projects . gallery . team project . forum . search . members . my space

/forum

User Message
11-09-2008
48 post(s)
It has been so long since I’ve last posted something in this forum, that I wonder if I’m still capable of writing anything in English. Whenever I wander through the tortuous paths of my illusions, I have this strangest feeling that you all miss me a lot and so here I am, for the glory of our relationship, with a subject beaten to death but not yet brought up to stage in Photoholik. Let’s get things straight. Photography is not an Art, and you my friend photographer (with the hope you will not suffer from a post traumatic stress after reading this), you are not an artist. Now, this doesn’t mean you should quit your house and family to immediately join a Buddhist monastery in South east Asia. You’ll notice a light of hope when I’ll tell you that Art, or what we have done from this word/concept, means nothing more nowadays than a huge, out of control, form of business pretending, beyond the materialistic fact of generating money, to set the standards of “truth” in the domain of creativity. Believe me, it is not a place for you my “environmental ethic brother”, neither for you dear “gear geek freak” or even for you, “visual poetic friend”. Business is business and if you’re not familiar with it (ah, how this sounds familiar with the advise I once gave to the “pro wannabees”…), you’d better keep aside not to be triturated by a process that surpasses your capacity of understanding. Let’s be factual. Art is a market, not to say religion, and as any market it exists to conquer new shares of potential addicts – preferably the wealthy type - (even if the word fetishists would be far more adequate). You do not need to have a PhD on your CV to deduct that markets are followed and hold by institutions that either make profit from them, either use them to promote political propaganda or mysterious, unavoidable intellectual tendencies. Photography, the plebeian part of it (I mean US), doesn’t belong to the bunch. Not because, some our friend photographers wouldn’t like it, but simply because the whole process is biased when compared to disciplines as music, painting, sculpture, writing, aso. [i][b] To be followed by part II…[/b][/i]
11-09-2008
48 post(s)
[i][b]Part II….[/b][/i] This put apart, let’s take some time to analyse where and how photography differs from some other creative activities where the expression of inner sensitivities, hence personal universes, seem much more obvious to me. Photography approaches the world in wholes and not in details. The photographer captures a complete image and even though he can work it out in a dark room or with digital software, he is already imprisoned, from the beginning, in a slice of exterior world existing beyond him and in spite of him. Let’s put it differently. Wherever traditional creative processes like music, painting, whatever, work from nothing to achieve a whole, which is the output of the “artist’s” inner world, photographers work all the way around, top down working on details of a whole they portrait but do not really “own”. Not only the process is biased, but also polluted secret dreams of exclusiveness, originality and recognition. The world of photographers (and most surely the photojournalists also) appears to me, nowadays, as a fair of vanities. Booh. I am definitely not better than you, but I claim not being as you. Where most ambitious painters, sculptors or even musicians try to capture the essence (?) and diversity of the environmental world, this same world arrives in the hands of photographers (the very few capable of seizing it) with an astonishing facility. If anything is to be said about this arrival, it is the absence of an artist’s hand, and a sort of rather mechanical process where pressing the shutter is the golden gesture leading to the production of an original product. Well, a technically up to the standard photographer does not carry always within him the soul of an artist, that might be revealed later in a dark room or in front of his computer screen. Have fun taking pics. I’m the first one to travel the Worlds through them. Who cares about Art? Gal
11-09-2008
290 post(s)
This is nice to read you Gal, even it was a bit complicate for my small brain :wave: Art or not, its for my case always a pleasure to shoot where i am, and this i will keep it. pleasure pleasure.
