Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: John Paul Caponigro on Composition  (Read 48315 times)
EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2009, 08:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
............A musical example:  I was taught as a child that "music is a universal language."   I also was taught that music in a minor mode often represents sadness, while a major mode represents the opposite.  After learning to hear and interpret that way I discovered music from the middle east which, more often than not, was composed in minor modes yet sounded happy to people of those cultures.

I had another shock when a professor from India taught me a lesson when I invited her to hear my collection of recordings from India.  She asked if I thought I understood something about the music.  She did not mean the musical theory of the music, but the emotional content.  She gave me a "drop the needle" test (remember phonograph records?).  When she asked "happy or sad?" I would respond.  Even though I knew these recordings by heart, and despite the fact that I was a professor of muscal comosition and theory, my "score" on 25 musical examples was not only poor, but less than I would have achieved simply by chance!  So much for the "universality" of "the musical language."...............

I found this to be a very interesting and instructive story.  How did you feel about your previous enjoyment of the music?  While your engagement with the music obviously changed with your increasing knowledge, did that somehow invalidate the meanings and enjoyment you had previously had?

Does the idea of music being a 'universal language' mean that everyone everywhere needs/must draw the same experiences from a given piece or performance?  

I would comment that while hearing a flat spoken language that I do not understand doesn't do a thing for me,  I can engage on some level with pretty much any type of music.  For example, the first time I ever heard Tuvan Throat Singing I went 'WOW' and immediately bought several CD's.  Now, I am under no illusion that this music has anything like the meaning to me that it would to a Tuvan, and I actually have no interest in understanding the lyrics.  I mean, if a given song speaks to me in such a manner that I feel all mellow and relaxed  what do I care that it might actually be about Mongol Hordes ravaging a village, raping and enslaving the women and eviscerating the men,  staking them out under a blazing sun to have their living guts pecked at by crows?  (Got to love those Mongols!).

The bigger question of interest to photographers, given that visual art is likewise a 'universal language', is to what extent should an artist predefine the reaction and meanings that a viewer draws from their work?  Or is it simply enough that we hold up our end of an invited conversation,  and as long as people are willing to take the time to engage with our work on some level and walk away feeling/thinking/knowing/...  something that wasn't there before, we should be happy.

Thanks,

Ed
artislens.com
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2009, 08:45:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EdRosch
by crows?  (Got to love those Mongols!).

"The bigger question of interest to photographers, given that visual art is likewise a 'universal language', is to what extent should an artist predefine the reaction and meanings that a viewer draws from their work?  Or is it simply enough that we hold up our end of an invited conversation,  and as long as people are willing to take the time to engage with our work on some level and walk away feeling/thinking/knowing/...  something that wasn't there before, we should be happy.

Thanks,"

Ed
artislens.com



I think you have hit the nail firmly on its bonce. Other than the fact that a universal language still has the problems associated with accents, I do believe that the pic should do the talking. In many cases, what the viewer brings to the party might well be more rewarding than that which the host has provided on the house.

Rob C
Logged

walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1331


« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2009, 08:55:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Walter,
The common principles you mention, at least the ones that matter, are, in fact, common: a proper grasp of geometry, a proper distribution of masses and lines, and a proper location of  the main thing the picture’s about. In photographic composition you don’t want to “isolate” elements of composition, you want to conjoin them, intuitively and at once.

Having spent three years in Asia I’m not at all surprised at your showing in your “drop the needle test.” One of the wonderful things about Asia is that cultures there can be very different from our own. Look at how Asian painting handles perspective. Instead of showing distance with vanishing lines it uses changes in brightness – each receding plane fainter than the last. The difference is lovely and instructive. Unfortunately a camera won’t let you do that.
Thanks for a very thoughtful response.  I think we basically agree.  On your statement about not wanting to isolate elements of composition, but to conjoin them, hopefully intuitively and at once, I don't think it is contradictory to say that if a photographer becomes more consciously aware of ways of conceptualizing the elements within a composition, even through exercises such as suggested by Caponigro, they eventually become integrated into a way of seeing and the expanded vocabulary hopefully becomes intuitive again.  On the other hand, I would argue that some studio photography can be planned down to the last tiny detail (still-life, portrature, mis-en-scene, etc) yet those choices can still be made on an intuitive basis.

Your example of perspective depiction by decreasing layers of brightness is strong.  But when you say "a camera won't let you do that," it makes me think of some of the pictures made in the early morning or at dusk from a peak in the mountains, looking across several layers of terrain with the top of the image being another row of mountain tops meeting the misty layer of sky.  Nothing in the scene provides a sense of scale, and no "leading lines" are available to imply convergence into the distance, but we are awed by the layering produced by changes in brightness and saturation.  

In fact, looking at (and comprehending the techniques of) Asian painting can sensitize and motivate us to look for such scenes to capture and convey the feeling so well expressed in the Asian styles.  So, where you say the camera won't let you do that, I would say if you learn to see perspective as depicted in an Asian painting, you can then fool the camera into capturing the same effect.

In my own creative work, whether as a composer of music or a photographer, I can say that while there are similarities in the processes of both, there are also differences.  I can also say that some of what I do in each was the result of a core way of seeing or hearing that was present from the beginning (even as a child) and continue as a "red thread" even in my latest efforts.  Yet many of the things that have been taught to me would not have come through intuition, yet have been so worked into my way of creating that they can operate on the intuitive level.  Yes, sometimes the struggle is to let that happen and not let the "knowledge" interfere.

Logged
EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2009, 09:03:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I think you have hit the nail firmly on its bonce. Other than the fact that a universal language still has the problems associated with accents, I do believe that the pic should do the talking. In many cases, what the viewer brings to the party might well be more rewarding than that which the host has provided on the house.

Rob C


An amusing example.  About a year ago I spotted this pile of snow fading in the warming weather.  To my eye it so clearly looked like a woman in traditional Japanese garb kneeling and gazing off into the distance that I could not  imagine seeing anything else.  I put together this PhotoShop montage in which I attempted to capture that feeling.  When I showed it to a couple of photo-literate friends they burst into laughter.  I was very puzzled, and it turned out that all they could see was a rubber chicken!!!   Talk about a dialectical difference  

A very good lesson for me, and the picture (until now) was regulated to the dustbin of my personal history.  

Ed
artislens.com
[attachment=14550:On_the_T...xistence.jpg]
Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2009, 09:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
...........Having spent three years in Asia I’m not at all surprised at your showing in your “drop the needle test.” One of the wonderful things about Asia is that cultures there can be very different from our own. Look at how Asian painting handles perspective. Instead of showing distance with vanishing lines it uses changes in brightness – each receding plane fainter than the last. The difference is lovely and instructive. Unfortunately a camera won’t let you do that.

Sure it can, Russ, the attached is a straight shot.  To my eye there isn't a lot of convergence perceptive, but naturally occurring mist and fading clearly delineate at least three different distance planes.  

I'm sure you know the reason why the Chinese, at least, use their approach to perspective is that the paintings are traditionally done on scrolls which are unrolled and viewed a little at a time.  They did not adopt a 'framing' approach, but rather the image is all one, the story  changing and evolving as the scroll unrolls.  The European mathematical perceptive approach simply could not be rendered with any sense in that format.  While the vanishing point approach was the most recently adopted, back in the Italian Renaissance, Western art has continued to use the relative size and the fade approach to rendering distance right along side.

Ed
artislens.com

[attachment=14551:Sunrise_and_Ice.jpg]
Logged

walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1331


« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2009, 09:45:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EdRosch
1: I found this to be a very interesting and instructive story.  How did you feel about your previous enjoyment of the music?  While your engagement with the music obviously changed with your increasing knowledge, did that somehow invalidate the meanings and enjoyment you had previously had?

2:  Does the idea of music being a 'universal language' mean that everyone everywhere needs/must draw the same experiences from a given piece or performance?  

