creative/intellectual critiques and info

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by excentrique


I agree with this point. critique should be retained. Is either we modify it or we have a new section where we can just 'study' pictures. It need not necessary to be just members work. But pictures from well known photographers as well. The idea is to create more exposure possiblities to different types of works, and the differect aspects of criting a work.

Excentrique;

I am one of those who voted, "Nay" and initially i thought that would be all. However, the interesting thing was the picture (Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath) stuck in my head and i decided to read more about it and over the next few days, i realised that i have just learnt a few new things.

I can frankly and honestly say that there isn't anything wrong with you trying but remember, it's all about bringing it to the masses. I am one of the "masses" here and the jargon used, and not to mentioned the way it came across wasn't really attractive to me. Too serious, too (pardon the term) arty-farty and well, un-appealing.

Once again, allow me to stress that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing but try to understand that what you want to do must cater to a broad spectrum. Appreciation of photography is very subjective so there can be no "set standard". Everyone also learns at a different pace so once again, trying to push or set a standard wouldn't be wise.

Instead, continue to do what you want to do, but not over-whelm the reader. Informing & educating is important. But remember, sharing is probably the best way to go about it. (Hopefully, you get what i am trying to put across to you)

I am sure there will be quite a few CS-ers here that have benefited from that initial post.

Good luck with your endeavour. Half the battle has been won. Now to press on.

 

[excentrique]

Originally posted by Wolfgang

I am one of the "masses" here and the jargon used, and not to mentioned the way it came across wasn't really attractive to me. Too serious, too (pardon the term) arty-farty and well, un-appealing.

Appreciation of photography is very subjective so there can be no "set standard". Everyone also learns at a different pace so once again, trying to push or set a standard wouldn't be wise.

Instead, continue to do what you want to do, but not over-whelm the reader. Informing & educating is important. But remember, sharing is probably the best way to go about it. (Hopefully, you get what i am trying to put across to you)

Well, i guess like any other field of specialties, photography itself has alot of jargons. Maybe I was not mindful enough to simplify things. However, I did try to use images to facilitate the reading.

It's also hard for me explain everything in details. I could only do that if only people start asking me the meanings of the jargons. If I make it too idiot-proof for reading, the content may even be more laborious to read. Trying to balance the length of the content and making sure everyone understand it was not an easy job as I have realised in this test. What I want to acheive however, is to induce the curiousity of the readers and not to spoon feed the reader. I'm leaving room for them to question what they read. The goal here is much more realistic than being idealistic.

I have no intentions to push up the standard. As you have said that everyone learns at a different pace. The thing is to increase the awareness of different types of work in clubsnap. I'm only creating an opportunity for them to find out. The rest still have to depend on the member's interest, and how much they want to know.

Well, as for it being unattractive, arty-farty, I feel it's more a matter of taste.I think there are alot of people here with different approach of criting a work. There are alot of sections here to cater for the mass which I think is quite sufficient. For people looking for more serious stuff, hmm... not that much.

Seriously the last thing I'll ever want to do is to educate. I not that smart or enlighten to do that. What i'm doing is purely sharing what I know and infact I really want people to challenge my thoughts. I think that's my interpretation of intellectual critique. There is a mutual exchange of ideas and perpective.

 

[weg]

I think it's a good idea to have a place where pple can view works of high standards and discuss about it... but its success would I think depend on the general interest of the forumers. If pple are generally more interested in less "heavy"stuff then that section of the forum may eventually be viewed by just a few, critiqued by the usual few, and become irrelevant?

Think right now CS is still not ready for a stand-alone section for such things.... maybe every fortnight we have a "case-study" on such a genre and let pple discuss abt it, then hopefully the standard of appreciation and the level of interest in such things will improve.

So my point is that even though most of our appreciation and standard in art is still lacking ( like me), we still need some injection of "higher" artform to keep us aware of the existence of such things, and to strive towards that standard if we're interested.

