Aesthetics...

... or
"whatever you like yourself, Missus."

Objectivity shot out the window somewhere during my student years. I had been almost bound in a double Nelson of prescriptions in relation to the Arts in childhood, but with the halcyon days of the 'Sixties came aniline dyes, cheekiness and a delight in subjectivity. What is most heartening about my memories of those times is that the fine underpinning of centuries of design expertise had not been abandoned and people actually spent ages deciding on where exactly to make a hemline or how wide or narrow a belt should be in relation to the overall effect in a dress or suit. As a result, many photos from that time, especially street shots, are actually beautiful as they show a sense of proportion in the subjects captured.

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but it can be useful to think about why some photos are better than others, or why there can be a consensus on such matters. There is almost a cult of ugliness in the visual arts at the moment (I found the 1970's quite painful to look at)... though many will rush to point out that it is my perception that an image or object is "ugly" is the cause of such a statement.

I don't know if the philosophers can help out here...

Seo and Getting a Nice Template to Highlight Work...

I found liteflickr.com for the first time today.

A nifty way of viewing thumbnails of photos "On Black".

Using searches for various tags allows one to view photos with a similar subject.

Ideal!

As If We Didn't Have Enough to Worry Us...

I have reached crisis defecit.

"Is photography in crisis... threadbare...just plain done...???


I don't know... and, not to put a tooth in it, as elders in my childhood used intone,
I don't much care.

Here is a photo of a typical thatched cottage in Ireland... the sort of image that makes even hardened cynics think fondly of days of yore. It has been "enhanced" in a way that speaks to my unconscious, perhaps, or that is to the portion of my unconscious that is still there... it's hard to communicate with it, as it remains, happily, unconscious.

The only crisis I can think of at the moment would occur if there were no cottages left to photograph.

Really...



And here is a cottage that is not thatched, just for variety's sake.

Despite all the advances in technology...

film still gives the finest effects...

Faux Lomo Effects

It's all in the colours, really.

I still remember how puzzled I was by polaroid effects when colour became possible for amateurs in the 1960's. There was a bleached, unreal tint to family shots and I was much pleased to discover slide film at the end of the decade.

This offers a nod to Faux Cross Processing, but is too sharp to take the viewer in,
I think.

Photographers and Moral Rights

There is an engraving by Gustave Doré which shows Don Quixote feverishly brandishing his sword at fantastical creatures swarming round his head. They have emerged from the book of fictional stories that he is reading and he is much exercised on the subject of defending the vulnerable from the over strong.


It is the closest image I can find that expresses the sheer weirdness of contemporary life in relation to Internet usage, particularly copyright and artists' rights.

Don Quichotte, c'est nous?

But Is It Art?

The discussion about Art and Photography has raged for far too long.
The uneasiness surrounding all art works which got fully into its stride in the 20th Century continues to puzzle and alarm.
A discussion on French radio in the early 1970's seemed to state the problem clearly enough
for my uncomplicated mind. There is a piece, consisting of an egg placed on a stool on display,
one of the contributors explained. It is presented as a work of art.
But if one were to be present at the moment when the person making this piece
placed the egg on the stool, would one call him (or her) an artist?

I cannot answer this question.
It makes me laugh, though nervously.
Emphasis on the consciousness of the artist is now old hat.
I used think that if the egg is placed in the allocated spot chosen by
the active agent, the artist, the ensemble is art.
Now I'm not at all sure.
Lurking, always, now is the question as to what unconscious impetus may be
at work when such a piece is created.
Grappling with unforgiving materials, as sculptors do,
always seems to be a more valid artistic activity,
but to think this is probably old fashioned.
I sound like Théophile Gautier, who saw that art must, to be true,
emerge from a struggle with the material world.

The art market has made terrifying demands on artistic merit,
purely by valuing some works at prices that are almost bizarrely
beyond reason. Gursky holds the record for the most expensive
photo ever sold, as the link in the title bar explains.

Whether or not I would be happy to part with millions for such an iconic artefact
raises so many questions about the art world and its inner workings that I feel,
quite understandably, giddy.


Photography, the democratic and mechanical capturing of images in light,exists somewhere in a realm
of disquiet. The macine captures the image, a split second activity that could be executed by remote control
and, nowadays, often is. The question of perception is what makes the photo live.
No machine exists that can interpret a photo truly. The communication between the work made by the
photographer and the viewer, a collusion of perception, is what makes the artwork.
The machine records, the artist arranges, the viewer perceives.

Probably enough for today.

(This, BTW, is not a work of art...
It is a piece of documentary, capturing what the rock face of The Grampians looks like during the day.
Here I am, happily, on much firmer ground...)