nothing.


Status
Not open for further replies.

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#1
Ok. Espion. Let me know what you see in this.

 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#2
I see a slightly elliptical lighted blob of subtly textured curvateous surface, not unlike that of human's buttocks or the top of a bald head, lighted from the top slightly off set from the centre to the top of the picture, thus not casting a shadow of the camera.

A subtle portrayal of textures compelling viewers to relook after an initial dismissal as inconsequential, but not something I will hang on my wall.
 

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#3
ok. lets see if anothers wanna have a shot at this first. before i let everyone know what this is and why i shot it.
 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#4
I think the art is to let people see things - either intended or not - but of significance, just in and of the image or picture itself.

To add words to a picture is take something out of it. For one it leads your viewer to see something when they could have seen other things.

What is art is what this significance is, and good art make this significant statement accessible and comprehensive whereas bad dont.
 

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#6
I think the art is to let people see things - either intended or not - but of significance, just in and of the image or picture itself.

Isnt "I think" a personal bias and conclusion?

"the art is to let people see things - either intended or not - but of significance, just in and of the image or picture itself."

So isnt this a conclusion made of your own opinion and not mine nor others?

To add words to a picture is take something out of it. For one it leads your viewer to see something when they could have seen other things.

Please allow me a reference to understand this statement further. As i personally feel it may have just trampled the art of typography within an art work itself.

" For one it leads your viewer to see something when they could have seen other things."

Is this statement contradicting to what you have said below

But if you put something explicitly in a public forum for public critique then you had better be able to communicate, and in a public language - in the form of words or images - what you saw, knew and believed.

"What is art is what this significance is, and good art make this significant statement accessible and comprehensive whereas bad dont."

Care to tell me what "BAD ART" is if it wasn't based on a personal preferance and purely on the actual original intent and technicalities of the author?
 

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#9
Bro, let me have a go at it.

It's a photo of a white paper shot under poor lighting condition :bsmilie:
Hmmm still not quite there yet. :bsmilie:
 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#10
Isnt "I think" a personal bias and conclusion?
Of course, thinking is personal. It cannot be otherwise.

But is anything personal necessarily biased?

Can I not be personal yet objective? (in contrast to subjective)

"the art is to let people see things - either intended or not - but of significance, just in and of the image or picture itself."

So isnt this a conclusion made of your own opinion and not mine nor others?
Certainly!

But if you are trying to communicate this significance, then others have to arrive at the same conclusion of its significance as you had.

Or else either you have seen something other than that inherent or others are not enlightened enough. And in part the onus and purpose of art and the artist is to bring about such enlightenment. Or you may simply ignore the unenlightened mass and let your work speak for themselves, perhaps after you are dead and gone, eg van Gogh, etc.

As i personally feel it may have just trampled the art of typography within an art work itself.
I think the "art of typography" is something else altogether and it is not the same as "adding words". But really I am not sure what you are saying.

For one it leads your viewer to see something when they could have seen other things."

Is this statement contradicting to what you have said ...
If a picture is at least a thousand words how can you possible say it all? So certainly there are things left out and unsaid, no matter how much is said about it, or seen in it. So there is no contradiction that a viewer sees more than what I can say - or saw - in a picture.

Care to tell me what "BAD ART" is if it wasn't based on a personal preferance and purely on the actual original intent and technicalities of the author?
Lets take a parallel example of music.

There are good music and bad music. There are popular music and there are music that you can listen over and over again and always hear something new and refreshing. The latter is the kind of quality in good art. It speaks to you in some fundamental way that is eternally relevant, edifying and fulfilling. Bad art do not have such a quality.

And these qualities may have no correlation to the artist's intent nor technical skills. The latter are merely hygiene factors and entirely insufficient.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
0.o

What's this, a personal quarrel thing taken to photography level? =/
Look, some people find something good
Some people find it unforgiveably bad
It can be the same thing

Why do we have to try to compartmentalise art? jeez
 

agape01

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2003
2,574
0
36
Somewhere Out There
Visit site
#13
However, I would add my 0.1cent worth of thoughts by saying that....

there are things that we singaporeans will never appreciate.

Classic example... why is John Clang's work can be sold for tens of thousands of US dollars where we as Singaporeans see his work as a total bunch of rubbish?

In this regard, both Chris Lim and espion are right in their own POVs.

Thus, there will be no right and wrongs but just constant debates on one's POV vs the other's POV.
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#14
Bro, let me have a go at it.

It's a photo of a white paper shot under poor lighting condition :bsmilie:
feeble attempt... its a blank shot purposely defocused using a pelang fisheye, probably with a extension tube with a fisheye and the sensor is rather dirty to start with... :devil:


anyway, chris ar, no clue how to guess? u suka suka can say i win also can...
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#15
Some want some don want ... what is it to you? jeez
If you want my true answer,

I find it immensely amusing that people will stoop to juvenile behaviour when there are much more superior outlets to prove one's point, instead of starting an entire thread simply to see who shouts louder.