 

[weg]

Originally posted by excentrique

What i'm doing is purely sharing what I know and infact I really want people to challenge my thoughts. I think that's my interpretation of intellectual critique. There is a mutual exchange of ideas and perpective.

unfortunately there are many times when pple follow the status quo and dare not critique/comment against the flow of comments posted earlier. eg when most of the pple who posted before you said a photo is good, there are very few who dare say otherwise, esp if the pic is posted by an "old bird". At least this is what i noticed. But maybe pple are just being polite and refrain from posting negative comments.

 

[Jed]

And who is to say what the higher art form is? Who is to determine who is capable of critiquing the higher art form? Excentrique? Scriab? Me? Who? Why?

 

[rumraisin]

Personally, I think it could be a good idea-- people shouldn't be so quick to brand it elitist or whatever. It's not about making anyone feel inferior-- it's about learning to appreciate great works of art, or discussing why they are not, as the case may be. Every artist can benefit from studying good specimens of their art form.

As to who will choose the images, why not open it to anyone to propose any image which they deem great, so long as it's justified? If it's not great, the thread will just die a natural death. If it is great, it should generate intelligent, interesting discussion which is always good.

In this forum, there's a lot of discussion of fine pieces of equipment-- so why not have discussion on fine pieces of art as well? In fact, isn't it more interesting to discuss the created product rather than the tools used? Granted, there are the photos we post up in the forums, but they seldom provoke in-depth discussion.

 

[Jed]

Who chooses the pictures is one thing. But I am more concerned with who posts the critiques and discussions. Without some semblance of order, then it would be a case of the blind leading the blind or the cultivation of an atmosphere of the emperor's new clothes. Who's to say that Excentrique, Scriab, myself, or anyone else here on CS is better qualified to do that?

Does a university degree confer that ability? Or knowing the ins and outs of the pro circuit? What renders someone capable in what is inherently a subjective issue?

 

[ckiang]

While we are on the topic of arty stuff and the related critique, let's see what critique the experts here can come up with for this excellent piece of artwork, IKB 79 by Yves Klein.

Regards
CK

 

[togu]

Originally posted by ckiang
While we are on the topic of arty stuff and the related critique, let's see what critique the experts here can come up with for this excellent piece of artwork, IKB 79 by Yves Klein.

Regards
CK

* togu waits for some high standard critique....

 

[Goondu]

Wah, beautiful (with a tinge of sarcasm).

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by ckiang
While we are on the topic of arty stuff and the related critique, let's see what critique the experts here can come up with for this excellent piece of artwork, IKB 79 by Yves Klein.

Regards
CK

I thought this one was excellent because he *made* the colour pigment? i.e. this blue is actually a pigment/dye formulated by him, and is *ahem* his main source of fame n income... at his time, this colour hadn't exist in dye and he made an extremely high quality version.

well have we seen any pictures "shot" by adam king? I bet those are mainly of "birds" and through "add-on" glass(es).

 

[Jed]

Historical background
Yves Klein was born 1936 in the South West London suburb of Barnes. The son of two week whirlwind romance between renown photographer Saint Yves Laurent and sculptor Kelvin Klein, Yves Jr grew up in an orphanage hoping to one day star as the lead in the West End musical Oliver Twist. He discovered at the tender age of 25 that, after 17 years of neverending auditions and rejection slips, that a thespian he was never going to be. Instead he turned to the booming post-Second World War market for illicit pornographic pictures. But fate dealt him a cruel twist just before he made his first million, and Yves was deported to post-Gulf War Afghanistan to make a living selling carpets and sheets of canvas.

"IKB 79" was created in the mountains of Tora Bora, two days after the departure of an infamous Bin Liner, and two hours after the completion of his previous masterpiece, "IKB 78". This marked a prolific period for Yves, who completed 80 pieces of breathtaking skill and toil ("IKB 80" was completed 90 minutes after "IKB 79") in four torrid weeks amidst the bombing of the Allied oppressors.