12-09-2008
123 post(s)
Gal, While I understand some of your points. First I think the notion of 'Art' is pretty relative. What could be considered as an Art for you, might not be for me or reversely what is not an Art for you would be me. This really depends on your education, culture, your environment and many another factors that can condition your perceptions of things. Yourself throughout your photo could be considered as an artist by your family or friends ... I can take another recent example: Jeff Koons's exhibit at Chateau de Versailles is a real controversy, a "sacrilège contre le patrimoine nationale" ... I'll come back later to some points. Cheers, Alain -
12-09-2008
23 post(s)
Hi Folks, I've just joined the site and saw this topic - the question posed being something I've pondered for a very long time. I can't say I have any coherent answers but there are questions going off in my head that might provoke further discussions. Is the term 'art' being used here as a substitute for 'dexterity'? If so, then it could be argued that photography is an art in the same way as painting or any other 'artistic' process. That being the case, isn't the output of an artistic process 'art' per se? Alternatively, is art solely defined, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? I think it was Ansel Adams that said something along the lines of 'Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art'. And yet is photojournalism art or just a form of social or historical commentary? Can photography be both things? Why not? To be honest, I'm not convinced there's any difference between a photographer 'painting a canvas' using a camera and enlarger or a painter creating an image with brushes and a chosen medium. The end result of both processes is an attempt to attract a response - be it to the process by which the images have been created or an emotional connection to the subject matter. Or both. As I said, I don't have an answer - just an opinion. For me, photography can be art or just a snapshot of time. or both. A cop out? No, I don't think so. I think that photography's a broad enough church to be capable of having different interpretations, even simultaneously. Cheers and here's hoping I can contribute to the image / art element of the site and learn from you fine fellows...... Paul.
13-09-2008
11 post(s)
Bonsoir Gal, Tu proposes là une réflexion ‘méta’ sur la place de la photographie dans le monde de l’art. J’ai envie d’alimenter ce débat par quelques réflexions qui me sont venues à la lecture de ce que tu écris (même si je ne suis pas certaine d’avoir tout bien compris, because of my english...). Je pourrais difficilement défendre des positions arrêtées du type ‘d’accord / pas d’accord’ sur tes arguments. Ce qui est certain, c’est que ça fait réfléchir. Et moi, ça me fait d’autant plus réfléchir que ces questions, je me les suis posées en relation avec l’écriture (bien que pas tout à fait de la même façon). La première question qui me vient est : Qu’est-ce qui définit l’art ? Pour pouvoir dire si un champ tel quel la photographie se situe ou non dans le champ de l’art, il s’agit en effet de circonscrire ce qui est défini comme de l’art. Il me semble (mais je peux me tromper) que ‘l’art’ se situe toujours à la confluence entre deux choses : un processus créatif (individuel ou collectif) et un champ socio-cutlurel qui reconnaît le fruit du processus créatif comme répondant à des critères plus ou moins établis quant à ce qui peut être considéré comme une œuvre d’art (critères esthétiques, critères de sens, critères de ‘virtuosité’ dans la maîtrise d’une technique donnée). Si j’ai bien compris ton argument, tu défends l’idée que ne crée que celui qui part de rien (la musique à partir du silence, la peinture à partir de la toile, la sculpture à partir de la pierre ou de la glaise, le texte à partir de la page blanche), et que ne peut donc être considérée comme de l’art que l’aboutissement de ce processus qui fait que l’on part de rien pour arriver à quelque chose. Selon cet argument, ne peut être considérée comme de l’art que cette œuvre qui a surgi de ‘nulle part’. Cela me fait penser à la phrase de Kandinsky : ‘La création de l’œuvre est une création du monde.’ Si l’on suit cette logique, le photographe ne crée rien puisqu’il ne fait qu’enregistrer ce qui se présente à ses yeux. Serait-il davantage comme un interprète musical : il se saisit de quelque chose de déjà présent, et ne fait que lui imprimer, en fonction de son savoir-faire, sa part de subjectivité. (à suivre)
13-09-2008
11 post(s)