Tsk.
 

espion

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2005
1,524
0
0
#16
Thus, there will be no right and wrongs but just constant debates on one's POV vs the other's POV.
I think we ought not to waste time.

So if it is clear that is a "matter of POV", meaning something entirely subjective and existing only in your imaginations and not in reality, then we all ought to drop the matter in double quick time, and stop killing countless electrons on the keyboard and over the Internet, and not to mention aching fingers.

But then there are things not a "matter of POV" certainly.

If there is a red chair in a white room, we will all see it differently from our POV. Some may even split hairs that the white is not white but an off pale ivory yellow and the red a maroonish magenta. But we can all agree - maybe eventually - there is a chair in a room, no matter what your POV is, unless, of course, you are blind.

I think good and bad art is such a thing.

And good art has no correlation to it having any commercial value. That is a different mater altogether.
 

Stereobox

Senior Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,116
0
0
Cocteau Twins
#17
apparently a form of abstract piece, in which the artist not so much invites the viewer to "see" a meaning in it, but rather to "feel" something.

using just a stripped down palette of shades and tones, the artist/audience may feel compelled to add words to give another dimension to it. but i feel this is unncessary...it is as empty as the title suggests.

nothing. nothingness.

:)bsmilie: one of my rare bullsh*tting visits to Critique corner)
 

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#18
Of course, thinking is personal. It cannot be otherwise.

But is anything personal necessarily biased?

Can I not be personal yet objective? (in contrast to subjective)

OK so IF I SAID. "i dun like the arrogance in your post". Apologies, it is just a personal opnion and NOT biased against you.

Certainly!

But if you are trying to communicate this significance, then others have to arrive at the same conclusion of its significance as you had.

So are you telling me my art MUST communicate this significance. So IF i said The image is Shot to allow people to freely evoke a feeling that they can connect to. And that happens to be my intent, then wouldn't that mean that they will never be able to arrive at the same intention as i had when i posted this image?

Or else either you have seen something other than that inherent or others are not enlightened enough. And in part the onus and purpose of art and the artist is to bring about such enlightenment. Or you may simply ignore the unenlightened mass and let your work speak for themselves, perhaps after you are dead and gone, eg van Gogh, etc.

So the Onus and Purpose of art and the author is to bring about enlightenment? So if lets say i dun feel enlightened when i view your images, would that mean that you have seen something other then inherent or are others just not enlightened enough to understand your work?

I think the "art of typography" is something else altogether and it is not the same as "adding words". But really I am not sure what you are saying.

Something else altogether? I've seen tonnes of images with words added within the frame to make an image more understandable. "A simple example. If i hung a photo of an arrow that i tot was unique and place the text "TOILET" just above it." WOuld it create new meaning to that arrow? And wouldn't this example just match your initial statement that "if i want to put sth in a public forum FOR public critique, I had better be able to communicate, and in a public language - in the form of words or images - what you saw, knew and believed.


If a picture is at least a thousand words how can you possible say it all? So certainly there are things left out and unsaid, no matter how much is said about it, or seen in it. So there is no contradiction that a viewer sees more than what I can say - or saw - in a picture.

Are you telling me that You are taking it literally that "a picture can speak a thousand words?" You wanna take a poll that a 10 word sentence can help a viewer understand a piece of art better? First you say that the artiste needs to convery what he or she personally wants to convey. Now you tell me that the viewers should be able to see more then what the artiste intent was? And thus no text should be added? HUH???:dunno:

My initial post only emphasized the point of "what the author sees is not necessarily what the viewers see and vice versa depnding on the believes of the author and viewer and how it can coincide with each other" What does it really have to do with the author having to not give any form of input to mare the viewers pov for Critique?

Lets take a parallel example of music.

There are good music and bad music. There are popular music and there are music that you can listen over and over again and always hear something new and refreshing. The latter is the kind of quality in good art. It speaks to you in some fundamental way that is eternally relevant, edifying and fulfilling. Bad art do not have such a quality.

One man's dessert is another man's poison and vice versa. So there really isnt sth called bad music or art.

And these qualities may have no correlation to the artist's intent nor technical skills. The latter are merely hygiene factors and entirely insufficient.


At the end of the day, You see what you see. I may or may not see what you see. You like what you like and i may or may not like the same thing. So in the end its still a very personal preferance of what we choose to see and acknowledge and what we choose not to see and ignore.
 

Chris Lim

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,213
0
0
34
#19
The above image is just an empty wall i was staring into when i was stoning. This image is shot as it is imprinted on my mind with no intent of having to provoke any emotions or thought. it is just Blank.

The vignetting is just the result of a wide angle lens and poor metering.


Thus since no conclusion can be made as it is all based on a personal opinion and view points. this thread wont have a purpose to exist anymore.

Thanks for reading.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom