a portrait, a portrayal, a representation.

A photo can capture more than a single moment; c.f. multiple exposures. A photo can be rendered in 3D; c.f. hologram, stereopticon, and gum bichromate. Photos can reveal the unseen; c.f. infrared, X-ray, and endoscopy. Photography (literally writing with light) can be quite simple; see photography without a camera.

A 360-degree panorama has no outside-the-frame areas... except my recent panoramic dental X-ray. :D A mirror in the camera frame can reveal what's outside the frame, as can shadows and projections. Photos can be (mis)labeled to give true or false impressions of what's outside the frame. And frame lines can be added to direct or distract the viewer's attention.

A photographer can faithfully record reality or create their own reality. Wow.



Which is down a related, but different tangent, than the Subject as an "object".

Again, I argue that to be an Artist (in whatever medium), one must have a message AND a measure of technical skill. We are all capable of "self-expression".
If ANY self-expression is called "Art"... then.... pffft. I am Baryshnikov.
The neighbor kid is Mozart. Of course THAT is yet another "fork in the road"
 
Just found this thread, and boy, Throbbs - even though it's not erotic per se, a combination of this with your erotic art and knowing you're a woodworker/handy - well, let's just say your name is well chosen.

I briefly dated a theoretical physicist and the pillow talk about his research into black holes was amazing :) The way into the pants is through the ears!
 
Just found this thread, and boy, Throbbs - even though it's not erotic per se, a combination of this with your erotic art and knowing you're a woodworker/handy - well, let's just say your name is well chosen.

I briefly dated a theoretical physicist and the pillow talk about his research into black holes was amazing :) The way into the pants is through the ears!

hmmmm...

She mocks my pompousness!
 
hmmmm...

She mocks my pompousness!

Not at all! I'm enjoying imagining you in the situations in your pictures :) I just added a Felix Vallotton to my sig file (hope it's working) - some of your stuff reminds me of him
 
Not at all! I'm enjoying imagining you in the situations in your pictures :) I just added a Felix Vallotton to my sig file (hope it's working) - some of your stuff reminds me of him

Well thank you...on all scores!:)
Your "sig file"? Did not see it. Unless you mean your AV...I see THAT. :)




Make my head all big. (heh heh)


Unfortunately must log off......must get something to eat!





(luckily, for me, I have been in some of those positions in my pictures. Not enough of them or frequently enough, of course)
 
Last edited:
Ramblings

In reading through this thread and the many interesting thoughts, a couple of thoughts actually crept into my own somewhat foggy brain. I consider myself a mediocre amateur in many hobbies that some can turn into art, be it writing, photography or paints. So please keep that in mind as I attempt some amateur "deep thinking" :)

Is it not the goal of an artist, who is actually trying to say something beyond the portrayal of an "object", to strive for minimization of the clutter of detail in an attempt to emphasize the mystical essence of the "theme"...the "message" of the work? For the "spirit" of the work to be set free, it must not be overburdened or encased with a form too rigidly defined. An easy example in erotic writing is to avoid painting too strict of a description of the beautiful lady lying on the bed. It's the old saying that less is more, because by being vague the artist enlists the imaginations of every person who reads/views the work. In other words, the more blurred the image...the less defined the "object"...the more encompassing and inclusive the work becomes because each viewer becomes his own artist. Is that not the greatest reward an artist can hope for, that the viewer will take my bit of inspiration and then create his/her own masterpiece in the mind's eye?

Now if this is true, I don't know. But if it is true, then this ability to cut out the clutter and capture the true essence beneath the surface is what makes great art. In a sense, it is the selfishness of the viewer that the artist hopes to feed...that desire within us that wants to make everything "speak" to my own inner essence. And if this has any truth, it explains why there are so many art supplies sold but so few masterpieces created from them...it just ain't that easy to capture that elusive essence.
 
yukonnights said:
that there is good in all people, it's just hard sometimes to find...
I had an English teacher who was granted permission from the school to grade everyone based on "process orientation" rather than averaging. If you got an "A" (I'm sure I did) it was because the depth of your writing had improved over the course of the semester. We were given feedback on individual papers, but they were not actually graded. I'm sure he went home at night to beat his wife and drank himself to death, but I remember his class. We all had computers.
 