(la suite) Lors d’une exposition récente sur le sujet des ‘Controverses dans le champ de la photographie’, j’ai été frappée par le fait que l’invention de la photographie a coïncidé avec un moment où la peinture était de moins en moins objectivante, de moins en moins naturaliste, et que les photographies ont en quelque sorte remplacé les peintures dans leur ‘mandat’ de témoigner de la réalité. Alors que la peinture est devenue de plus en plus un support pour que l’artiste y exprime sa vision originale du monde (sa subjectivité), la photographie a pris le relais pour témoigner de l’Histoire. Cependant, parmi les photographes, il y en avait un certain nombre (dont quelques uns qui étaient également peintres) qui, loin d’immortaliser uniquement ce qui se présentait à eux, ont procédé à la réalisation de ‘tableaux photographiques’ : rigueur de la composition / développement de la technique elle-même. Certaines de ces photographies m’ont paru de véritables tableaux, au point que j’aurais été en peine de dire qu’il s’agissait de photographies si je ne l’avais su. Si je suis cette piste, l’œuvre est la résultante d’une union entre une ‘intentionnalité’ (vouloir concrétiser une ‘image mentale’) et un savoir-faire. De la même façon qu’un peintre faisant poser son modèle dans un décor (pose du modèle et décor étant tous deux pensés), de la même façon, ces photographes ‘pensaient’ leur photo avant de la réaliser, et le support photographique n’était que le moyen choisi pour que la scène finale émerge. Ainsi donc, le photographe peut lui aussi partir de ‘rien’ pour arriver à ‘quelque chose’… Pour revenir à l’autre question : ‘Le produit ‘fini’ peut-il être considéré comme de l’art ? Et si oui, par qui ?’, il me semble que n’importe quelle ‘création’ artistique est soumise à la même question. Et là, le débat est tentaculaire… Tu questionnes un autre point : la vanité de l’individu à vouloir se penser comme faisant de l’art (ou comme quelqu’un qui crée, bien qu’à mes yeux, ce ne soit pas systématiquement équivalent), sous prétexte qu’il ‘fait’ de la photographie. La ‘maladie de vanité’ me semble une tendance assez généralisée en occident, dépassant largement le champ photographique. Chacun y va allègrement de son besoin de dire aux autres comment il perçoit subjectivement le monde, en espérant accrocher l’intérêt des autres, en espérant même que les autres trouveront le fond profond et la forme originale, novatrice. Elle est loin, l’époque du Moyen-Âge, où peintres et poètes étaient des anonymes au service d’une collectivité. C’est de bon ton, aujourd’hui, de désirer être un individu ‘accompli’, qui a quelque chose de captivant à dire, à exprimer, à montrer, ce quelque chose méritant une exposition, une publication, une interview. Entre le désir et la réalité, l’écart est évidemment immense. Certains s’en accommodent mieux que d’autres, et tous ne perdent pas le goût aux plaisirs ordinaires… Amitiés Iva
13-09-2008
34 post(s)
Et bien.... Voilà une très belle réplique, savoureuse à souhait... J'apprécie tout particulièrement l'élégance de la conclusion.. "tous ne perdent pas le goût aux plaisirs ordinaires…". Alors si je pense aux plaisirs que j'éprouve lorsque je prends le temps de coller mon oeil au viseur d'un appareil photo, je crois pouvoir dire qu'il s'agit bien là d'un plaisir ordinaire parce qu'à ce moment là je regarde la réalité différemment, je la déguste comme je pourrai m'appesantir sur chaque bouchée d'une patisserie. Et est-ce qu'un plaisir ordinaire peut devenir de l'art ? Fais-je de l'art ? Cette idée délicieuse qui définit l'art comme un processus qui s'érige sur du vide pourrait me laisser penser que ma pratique n'en est pas.... Mais je ne suis pas certain d'être en accord avec cette idée... Je ne crois pas qu'il faille idolatrer la notion d'art, il me semble que chacun peut dans ses plaisirs ordinaires produire de la tambouille que l'on pourrait qualifier d'art.... Alors pour en revenir au propos initial, je dirais pour ma part que la photographie est bien un art même si elle ne fait que jouer de la réalité, un art qui peut n'être que tambouille chez les uns mais aussi magistral chez les autres... Il me semble... edited by Bélibaste on 13/09/2008
