Friday, May 19, 2006
And now for something completely different - Destiny
Destiny - the destiny of a child.The light fittings are the pathways through life, the baby represents the birth and the dove is the journey through time. What the child will develop into is unknown, hence the missing face in the figure. The second figure is a shadow, the alternative path.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of John Larry : 7:10 PM
Comments:
I'm interested that you provided a narrative. I find that this removes much of my role as viewer. Despite being a fairly visually based person, I find that words can, by providing their easy meanings, crowd out images. The image becomes an illustration to a text. A mere secondary thing.
As to the picture itself: it is a product of imagination, not observation (I know photography is always part one and part the other, but this is at one end of the range). I don't really have the words or the skill to say much about it. It is your imagination and not mine. The further we get from observation the less common ground we have. I can't even imagine imagining this.
"The further we get from observation the less common ground we have. "
That is a fascinating obersvation, but I think it oversimplifies the issue. As we get further from observation, as the common ground diminishes, what's left might be more meaningful to us individually. Art such as what John has posted might connect with fewer people but connect more powerfully because of that.
I find this image in particular to be a bit overburdened; I can see myself liking it more if the baby and the dove were ditched, but then I suspect it would lose much of the intended meaning.
"Art such as what John has posted might connect with fewer people but connect more powerfully because of that."
Matt: I agree. There is nothing (or at least very little) universal about art and its appeal. However, it is of little value to comment on a picture about what one thinks everybody else might think.
To expand a bit on what I said. I think art needs to feed the imagination. To do this it needs a way in. The easiest way is through what I called a common ground. Familiarity of subject, or common cultural references. Without these there is a bigger bridge to cross. It may be that if a viewer successfully crosses such a bridge they end up with a 'more powerful' experience. The flip side is that if one can't cross the bridge then there is no experience at all.
My final comment was the significant one. I can't imagine imagining this. So, to close the bridge metaphor, I can't even see this bridge, let alone cross it.
This is, of course, nothing to do with whether this work is any "good", or whether it means anything to the artist or other viewers.
And I hope John L doesn't mind me thinking out loud in this comments box.
As long as we are thinking out loud . . . I'm following and agreeing with most of what you are saying, but I'm not entirely sure what this means; "However, it is of little value to comment on a picture about what one thinks everybody else might think."
If you view art as communication, trying to figure out what someone else thinks about a particular work has a fairly high value. Figuring that out would seem to be a good point for find ing they way in you speak of.
"If you view art as communication"
Don't think I do particularly now that you mention it. My model is more 'art as experience'. An artist has a reaction to something and creates art. A viewer has a reaction to that artwork. There may be a thread (a communication) from beginning to end, but there may not.
This may be entirely personal. I don't set out thinking 'what can I say about this' when I'm making art. I am thinking something more like 'how do I feel about this'. So, if a viewer feels something different, that is OK. There wasn't a message in the bottle.
I spent a lot of my career communicating. It is a tough job. Maybe I'm all communicated out.
Magritte. To a certain extent - a little bit over-burdened perhaps and not existential enough. I'm with Auspicious on the narrative drowning out the viewer's ability to interpret but then this differs from Magritte in that it is reasonably prescriptive. Magritte crossed with '2001, a space odyssey'. I would rather that you had used a real baby but then this doll might be the key to a different set of interpretations (not forthcoming at this stage).
Is it well done? With the exception of the doll (which is only a preference), yes. Does it work? Much more difficult to answer. Maybe because it is so straightforward it can only work on one level. Because of the associations I made earlier I keep looking for the apple!
Should art communicate? Yes - if it has a message! That you wanted to make this is very intriguing because it is not something that I would even begin to imagine producing. Matt has a point there.
I can't help feeling that the key to this picture is the material nature of the doll. Or, it could be.
"My model is more 'art as experience'."
Fair enough.
John L., continuing to look at this I'm struck that those light fittings look an awful lot like the cube lighting we had at my last job; that's a frightening representation of the pathway through life.
I don't think I connect with this image except for this feeling of familiarity. I have no idea where that comes from but perhaps that in itself is a connection of sorts.
The baby and dove are too predicitible of the representations they portray. The colour of the baby is too dominant in the context of the other colours available for viewing in this photograph. However...
...the lights and the faceless business man are very symbolic of the environment I currently inhabit. As I sit here writing this above and infront are a three rows of strip-lights and a number of faceless individuals. We all work for the same company yet are complete strangers. The passion of work has long gone...(I work in banking by the way...).
If I can ignore the dove and baby then this picture is very close to (my current) home. Thanks for the provocation!
magritte comes to my mind, too.
illustration or 'image'? the text/explanation suggests an illustration.