3: I would comment that while hearing a flat spoken language that I do not understand doesn't do a thing for me,  I can engage on some level with pretty much any type of music.  For example, the first time I ever heard Tuvan Throat Singing I went 'WOW' and immediately bought several CD's.  Now, I am under no illusion that this music has anything like the meaning to me that it would to a Tuvan, and I actually have no interest in understanding the lyrics.  I mean, if a given song speaks to me in such a manner that I feel all mellow and relaxed  what do I care that it might actually be about Mongol Hordes ravaging a village, raping and enslaving the women and eviscerating the men,  staking them out under a blazing sun to have their living guts pecked at by crows?  (Got to love those Mongols!).

4a:  The bigger question of interest to photographers, given that visual art is likewise a 'universal language', is to what extent should an artist predefine the reaction and meanings that a viewer draws from their work?  

4b: Or is it simply enough that we hold up our end of an invited conversation,  and as long as people are willing to take the time to engage with our work on some level and walk away feeling/thinking/knowing/...  something that wasn't there before, we should be happy.

Thanks,

Ed
artislens.com
Ed:  I took the liberty of numbering your statements so that I can address them without repeating the words.  You raise questions that have been debated in the worlds of music and the visual arts probably since the first cave paintings, and they will be debated as long as there are creative people around this old planet.  I will address these statements, and I emphasize that they are just my own thoughts...I am not trying to give definitive "answers."  I relish discussions like this as long as people do not get doctrinaire, and divide into "camps."

1: As I learned more about, in this case, Indian music, my perceptions of it changed and I was able to appreciate it on a new level.  However, what I did lose was the first response to what was the "newness" of the music to me.  While I usually feel that what I gained is more gratifying than what I lost, sometimes I do wish I could hear it more naively again.  But my greater "sophistication" does not at all negate the value of hearing the music in an untutored way.  I remember my mouth dropping as a kid when I first heard Beethoven's 5th symphony.  I had never heard (nor heard of) symphonies, much less Beethoven.  I can now point to any phrase in the piece and show you how it relates to any other part of it, and I fully enjoy that.  But even though I can still "get lost" in the sound of it, I would give my eye teeth to go back and re-experience it for the first time.

2:  Even two musicians playing the same piece after years and years of learning and practice don't have the same experience or derive the same meaning from the music.  And music is more abstract than spoken language, so what we have left is just the hope that something basically human is communicated, and let it mean what it will to each person that hears it.

3a:  Related to my answer to "2," I have to say that thankfully, we are free to relate to music or any of the arts at the level we choose.  I love Salsa, but my meager Spanish is often not sufficient to grasp the meaning of a song.  Yet I feel the rhythm, hear the sonorities and find my foot tapping.  Would finding out that the song was a commercial for Budweiser Beer make a difference?  I don't know.  But when I have taken the time to translate the words of some songs, I derived an additional understanding that I feel enriched my experience of the music.  But sometimes, I just like to let the sound wash over me, completely unaware of the meaning of the words.

4a:  The answer is that the artist (photographer, in this case) should "pre-define" what he or she wants the viewer to get, to the extent that that photographer chooses.  Even then, what the viewer brings to the photograph is unique and not under the control of the photographer, any way.  But if you are doing photography for advertising, you sure try to make that cake look appetizing, or that resort look like a getaway from work.  There is no right answer to this, and there probably shouldn't be.

4b:  Essentially, I feel that to whatever extent we want to express something specific in a photograph it is incumbent on us to do our best to convey our message.  Yet  we also have to remember that what the viewer brings to it is valid, and they may still have an experience quite different from what the photographer had hoped they would get when viewing the work.  And, I think it is perfectly valid for us to make a photograph that we don't "understand" in terms of theme or story, but just wanted to make because something in the scene attracted us.  And, if the viewer cmes away with any reaction whatsoever, I for one am glad.