13-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=the analog kid] Is the term 'art' being used here as a substitute for 'dexterity'? If so, then it could be argued that photography is an art in the same way as painting or any other 'artistic' process. That being the case, isn't the output of an artistic process 'art' per se? [/quote] Hello Paul, welcome to PH and thank you for joining the discussion. Your feedback is much appreciated. I do think that qualifying art, or any creative process as the sole result of dexterity is a bit simplistic though. I do not think that s[i]ayings or dictums[/i] carry systematically the truth withim them, but I heard this recently: - a man working with his hands is a worker - a man working with his hands and his head is a craftsman - a man working with his hands, his head and his heart is an artist Of course this is caricatural, but still worth reflecting upon. They all can excell in terms of dexterity, which doesn't mean that the creative processes follow the same path, neither that the resultant object will be recognized similarly. Art is something undefinable resulting from production and recognition, the last one being completely biaised in our world obeying to market rules hence dictatorial. Gal
13-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=Iva_R] La première question qui me vient est : Qu’est-ce qui définit l’art ? Pour pouvoir dire si un champ tel quel la photographie se situe ou non dans le champ de l’art, il s’agit en effet de circonscrire ce qui est défini comme de l’art. Il me semble (mais je peux me tromper) que ‘l’art’ se situe toujours à la confluence entre deux choses : un processus créatif (individuel ou collectif) et un champ socio-cutlurel qui reconnaît le fruit du processus créatif comme répondant à des critères plus ou moins établis quant à ce qui peut être considéré comme une œuvre d’art (critères esthétiques, critères de sens, critères de ‘virtuosité’ dans la maîtrise d’une technique donnée). [/quote] Iva, Je suis un de ceux qui ont le privilège de connaître les qualités intrinsèques à ta tournure de plume et me réjouis donc de te voir partie prenante dans le débat. Comme tu le sais, je choisis habituellement l'anglais (bien que cela me demande un effort considérable) pour des raisons non pas d'élitisme mais de partage avec le plus grand nombre. J'espère néanmoins continuer de lire régulièrement ici le fruit de tes écrits en français, s'il le faut ;o), tellement je suis sur de la valeur de tes réflexions pour l'ensemble de cette communauté. Ce que je me permets de critiquer de façon acerbe c'est, tu l'auras noté, ce [i]champ socio-culturel qui reconnaît le fruit du processus[/i] auquel tu fais référence. Les critères d'esthétisme, sens et virtuosité font souvent (la plupart du temps) place à des lois micro-économiques plus proches des marchés boursiers que du salon littéraire. D'où le doute que je nourris vis-àvis de cette sorte de [i]vérité créationnelle[/i] à laquelle les soi-disant spécialistes en art qui arpentent les salles feutrées de Sotheby's ou autre essaient de nous faire plier. [i]Hasta la victoria. Siempre.[/i] ;o)) Gal
13-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=Bélibaste] Je ne crois pas qu'il faille idolatrer la notion d'art, il me semble que chacun peut dans ses plaisirs ordinaires produire de la tambouille que l'on pourrait qualifier d'art.... Alors pour en revenir au propos initial, je dirais pour ma part que la photographie est bien un art même si elle ne fait que jouer de la réalité, un art qui peut n'être que tambouille chez les uns mais aussi magistral chez les autres... Il me semble... edited by Bélibaste on 13/09/2008[/quote] Art, tambouille, bouillabaisse, méchoui. paella... Bien que je sois pour la cuisine, musique, culture (etc, etc..) du monde, je ne suis pas certain que les amalgames de tout ordre et les créations [i]du Chef[/i] pour le menu du jour soient toujours un orgasme pour le palais. Ce serait dommage (pour ne pas dire diabolique) si tout était dépendant uniquement de l'avis de l'ogre fourchu attablé hurlant [i]"Tavernier! A bouffer!"[/i]. Amicalement Gal edited by galeota on 13/09/2008
13-09-2008
23 post(s)
Hi Gal. Well, I am a very simple man at heart! I completely agree that just because someone like Ansel Adams said it that it is not a universal truth. However, the crux of my supposition is, I suppose, is that if people find the photographer's output 'artistic' as opposed to, say, interesting as a social record, then - to the viewer at least - the photgrapher is an artist and his work is 'art'. The quote you included is very perceptive. My father was a cabinet maker and antique restorer who most definitely worked with his hands, head and his heart. He would never have claimed to have been an artist, though, but I know many people who have described his work as 'a work of art'. Again, only a figure of speech but the difference between an Ikea stool and a Chippendale chair. Function and form. It's almost certainly true that the Ikea stool will be long forgotten firewood centuries before Chippendale's 'art' will have fallen from grace! Oh well; I doubt this subject will ever be decided. Would that someone would regard my work as art one day....... Best wishes, Paul.