I'm with John E. about its your imagination. and you force me to take it. I take it but it gives less room for my own imagination so its more a illustration.
lots of interesting thoughts above. e.g. should art communicate? yes. if it has a message. sure. but an image can also 'communicate' the image itself (hard to express what I mean especially in english)...
the image is not my favorite. it carries a no good feeling to me. saying this it seems is has some emotional impact to me. it communicates.
The first time I saw this image it was without a narrative and although the image intrigued me I did not understand the image nor did I feel the image communicated with me.
In response to the comments I made, John then posted his intended message. (Another site)
I would prefer that any image speak or communicate with me without a narrative.
There is an additional point in that a title can initiate a line of thought and therefore be a subtle narrative. I was looking at Kandinski and later on in his career he started to have Komposition #, Abstract #, Painting #, Impression # etc. I believe this was to leave the viewer to form their own opinion.
Post a Comment
As to the picture itself: it is a product of imagination, not observation (I know photography is always part one and part the other, but this is at one end of the range). I don't really have the words or the skill to say much about it. It is your imagination and not mine. The further we get from observation the less common ground we have. I can't even imagine imagining this.
That is a fascinating obersvation, but I think it oversimplifies the issue. As we get further from observation, as the common ground diminishes, what's left might be more meaningful to us individually. Art such as what John has posted might connect with fewer people but connect more powerfully because of that.
I find this image in particular to be a bit overburdened; I can see myself liking it more if the baby and the dove were ditched, but then I suspect it would lose much of the intended meaning.
Matt: I agree. There is nothing (or at least very little) universal about art and its appeal. However, it is of little value to comment on a picture about what one thinks everybody else might think.
To expand a bit on what I said. I think art needs to feed the imagination. To do this it needs a way in. The easiest way is through what I called a common ground. Familiarity of subject, or common cultural references. Without these there is a bigger bridge to cross. It may be that if a viewer successfully crosses such a bridge they end up with a 'more powerful' experience. The flip side is that if one can't cross the bridge then there is no experience at all.
My final comment was the significant one. I can't imagine imagining this. So, to close the bridge metaphor, I can't even see this bridge, let alone cross it.
This is, of course, nothing to do with whether this work is any "good", or whether it means anything to the artist or other viewers.
And I hope John L doesn't mind me thinking out loud in this comments box.
If you view art as communication, trying to figure out what someone else thinks about a particular work has a fairly high value. Figuring that out would seem to be a good point for find ing they way in you speak of.
Don't think I do particularly now that you mention it. My model is more 'art as experience'. An artist has a reaction to something and creates art. A viewer has a reaction to that artwork. There may be a thread (a communication) from beginning to end, but there may not.
This may be entirely personal. I don't set out thinking 'what can I say about this' when I'm making art. I am thinking something more like 'how do I feel about this'. So, if a viewer feels something different, that is OK. There wasn't a message in the bottle.
I spent a lot of my career communicating. It is a tough job. Maybe I'm all communicated out.
Is it well done? With the exception of the doll (which is only a preference), yes. Does it work? Much more difficult to answer. Maybe because it is so straightforward it can only work on one level. Because of the associations I made earlier I keep looking for the apple!
Should art communicate? Yes - if it has a message! That you wanted to make this is very intriguing because it is not something that I would even begin to imagine producing. Matt has a point there.
I can't help feeling that the key to this picture is the material nature of the doll. Or, it could be.
Fair enough.
John L., continuing to look at this I'm struck that those light fittings look an awful lot like the cube lighting we had at my last job; that's a frightening representation of the pathway through life.
...the lights and the faceless business man are very symbolic of the environment I currently inhabit. As I sit here writing this above and infront are a three rows of strip-lights and a number of faceless individuals. We all work for the same company yet are complete strangers. The passion of work has long gone...(I work in banking by the way...).
If I can ignore the dove and baby then this picture is very close to (my current) home. Thanks for the provocation!
illustration or 'image'? the text/explanation suggests an illustration.
I'm with John E. about its your imagination. and you force me to take it. I take it but it gives less room for my own imagination so its more a illustration.
lots of interesting thoughts above. e.g. should art communicate? yes. if it has a message. sure. but an image can also 'communicate' the image itself (hard to express what I mean especially in english)...
the image is not my favorite. it carries a no good feeling to me. saying this it seems is has some emotional impact to me. it communicates.
In response to the comments I made, John then posted his intended message. (Another site)
I would prefer that any image speak or communicate with me without a narrative.
There is an additional point in that a title can initiate a line of thought and therefore be a subtle narrative. I was looking at Kandinski and later on in his career he started to have Komposition #, Abstract #, Painting #, Impression # etc. I believe this was to leave the viewer to form their own opinion.