I am 68 years old, and am now much more mellow about what art is or isn't supposed to be, and about what people are "supposed" to get out of it.  But I still feel that for me, at least, it is a means of communication, and what is implied with that is that it is communication of something about me to somebody else who will find a responsive chord when viewing my photograph.

Thanks, Ed, for the engaging questions.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 09:48:32 AM by walter.sk » Logged
EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2009, 10:57:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
................  I relish discussions like this as long as people do not get doctrinaire, and divide into "camps."...................

Thanks, Ed, for the engaging questions.

Hallelujah Brother!!!!!!!!!
 and thanks for the thoughtful reply which I'm rereading and thinking about.  What forums like this should be.

Quote from: walter.sk
1: As I learned more about, in this case, Indian music, my perceptions of it changed and I was able to appreciate it on a new level.  However, what I did lose was the first response to what was the "newness" of the music to me.  While I usually feel that what I gained is more gratifying than what I lost, sometimes I do wish I could hear it more naively again.  But my greater "sophistication" does not at all negate the value of hearing the music in an untutored way.  I remember my mouth dropping as a kid when I first heard Beethoven's 5th symphony.  I had never heard (nor heard of) symphonies, much less Beethoven.  I can now point to any phrase in the piece and show you how it relates to any other part of it, and I fully enjoy that.  But even though I can still "get lost" in the sound of it, I would give my eye teeth to go back and re-experience it for the first time.

Have you read Mark Twain's 'Life on the Mississippi' ?  He has a great passage discussing what becoming an expert riverboat pilot had done to his appreciation of a beautiful sunset.  Where before he could revel in the beauty, he could now only see it in terms of how the swirls of water marked sandbars and what the color of the sky meant for the next day's weather.

I 'feel your pain' in terms of losing that naive viewpoint, in fact I recently volunteered to be a docent at our local art museum, in part to have an excuse to spend a lot of quality time with a rather good collection, but also in part because most of my touring will be with elementary school kids and I really want the opportunity to see the works through their eyes.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 10:58:29 AM by EdRosch » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2009, 12:01:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EdRosch
Sure it can, Russ, the attached is a straight shot.  To my eye there isn't a lot of convergence perceptive, but naturally occurring mist and fading clearly delineate at least three different distance planes.  

I'm sure you know the reason why the Chinese, at least, use their approach to perspective is that the paintings are traditionally done on scrolls which are unrolled and viewed a little at a time.  They did not adopt a 'framing' approach, but rather the image is all one, the story  changing and evolving as the scroll unrolls.  The European mathematical perceptive approach simply could not be rendered with any sense in that format.  While the vanishing point approach was the most recently adopted, back in the Italian Renaissance, Western art has continued to use the relative size and the fade approach to rendering distance right along side.

Ed

Ed, That's all true, but I don't know of any way to get rid of the vanishing point in photography. You can correct to some extent with a view camera or a lens with shifts and tilts, and you can pull things back into line in Photoshop, but the fix is limited. Yes, with the kind of shot you used as an example, where there aren't any reference points, the vanishing point appears to have vanished, but it's still there.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 12:04:12 PM by RSL » Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2009, 12:39:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Ed, That's all true, but I don't know of any way to get rid of the vanishing point in photography. You can correct to some extent with a view camera or a lens with shifts and tilts, and you can pull things back into line in Photoshop, but the fix is limited. Yes, with the kind of shot you used as an example, where there aren't any reference points, the vanishing point appears to have vanished, but it's still there.

Thank's for the clarification, Russ,

Yes, you're right, unless you can place your film/sensor square to a flat subject, the vanishing point is along for the ride.  In fact, in my example, the ice on the left converges toward the top center right leading the eye in to the dimly seen bridge.  I thought you were saying that one couldn't do 'fade' perspective at all in a camera, not that it would have to be in addition to the convergence perspective which is quite true.


Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2009, 01:02:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EdRosch
An amusing example.  About a year ago I spotted this pile of snow fading in the warming weather.  To my eye it so clearly looked like a woman in traditional Japanese garb kneeling and gazing off into the distance that I could not  imagine seeing anything else.  I put together this PhotoShop montage in which I attempted to capture that feeling.  When I showed it to a couple of photo-literate friends they burst into laughter.  I was very puzzled, and it turned out that all they could see was a rubber chicken!!!   Talk about a dialectical difference  

A very good lesson for me, and the picture (until now) was regulated to the dustbin of my personal history.  

Ed

Ed, For heaven's sake, don't destroy it. With stuff like that you could become another Jackson Pollock. Don't pay any attention to the scoffers.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 01:05:00 PM by RSL » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2009, 01:31:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
Thanks for a very thoughtful response.  I think we basically agree.  On your statement about not wanting to isolate elements of composition, but to conjoin them, hopefully intuitively and at once, I don't think it is contradictory to say that if a photographer becomes more consciously aware of ways of conceptualizing the elements within a composition, even through exercises such as suggested by Caponigro, they eventually become integrated into a way of seeing and the expanded vocabulary hopefully becomes intuitive again.  On the other hand, I would argue that some studio photography can be planned down to the last tiny detail (still-life, portrature, mis-en-scene, etc) yet those choices can still be made on an intuitive basis.

Walter, I don't think I can argue with any of this. If reducing things to their elements can help a photographer improve his* work, I'm all for it. Reducing things to their elements certainly helps in learning to draw.

Quote
Your example of perspective depiction by decreasing layers of brightness is strong.  But when you say "a camera won't let you do that," it makes me think of some of the pictures made in the early morning or at dusk from a peak in the mountains, looking across several layers of terrain with the top of the image being another row of mountain tops meeting the misty layer of sky.  Nothing in the scene provides a sense of scale, and no "leading lines" are available to imply convergence into the distance, but we are awed by the layering produced by changes in brightness and saturation.

Well, Ed popped up a good example of what you're saying, below. You can even add the fading planes effect in Photoshop. But you can't repeal the laws of physics and get rid of the vanishing point, though, who knows, Adobe may come up with a way to do that too. (I hesitate to say that because I wouldn't like them to think that's something they ought to do.)

Quote
In fact, looking at (and comprehending the techniques of) Asian painting can sensitize and motivate us to look for such scenes to capture and convey the feeling so well expressed in the Asian styles.  So, where you say the camera won't let you do that, I would say if you learn to see perspective as depicted in an Asian painting, you can then fool the camera into capturing the same effect.

All I can say is that I love Asian painting and Asian art in general. When I was in Korea in 1953 and early 54 I spent a week in Japan while I waited for my airplane to go through periodic maintenance. I bought several stunning woodcuts and shipped them home. Somehow, in one of our many moves over the following years my wife and I lost them. I'm still sad about that. I can't really replace them.

Quote
In my own creative work, whether as a composer of music or a photographer, I can say that while there are similarities in the processes of both, there are also differences.  I can also say that some of what I do in each was the result of a core way of seeing or hearing that was present from the beginning (even as a child) and continue as a "red thread" even in my latest efforts.  Yet many of the things that have been taught to me would not have come through intuition, yet have been so worked into my way of creating that they can operate on the intuitive level.  Yes, sometimes the struggle is to let that happen and not let the "knowledge" interfere.

After I dropped the piano I took up poetry. By the time I was 19 I was beginning to get some of it published. I was fortunate enough to have a very, very good English composition teacher in high school, and even more fortunate to have an outstanding English literature professor at University of Michigan. I think poetry and photography have a lot in common, though, as you point out with regard to music, there are differences. But I think what you just said about learning an art is almost exactly what I've been saying. I don't think you learn to write or to photograph by intuition, but I do think you learn to write by writing, and, at least as important, by reading the works of the masters, and I think you learn to photograph by photographing, and, at least as important, and possibly more important, by looking at the work of the masters. The intuition part comes after you've absorbed what you've been reading or seeing. I can't write a good poem by planning. I have to sit down, stop actually thinking, and let intuition take over. Same thing with a photograph. As you said, you can't let the detailed "knowledge" interfere.