14-09-2008
34 post(s)
J'ai quand même la sensation que ce qui sous-entend la notion d'art dépend étroitement de l'œuvre que l'on peut avoir dans le ventre... Je ne pourrais me qualifier de photographe car l'appareil en tant que tel m'est à ce jour encore insaisissable, que l'on me jette dans les mains un argentique et je n'aurai de production probable que des images floues ou mal dosées de lumière. Je ne peux également me qualifier d'artiste, non que la photographie n'appartienne pas au domaine des arts mais je n'ai pas la perception de posséder dans mes tripes ne serait-ce que les prémisses d'une œuvre. Je ne fais qu'illustrer des tableaux avec plaisir et j'éprouve une sorte de joie enfantine en imaginant que certains puissent également en ressentir lorsqu'ils visualisent ma production.
14-09-2008
142 post(s)
Interesting debate, that's why we missed you too, Gal and what for the least I was expecting from you. Just let me read what has been said so far, think about it and be sure I'll drop by and post my feelings. btw, a little bit off topic, I am quite impatient to see what one the latest registered members will upload here... as I didn't know him yet from [i][b][color=#996666]ye auld site[/color][/b][/i], I googled his name and stumbled into his flickr gallery... gosh!
14-09-2008
142 post(s)
Ok this is the result of my readings. Let’s say I do not disagree with Gal, moreover his opinion is also in accordance with the greatest of all, namely the late HCB who once said “[i]Photography is definitely not an art, it only needs an eye and a finger in working condition[/i]”. It happens that I slyly pulled out this sentence one evening in front of a professional photographer selling her photos through an art gallery, as a result the attendance suddenly stopped talking and dipped their nose into their glass of wine. I waited for one second and added “… [i]but it might not be my own feeling[/i]”. My nose grew up instantly for about 17 cm. before she replied “[i]Yes, I think this is really silly this guy HCB must not know anything about photography[/i].”. Now I am pretty sure the question ([b]PHOTO=ART : Y/N[/b]) will not be answered at the end of the topic, even if it is argumented for months –that’s what I’d hope in my dreams even though I don’t believe it will- . I’ve been struck from the readings how little litterature there is about photography, I mean there is aplenty about technique but very few meaningful essays on the act or the essence of photographying, On my own, I only know Barthes , Bourdieu, Freund, Sontag, Tisseron and also I think all HCB has written about his work is interesting in that respect (He was one of the few photographers with Adams to be able to make a theory about his photography, That’s why I take him as probably the greatest of all). The more abundant chapter of History of photography, like Iva reminds is also useful to read because I think it gives hints about the social use of photography and its evolution through time, on another plane Ferranti’s “Lire la photographie” approaches the process of the creation of a photography and the relationship between the photo, the maker and the reader but never even tackles the art/not art issue. Maybe the sensible target would be to collect on either side the reasons why photo should be or shouldn’t be classified as an art. Personally, I do not take photo as an art, I think it owes more to [b][u]craftsmanship[/u][/b], Firstly because of the reasons already explained by Gal related to the process of creation : firstly photo is too technically driven, be it from its tools or its raw material. In my mind, art creation has to priorily generate the less technical constraints as possible. Of course you may argue that music comes form a technical instrument, but music adds the further dimension that it can be played with no instruments but the voice and also it can be a combination of instrument. Imagine a photo taken only with your hands (I do not mean your index AND a camera... no, simply your hands and an “[i]air[/i]” camera) or that a single photo could be a combination of a large format camera and a Polaroid camera and on top of that a 5Dmkii. Probably Man Ray was closer to art than anybody when he was reinventing photography in the 30’s. But frankly we are so far away from his photographic purpose (and not even interested maybe). ...to be cont'd...
