Ansel's Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico (Page 10): I actually have an idea on the very subject since 2001 when I'm teaching art. Here, it would need to be a new anonymous member. I...

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

jackm1943 wrote:

Try posting images on this website with no title or explanation and see what type of responses you get. 😊

I actually have an idea on the very subject since 2001 when I'm teaching art.
Here, it would need to be a new anonymous member.

I call it "TUA"

The word has many meanings including "behind", but it really means "The Unknown Artist".

It is my take on trying to put the art before the artist. Signing paintings in the back instead of the front so as to make the viewer appreciate the art without bias.

This serves 3 main things;
1. To make sloppy work be viewed as sloppy work even if it was created by a master,
2. Understand art to be appreciated in face value regardless of the creator.
3. Artists be unknown, will be appreciated thru their fine work.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

jburlinson wrote:

It's been said before, but the problem with focusing on the "presented image itself" is that the image in the OP is not an adequate realization of Adams' creation. It's like asking for a critique of the Mona Lisa based on a black&white cartoon of the original.

As aforementioned, The requirement is to focus on what is at hand. It does not matter what is being presented, the point is to be unbiased. To willingly detach previous knowledge and start fresh. To force oneself to see a blank slate.

With that point clear, surely the same aspects can be applied to critique a black & white version of La Joconde. It is not the Mona Lisa we are discussing but a totally different black & white image.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Wallen wrote:

As aforementioned, The requirement is to focus on what is at hand. It does not matter what is being presented, the point is to be unbiased. To willingly detach previous knowledge and start fresh. To force oneself to see a blank slate.

With that point clear, surely the same aspects can be applied to critique a black & white version of La Joconde. It is not the Mona Lisa we are discussing but a totally different black & white image.

I think that's not fair. That would be the same as looking over the artist's shoulder and making a review of a work while it is still in progress or worse yet (at least with the group on this site), reviewing an image straight out of the camera before it has received any post-processing. It creates a body of review material which is in no way reflective of the actual work. Even the authorized poster versions of this work in no way really represent the actual appearance of the actual product(s). There's even a somewhat lesser problem around which of the versions of the final print should be used to represent the actual work, which, after all, is the final image, not the captured exposure.

Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to bring in bits and pieces of the most reliable versions of the story behind this work. There are several accounts floating around, and while we can make assessments of which ones are most accurate, we can't know for sure. It became most popular more than 30 years after the negative was made. There were times in the intervening years when Adams had difficulty selling this or any other work. His views, after all, were considered pretty radical until thinking changed enough in the '70s to accommodate and gradually accept his conservationism way of thinking.

The final topic that has not been discussed is "professional jealousy." It's rampant in the artistic world. "That's no big thing. I could do the same thing with one hand tied behind my back." And that's perhaps true. But you didn't think of it first. Or the opportunity is lost forever for one reason or another (as in this case).

When i was discussing this with my friend Hayley, she showed me an interesting photograph of another work that she has on her wall. I said, "Oh...Clearing Winter Storm." Turns out that no, it wasn't. But it is a near duplicate taken many years later by a completely different artist. Viewed other than as an image on her cellphone, I'm sure the differences would be obvious. But not the way I was seeing it. Good presentation is necessary to avoid such errors.

The majority of us would have recognized the image you posted. Most pretty immediately. You would have tricked the others, unfortunately, by not displaying a proper representation of it. (I think it is about 800x600.) I don't think identifying the artist as TUA would have made much difference, at least in this case.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

larryepage wrote:

I think that's not fair. That would be the same as looking over the artist's shoulder and making a review of a work while it is still in progress or worse yet (at least with the group on this site), reviewing an image straight out of the camera before it has received any post-processing. It creates a body of review material which is in no way reflective of the actual work. Even the authorized poster versions of this work in no way really represent the actual appearance of the actual product(s). There's even a somewhat lesser problem around which of the versions of the final print should be used to represent the actual work, which, after all, is the final image, not the captured exposure.

Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to bring in bits and pieces of the most reliable versions of the story behind this work. There are several accounts floating around, and while we can make assessments of which ones are most accurate, we can't know for sure. It became most popular more than 30 years after the negative was made. There were times in the intervening years when Adams had difficulty selling this or any other work. His views, after all, were considered pretty radical until thinking changed enough in the '70s to accommodate and gradually accept his conservationism way of thinking.

The final topic that has not been discussed is "professional jealousy." It's rampant in the artistic world. "That's no big thing. I could do the same thing with one hand tied behind my back." And that's perhaps true. But you didn't think of it first. Or the opportunity is lost forever for one reason or another (as in this case).

When i was discussing this with my friend Hayley, she showed me an interesting photograph of another work that she has on her wall. I said, "Oh...Clearing Winter Storm." Turns out that no, it wasn't. But it is a near duplicate taken many years later by a completely different artist. Viewed other than as an image on her cellphone, I'm sure the differences would be obvious. But not the way I was seeing it.

The majority of us would have recognized the image you posted. Most pretty immediately. Ypu would have tricked the others, unfortunately, by not displaying a proper representation of it. (I think it is about 800x600.) I dont think identifying the artist as TUA would have made much difference, at least in this case.

I think that's not fair. That would be the same as... (show quote)

I think for Wallen's interesting idea to work, it would have to be new art by TUA, not well know art that's been out and well known.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

jackm1943 wrote:

I think for Wallen's interesting idea to work, it would have to be new art by TUA, not well know art that's been out and well known.

Possibly. And I wish I knew more about where Wallen is located and to whom he is seeking to teach art. On some circumstances, it is clearly necessary to be more flexible than in others. I am thankful that a few young people have been willing to help broaden my view of the artistic world.

But I've done a couple of research products over the last couple of years during which I've learned about a couple of important cultures and civilizations about which we have been deliberately misled. (One is the Roman civilization.) That is unproductive in the end. Our education processes and content need to be better. Note to others: Please don't use this parenthetical observation to send this discussion to the attic.