---------------------------------
* I hope I haven't insulted the distaff element in any of any of these discussions, but I absolutely refuse to corrupt the grammar of the English language to satisfy the dictates of political correctness.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2009, 04:46:22 PM by RSL » Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2009, 03:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
All I can say is that I love Asian painting and Asian art in general. When I was in Korea in 1953 and early 54 I spent a week in Japan while I waited for my airplane to go through periodic maintenance. I bought several stunning woodcuts and shipped them home. Somehow, in one of our many moves over the following years my wife and I lost them. I'm still sad about that. I can't really replace them.

Russ,

You might want to check out these guys.  I did purchase some prints from them, and they're on the up and up.  They also have a lot of good information and images online even if you're not in the market.
Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2009, 05:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Ed, For heaven's sake, don't destroy it. With stuff like that you could become another Jackson Pollock. Don't pay any attention to the scoffers.

Thanks ( I think)      I'm too much of a packrat to throw anything away.

Actually Pollock was a gesturalist, my current stylistic explorations are more along those lines than 'lonely girl' was..... Here's one I shot yesterday.   I'm getting ready to take off for Photostock in a couple of days, so perhaps we'll defer the indepth conversation about applying Gestural Abstract Expressionism to photography until my return as I'll be pretty much offline while up there and I can't imagine that discussion could be concluded in just a few days!  And, as I'm considering this a 'photography' retreat' in which I plan to do nothing but improve my work (my alternative to expensive workshops), I would hope I'll have more to say in a few weeks anyhow.

BTW- I might mention that this is a single shot, not a PS construction.

[attachment=14571:Lilies_and_Clouds.jpg]
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2009, 06:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
I hope I haven't insulted the distaff element in any of any of these discussions, but I absolutely refuse to corrupt the grammar of the English language to satisfy the dictates of political correctness.

I looked up distaff in my Collins English dictionary, a fine uncensored dictionary not afraid to offend. Def.1 is a rod used in spinning, and def.2 is "figurative, women's work." Based on that, your grammar isn't politically incorrect, it's bigoted.
Logged
walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1331


« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2009, 07:53:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EdRosch
Thanks ( I think)      I'm too much of a packrat to throw anything away.

Actually Pollock was a gesturalist, my current stylistic explorations are more along those lines than 'lonely girl' was..... Here's one I shot yesterday.   I'm getting ready to take off for Photostock in a couple of days, so perhaps we'll defer the indepth conversation about applying Gestural Abstract Expressionism to photography until my return as I'll be pretty much offline while up there and I can't imagine that discussion could be concluded in just a few days!  And, as I'm considering this a 'photography' retreat' in which I plan to do nothing but improve my work (my alternative to expensive workshops), I would hope I'll have more to say in a few weeks anyhow.

BTW- I might mention that this is a single shot, not a PS construction.

[attachment=14571:Lilies_and_Clouds.jpg]
Nice image!  It had a disorienting effect on me until I realized what it was.  It reminded me of driving across the prairie in North Dakota one time, on a very narrow one lane road through wheat fields, just kind of taking in the scene, when several dark bugs walked across my windshield.  I blinked, and the bugs became crows flying across the field and I realized how my eyes had misinterpreted their image.  Or, rather, how my eyes had seen their image but my expectations led me to misinterpret them.

I take it that this image is a reflection of clouds and plant stuff in water, but it has a strong pull to *not* see it that way, producing really interesting tension.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2009, 08:22:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I think many of the posts in this thread elaborating on the complexities of composition are works of art in their own right. You guys are just so good with words, I wonder if I can capitalize on that talent..

What I have in mind is an abstract painting created in the following manner.

I have a dog who is very obedient; will stay in the same position until I tell him to move.

I have in mind positioning a canvas immediately behind the dog as he faces me. I'll dip the dog's tail in paint of a certain color, then utter all sorts of endearing expressions, "Good boy!", "Aren't you a cutie!" etc etc.