14-09-2008
142 post(s)
[i][b]Part deux [/b][/i]: Secondly I do not agree with the definition of craftsmanship and art as given by Gal. Craftsmanship is also a matter of head and heart, like Paul, the Analog Kid, recalls. I am not sure relativism is good to all sorts of fields, like language for instance, grammar is not relative as the general sense of words. Art is a category, let’s put the right things in the right category. The problem with our postmodern times is that everything is in everything : the 7th art, the new 7 wonders of the world (including the statue of the Christ redeemer in Rio while Angkor or the Shwedagon or even the Pyramids are absent of the list… jeeze, what a bunch of ignorants), Cartoons as an art (Is manga an art? Tell me the truth…) etc. Ok, there is sense and heart involved in many things, Ferran Adria is probably a creative genius when he cooks with nitrogen or serves spherical mussels, Loiseau shot himself when he was threatened to have his third star removed. Does it entitle cooks to be considered as artists? My point is that there is an Art category, let’s not extend it because everybody wants to be an artist it’s a question of meaning, otherwise I’ll call my concierge an artist because he takes the rubbish out everyday with his heart. In fact the “artist” social level is the next step to the general middle class society. Now that most of the people are middleclass, they’d like to raise to the “artist” category. While I am writing this I realize I could historically relate that to the “experience economy” stage we are stepping in : that means since a dozen of years, wealth comes from the emotions one can experience. The experience makes the added value while before that the services one could bring to the consumer was the value, therefore photographers would rather have seen themselves like travelling adventurers bringing a full story from the outside. Times even before value came from preparing raw material into a finished product, the photographer was someone who domesticated the reality : photo had to come close to reality and embellish it into a flattering portrait. The reality was the myth then the reporter was the myth, now the artist is the myth, who’s next? Thirdly let’s have a look at the purpose of art. For me there is no other purpose to art than giving emotions or pleasure, there should be no other functional reasons behind. Arts are the entertainment of the king : the artists are the buffoons, that’s what distinguishes art from craftsmanship. Craftmanship is a serious functional matter, art is absolutely superfluous, unessential. That’s for instance the difference between dance and practising tracks and field, the latter being functional. If you partially or -why not- completely agree with this objective, then we should zoom on the purpose of photography and as far as I can see there are many purposes of photography but not many are pleasure only related : • Taking images for memory purpose like holidays snaps. Out. • Documentation related images, like photos of buildings, animals, portraits, fashion. Out. • Photojournalism : that’s reporting purpose images, of course they can be as creative as you want, but the main purpose is not to give emotions, it is to REPORT of something existing. This is would be like saying that writing sport related articles in l’Equipe is an art. Antoine Blondin, for me probably the most elegant french writer of the second part of the XXth century, was writing in L’Equipe for the Tour de France. His articles weren’t ART to me, even though they were highly entertaining. • “Artsy” blurry or overexposed photos exposed in some galleries or museums… this takes us to the fourth point. .. to be cont'd...