As illustrated in the masterpiece, in true Epson "if this were printed on an Epson you would see a crow perched on a piece of charcoal" manner, a mystical blue-winged blue-crested parrot is soaring majestically against a clear blue sky. Sad to say that as a result of massive pollution, the entire work has been coated in blue radiation, but I'm sure you can use your imagination.

Work content:
Technical qualities
Composition of the image demonstrates fluency in geometric composition and stresses heavily on the golden section, demonstrated in the placement of the parrot in the frame. (Refer to image) Lighting and exposure is excellent, the source of light on the subjects coming from the side/back produces a quality similar to paramount lighting, giving it a very dramatic appearance.

In particular I feel it worth emphasising the excellent technical quality of the canvas. The final result as shown holds rich tones, showing a very good range from the blues, to blues and blues. Details and textures are exquisitely preserved.

Aesthetic qualities
This piece of work is symbolic. It transcends the obvious, and requires the viewer to exercise his or her own interpretation of the scene. You can truly say that Yves Klein has done well to go beyond the literal to take us into another dimension in our appreciation for this piece.

If the viewer compares the canvas to the works of great modern artists during the prehistoric period (e.g. John-Poll Gawty-Eh, Dawna Curran and George Yo Armany), he or she may be able to find a number of similarities of composition to all the other brilliant masterpieces, from concentric squares, to nesting jewellery boxes, to installation art at it's best, the flicking on and off of lights being the culmination of the best the Turner price has to offer. Of course it bears great resemblance to another piece of outstanding work to which all artists should aspire to - that piece of black canvas, allegedly by the genius of Pet Mandragon.

Due to the theatrical quality of "IKB 79", expressed in the image, it is cynically beautiful and yet poignant. The sky itself holds ethereal significance in various religions, the act of looking up at a free and open sky is symbolic in many cultures of seeking freedom, and in many religions of seeking divine intervention.

Influence in media
The image itself is shocking and disturbing. It serves as a reminder of suffering, preserving the world heritage, holding historical value for future generations to learn from the past by reading images in paintings, sculpture, architecture and photography. After all it suggests that you might think that you have freedom and liberty, but compared to the blue-winged blue-crested parrot, there are so many constraints placed upon your freedom.

Summary
This piece of work has gone beyond just good technical control in the art. It also demonstrated the effective use of an image as a statement. Being sensitive to his surroundings, cultures, practices and history; together with sound technical foundation in splashing canvas with blue paint, Yves Klein has presented to us with works great work of art and questions to humanity. The role of art seen here is not merely an act of beautifying but plays a significant role in recording history and educating the society.

A good piece of work demands multi-aspects of disciplines. There should be good balance between technical skill, subject matter, and intellectual involvement and stimulation. As seen in Mr. Klein's work, his work was not only visually beautiful, it is haunting, and disturbing. His picture does not tell us about his thinking, but invited us to his experience. And this experience is indeed more descriptive than any words can describe.

Written by No One in Particular
This entire work is a figment of the imagination and all characters are entirely ficticious. The author apologises for any inconveniences caused.

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by Jed
Who chooses the pictures is one thing. But I am more concerned with who posts the critiques and discussions. Without some semblance of order, then it would be a case of the blind leading the blind or the cultivation of an atmosphere of the emperor's new clothes. Who's to say that Excentrique, Scriab, myself, or anyone else here on CS is better qualified to do that?

Does a university degree confer that ability? Or knowing the ins and outs of the pro circuit? What renders someone capable in what is inherently a subjective issue?

erm yeah I see ur pt, w/o some form of appropriate "qualification" on the critics' part everything wd be status quo, just that we use more technical language... and could end up as another nikon vs canon style argument...

but I think at least the showcase section and the advanced critique section is possible, being more concrete and straightforward in purpose... maybe let the advanced critique section have a requirement where the poster is required to post his own analysis along with the picture, whether correct or otherwise cos that's his/her view, and then let the "experts"/experts feedback if the picture works or if it needs some more work, or suggest variants to this shot.

the intellectual discussion is more for academic amusement, eg nikon vs canon, or film vs black/white or *ahem* DoF/CoF...

 

[Jed]

Now, before you dismiss that previous post as being inflammatory, a good laugh, or the ravings of a lunatic, bear these in mind:

[1] Such a work is actually being sold for UKP4000+ in a London gallery, last I heard.
[2] Many of the words in that article I have culled directly from the earlier comment by Excentrique and Scriabinesque. Yet in all honesty, a lot of it could apply to the piece they were critiquing, as well as this ficticious piece that I refer to. What does that suggest to you?
[3] Quite separate from the element of fun, I have added extra intellectual bits here and there to the original, giving you what, jokes aside, could be a proper intellectual critique of the aforementioned work, even leaving out the original comments from Excentrique and Scriabinesque. What I'm saying it, I wrote an intellectual critique on this piece of blue canvas as well. What does that tell you?

(If you're wondering the difference between points 2 and 3, point 2 refers to the universal suitability of some comments made by critics, while point 3 refers to the apparent farce of being able to truthfully apply intellectual comments to a blue piece of canvas).
Just food for thought, and not in anyway an attack on the comments thoughtfully provided by Excentrique and Scriabinesque in all seriously and goodwill.

And yes. If you were wondering, there really is a critically acclaimed piece of black canvas out there as well.

 

[excentrique]

Originally posted by Jed
Now, before you dismiss that previous post as being inflammatory, a good laugh, or the ravings of a lunatic, bear these in mind:

[1] Such a work is actually being sold for UKP4000+ in a London gallery, last I heard.
[2] Many of the words in that article I have culled directly from the earlier comment by Excentrique and Scriabinesque. Yet in all honesty, a lot of it could apply to the piece they were critiquing, as well as this ficticious piece that I refer to. What does that suggest to you?
[3] Quite separate from the element of fun, I have added extra intellectual bits here and there to the original, giving you what, jokes aside, could be a proper intellectual critique of the aforementioned work, even leaving out the original comments from Excentrique and Scriabinesque. What I'm saying it, I wrote an intellectual critique on this piece of blue canvas as well. What does that tell you?

This piece of work is probably influence by the 'Dadism' movement. (at around 1915 0r 1916). It's a movement which artist's put ideas onto art form. A piece of work no longer concentrate on the technical aspects but concentrates on putting across a statement or feeling. This work was meant to bring a sense of 'spiritual' to his audience.

Well, seriously there is no technical superiority in this painting. Anyone can do that. You don't need an adult to do a painting and call it art. The difference between a kid and an artist is his brain. Strangely art has evolved so much from the traditional craftmanship. Art is not just seen as something superficial. In today's context, it also include the experience of the artist and his viewers. (e.g installation/interactive arts)

Well, what made him come to this idea of painting a blue canvas and evoke a 'spritual' feeling. I as an audience will never be able to find out. That's the feedom of art I think. The artist has the freedom to do what he wants so as long as he know deep inside him he has a reason for doing so. It may be shit for all we know but as long as someone whom can relate to it, he may buy it. And if the buyer think he is 'spiritually' uplifted everytime when he looks at the picture, well you could say that the artist is sucessful is portrying what he wants.

What the buyer does is not buying just a painting. He is buying his 'spiritual' home. The idea behind the artist is to make his audience reflect upon seeing the painting. Maybe find some solace in it. The idealogy is somewhat very 'arty' in this aspects.
It's not meant to make up any imagination, of birds flying in sky or something of that sort. It is the meaning of it that matters and not the appearance.

 

[excentrique]

Originally posted by Jed
[1] Such a work is actually being sold for UKP4000+ in a London gallery, last I heard.
[2] Many of the words in that article I have culled directly from the earlier comment by Excentrique and Scriabinesque. Yet in all honesty, a lot of it could apply to the piece they were critiquing, as well as this ficticious piece that I refer to. What does that suggest to you?
[3] Quite separate from the element of fun, I have added extra intellectual bits here and there to the original, giving you what, jokes aside, could be a proper intellectual critique of the aforementioned work, even leaving out the original comments from Excentrique and Scriabinesque. What I'm saying it, I wrote an intellectual critique on this piece of blue canvas as well. What does that tell you?
[/B]

[1] If it is a piece work which the buyer can relates to 'spiritually' (even you may call it self pity or denial) I think it's still a good buy. That picture means something to him and as long as he can find some meaning to him and has the money for it, so be it.

[2] yes, the format which i wrote can be used in any form of crtiting. But it's not meant even to be a format alt all, or for all for one format. I think different types of works have different approach of how you should crit it. In this case, I won't even talk about the technical side. But rather talk about Dadaism movement. Trying to make-believe when people can't relate to it, as proven by you is nonsensical. There is no format.

[3] I appreciate your intellectual critique of how humorous it can be when you try to put the frame work which I have used previously into this piece of work. However, as said in the earlier point, work should be critique from different approach as and when is suited.

 

[excentrique]

Originally posted by Jed
Who chooses the pictures is one thing. But I am more concerned with who posts the critiques and discussions. Without some semblance of order, then it would be a case of the blind leading the blind or the cultivation of an atmosphere of the emperor's new clothes. Who's to say that Excentrique, Scriab, myself, or anyone else here on CS is better qualified to do that?

Does a university degree confer that ability? Or knowing the ins and outs of the pro circuit? What renders someone capable in what is inherently a subjective issue?

As wrote by you, I truely agree that who is to determined who is right or qualified. Well, the idea is that there will never be an absolute answer or right person. The reason having an intellectual critique is not to prove who is right. But rather share the thoughts. Hearing from others and at the end derive something from it, and adjust your ideas if needed. The idea behind is to sitmulate thinking.

 

[rumraisin]

So you think it will be a case of people posting nonsensical work, and then having some silly pretentious discussion about it?

I think that CSers aren't that silly-- I think that people can tell when an image is great or has a certain depth that's worth studying. Like the example image Excentrique posted up--I think it's such a striking image that anyone would be want to find out the meaning of that photo. Is it about death? A mother's love? Why does it bear striking resemblance to the Pieta? What's the story behind it? All these things could make for an intriguing discussion.

Critique is all about noticing new things and understanding what's going on. It's not some cheem thing which excludes all but intellectuals.

Critiquing doesn't mean we have to read all kinds of ridiculous meanings into nonsense pieces of art, like the blue square that togu posted up. Although it could be fun to do that too

Originally posted by Jed
Who chooses the pictures is one thing. But I am more concerned with who posts the critiques and discussions. Without some semblance of order, then it would be a case of the blind leading the blind or the cultivation of an atmosphere of the emperor's new clothes. Who's to say that Excentrique, Scriab, myself, or anyone else here on CS is better qualified to do that?

Does a university degree confer that ability? Or knowing the ins and outs of the pro circuit? What renders someone capable in what is inherently a subjective issue?

 

[shawntim]

Originally posted by rumraisin
So you think it will be a case of people posting nonsensical work, and then having some silly pretentious discussion about it?

... like the blue square that togu posted up...

ckiang lah...

 

[excentrique]

Originally posted by shawntim


ckiang lah...

:bsmilie:

okay lar, I think I can still explain why is the 'blue square' considered an art (thanks to 3 years of cultural studies I had in my art school). the west can consider it art because of their long art heritage and awareness of art . They have more acceptance to ideas and have gone beyond the era whereby art is just considered a kind of craftform. It has gone into much more sophistication involving philosophies.

As describe in my eariler post, the work is a form of 'dadaism' art. Well, if you are interested in what this movement means, by all means go check up from the net. Then you'll probably know what the picture is trying to bring across.