In reading through this thread and the many interesting thoughts, a couple of thoughts actually crept into my own somewhat foggy brain. I consider myself a mediocre amateur in many hobbies that some can turn into art, be it writing, photography or paints. So please keep that in mind as I attempt some amateur "deep thinking" :)

Is it not the goal of an artist, who is actually trying to say something beyond the portrayal of an "object", to strive for minimization of the clutter of detail in an attempt to emphasize the mystical essence of the "theme"...the "message" of the work? For the "spirit" of the work to be set free, it must not be overburdened or encased with a form too rigidly defined. An easy example in erotic writing is to avoid painting too strict of a description of the beautiful lady lying on the bed. It's the old saying that less is more, because by being vague the artist enlists the imaginations of every person who reads/views the work. In other words, the more blurred the image...the less defined the "object"...the more encompassing and inclusive the work becomes because each viewer becomes his own artist. Is that not the greatest reward an artist can hope for, that the viewer will take my bit of inspiration and then create his/her own masterpiece in the mind's eye?

Now if this is true, I don't know. But if it is true, then this ability to cut out the clutter and capture the true essence beneath the surface is what makes great art. In a sense, it is the selfishness of the viewer that the artist hopes to feed...that desire within us that wants to make everything "speak" to my own inner essence. And if this has any truth, it explains why there are so many art supplies sold but so few masterpieces created from them...it just ain't that easy to capture that elusive essence.

Nice observation.
I think all that CAN be true. On the other hand, There are many great works which are rich in detail (or "clutter"), which could enhance the message, be it beauty (in chaos or diversity or fullness of life). What you describe is more of an impressionistic view or a minimalist view, both are valid. A masterful Artist should be able to direct the viewer with any or all his tools, Including composition, color, repetition, pattern, scale... such that if a piece is "cluttered" or busy, the message will come forth.
 
I thought of that...

Nice observation.
I think all that CAN be true. On the other hand, There are many great works which are rich in detail (or "clutter"), which could enhance the message, be it beauty (in chaos or diversity or fullness of life). What you describe is more of an impressionistic view or a minimalist view, both are valid. A masterful Artist should be able to direct the viewer with any or all his tools, Including composition, color, repetition, pattern, scale... such that if a piece is "cluttered" or busy, the message will come forth.

Even as I was writing about the value of elusiveness, a part of my brain was reminding me about all of the great art that was just the opposite.
I just didn't quite know how to blend the two concepts/styles into the same cake. You're absolutely correct in the observation that I am describing more of an impressionistic approach...and this also happens to be the type of visual art that effects me the most (who could have guessed:). It dawned on me then that it is not so much the art that is good or less so, as it is the impact it has on the one viewing it. Thus, the old saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' seems to make even more sense.

Therefore, back to the level of objectification or even the discussion of what is good art and how to direct the viewer; It seems that the mystical connection between artist and viewer is the key ingredient. Since no two people see the same things in any work, there is no way to define objectification or good and bad or know how to connect with everyone. The art will be forever a tonic that will make some euphoric and others ill (so to speak). If this is true; how then is the artist to proceed? Knowing he/she has no chance of "getting it right for everyone", the only honest path forward seems to be to cast all such cares into the wind and let one's own "essence"...one's own message... try to be portrayed with as much skill as one has. Then, I suppose the shouts of either praise or condemnation of the masses can be the judge...but somehow, this seems to leave much unresolved, because who is to say that the loudest voices are the correct ones?

And just for the record: All this deep talk of mystical essence and such makes my head THROBBS :) But in all seriousness, this thread is a breath of fresh air and very interesting, so thank you for that.
 
... A 360-degree panorama has no outside-the-frame areas...

I get your meaning, though this is pushing my mini-topic to an extreme bias, because I will point out that a 360 degree panorama still doesn't include the photographer themself; thus the photographer is 'out of the camera's frame'. :p
 
I get your meaning, though this is pushing my mini-topic to an extreme bias, because I will point out that a 360 degree panorama still doesn't include the photographer themself; thus the photographer is 'out of the camera's frame'. :p

Which is a good point...AND... is not 720° (just considering the "view" beyond the photographer)...the world ain't flat. Though most paintings tend to be.
 
Back
Top