14-09-2008
142 post(s)
[b][i]Finally[/i][/b] : Fourthly I think that Art has to have a primary essence. Painting is colors, light and 2D, Dance is space and motion, Music is rhythm and sounds, etc. Please tell me what the f*** is photography? In fact that is the first question to answer but I fear the problem has not been solved since the first ages of photography and that you have read this long reply for nothing while you should be out in the streets enjoying yourself, reading a good book instead of a mediocre post, practising some craftsmanship or any other arty occupations like painting :) ….hehe… Like Iva wrote if you read books about the history of Photography you will find that is has evolved much since the beginning, partly because of the technical and the social evolution, but I also find in the end it has balanced much between two opposite directions. The evolution of photography in the beginnings could be summarized as a passage from realism (trying to mimick reality) to pictorialism (finding artsy ways mimicking painting) and then to straight photography (“as is” pretending that photography is a genre in itself) and afterwards surrealism (everybody knows what surrealism is about but nobody can define how it translates in art, as the creation process has gone every ways possible : how would you link HCB to Man Ray knowing that both are coming from surrealism.). This was just to prove that still noone to my knowledge has yet defined the essence of photography. If you ask me that would be light (isn’t that Painting, btw, which gives more freedom?) and Time. Yes we get it : TIME. Photo is a way of capturing time, that lost dimension could be a fine material for an art that doesn’t even appear in the list. The problem is that Photo captures a single moment of time, it would like a painting made with only one color, in that respect maybe video would be a better candidate to the art academy, right? Maybe 7th art is not an undeserved statement for the film industry. As a conclusion I have none, except that photo has still to prove it is an art. For me it is not. And sorry for that longish post. Just thinking openly, you can go back and watch TV now. Cheers Luko
14-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=Luko] Thirdly let’s have a look at the purpose of art. For me there is no other purpose to art than giving emotions or pleasure, there should be no other functional reasons behind. Arts are the entertainment of the king : the artists are the buffoons, that’s what distinguishes art from craftsmanship. Craftmanship is a serious functional matter, art is absolutely superfluous, unessential. That’s for instance the difference between dance and practising tracks and field, the latter being functional. [/quote] ‘lo Luko, It is useless to say that your faithful presence, whenever it comes to share your vast knowledge on the subject and always pertinent opinions, is not only welcome but strongly expected and, of course, irreplaceable. I hope some others will pop in to comment (the more we are, the funkier/funnier it should get…), but felt the need to publicly disagree with some of your thoughts which go beyond photography and set a standard, or a reference point to what is/is not essential to our lives as conscious beings (hence, whose needs go beyond bread and water), or at least define art as a mean for the sole amusement of the “spirit”. I do think that food for soul is no less fundamental than cailles en sarcophage, a grilled lobster at the sunset your naked feet on the sand or a € 0.40 French baguette to go along with your evening sour soup while glancing at the evening news. You tell us art is superfluous and unessential. Ok, we’re still able to survive (but what else) without it ; no doubt. So, tell me, what kind of man would you be then, if you weren’t allowed to benefit from what is qualified as art on your daily life, or even take part in its process as a way to reach and be recognized by others? What would differentiate you from your Cro-Magnon cousin? The quality of milk? Don’t you believe that there are fundamental processes or attitudes characterized by their essential role on our evolution, rather than superficiality, in spite of their lack of functionality? Besides, why fussle about “functionality”? Isn’t a Haydn’s sonata much more useful, hence functional, than a kebab? (please spare me the starving Ethiopian kid point of view). To my understanding, the King, as well as the buffoon, the servant or the slave, each within the bias of his own environment would be no less than animals in the absence of dance, songs, drawings, poetry, whatever comes from within and give them breath not only to stay alive, but change. That’s much more important and fundamental than feeding their stomach with an onion soup and French fries. My point is, whatever gives emotions or pleasure serves a way more functional purpose than the basic survival (Swiss knife type) kit. Best Friendly, Gal edited by galeota on 14/09/2008
14-09-2008
290 post(s)
Luko wrote: btw, a little bit off topic, I am quite impatient to see what one the latest registered members will upload here... as I didn't know him yet from ye auld site, I googled his name and stumbled into his flickr gallery... gosh! Pu****! J'ai regardé. Encore une frustration à digérer. C'est énorme. ???
14-09-2008
48 post(s)
[quote=flydragon] ???[/quote] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/]ici[/url] edited by galeota on 14/09/2008