As the dog wags its tail, all sorts of terribly meaningful paint strokes will occur on the canvas. I'll occasionally wash the dog's tail and apply a different color of paint, perhaps moving the canvas slightly to left or right.

Eventually, I'll have something that resembles a Jackson Pollack painting, but I need some authentification from the art critics.

That's were you eloquent guys come in. Perhaps I could employ you guys to wax lyrical on the complex relationships between the various element in my composition. I could become famous.  
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2009, 08:51:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
I looked up distaff in my Collins English dictionary, a fine uncensored dictionary not afraid to offend. Def.1 is a rod used in spinning, and def.2 is "figurative, women's work." Based on that, your grammar isn't politically incorrect, it's bigoted.

You need a better dictionary, Dale. Another, and probably the most used definition now that most people don't spin (unless they're politicians) is: "a woman or women collectively." Check it out in an unabridged.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6296



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2009, 09:02:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I think many of the posts in this thread elaborating on the complexities of composition are works of art in their own right. You guys are just so good with words, I wonder if I can capitalize on that talent..

What I have in mind is an abstract painting created in the following manner.

I have a dog who is very obedient; will stay in the same position until I tell him to move.

I have in mind positioning a canvas immediately behind the dog as he faces me. I'll dip the dog's tail in paint of a certain color, then utter all sorts of endearing expressions, "Good boy!", "Aren't you a cutie!" etc etc.

As the dog wags its tail, all sorts of terribly meaningful paint strokes will occur on the canvas. I'll occasionally wash the dog's tail and apply a different color of paint, perhaps moving the canvas slightly to left or right.

Eventually, I'll have something that resembles a Jackson Pollack painting, but I need some authentification from the art critics.

That's were you eloquent guys come in. Perhaps I could employ you guys to wax lyrical on the complex relationships between the various element in my composition. I could become famous.  

Ray, When you finish getting the dog to create the wagtail panel, set the panel flat, then, taking a piece of plywood, dump out several colored paints from various tubes to make a palette. Finally, get the dog to walk over the palette and over the panel so that his pawprints will be added to his tailprints. Once you finish and show the result I'm sure the dog will be offered a show at MOMA, probably with an extensive catalog containing a complete analysis of the complex relationships between pawprints and tailprints. Your dog certainly will become famous and you can carry his bags as the show moves around the country and even the world.
Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #38 on: June 15, 2009, 09:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
You need a better dictionary, Dale. Another, and probably the most used definition now that most people don't spin (unless they're politicians) is: "a woman or women collectively." Check it out in an unabridged.

That certainly is the way that I interpreted it,  and speaking as one who does try to watch my language, I respect  your opinion on the subject, and I also agree that there is a lot of linguistic ugliness that can and should be avoided  One amusing story...... I had a good but very PC friend who insisted on refering to her Leatherman tool as a Leatherperson tool,  I tried to explain that Tim Leatherman might not really appreciate it, but old feminist habits die hard    

Now can we PLEASE return to our regularly scheduled programming..........
Logged

EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2009, 09:28:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I think many of the posts in this thread elaborating on the complexities of composition are works of art in their own right. You guys are just so good with words, I wonder if I can capitalize on that talent..

What I have in mind is an abstract painting created in the following manner...........................

....................

Eventually, I'll have something that resembles a Jackson Pollack painting, but I need some authentification from the art critics.

That's were you eloquent guys come in. Perhaps I could employ you guys to wax lyrical on the complex relationships between the various element in my composition. I could become famous.  

might want to check out this site  

I would point out that pretty much every innovation in art and music was treated with considerable scorn and mockery.  I recall that 'The Rite Of Spring' caused a riot at its first performance and that Van Gough didn't sell a single painting during his life (well maybe one, I'm too lazy to look it up) and died thinking himself a total failure as an artist.  So perhaps you might want to hold open a space for the thought that there might be just a bit more to artists like Pollack than is apparent at the moment.  
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad