Ansel's Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico
Apr 30, 2022 13:25:45 #
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.
That would require an account that is open to all, so anybody can post in behalf of that account and the poster being sure to delete any meta info in the image.
From then, any critique or praise would be to the image only.
The admin should have an eagle eye on such account as it would surely be open to misuse.
Apr 30, 2022 13:54:31 #
Let me begin by saying, "To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is the purpose of this post".
To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is exactly why such a prominent image was used for this discussion.
This was not about TUA. It was only touched because someone suggested its core value.
.
larryepage wrote:
I believe it is also unfair to give credence to the artwork because of fame, hype or the artist instead of letting it stand on its own. After all, we are not looking at an unfinished work but rather a separate entity altogether. Doing so is neglecting the actual effort, skill and creativity for the signature.I think that's not fair. That would be the same as... (show quote)
larryepage wrote:
The OP was not about who made it or how the photo stacks against its many copies. Clearly the instruction was to set aside previous knowledge and just look at what is presented and give ones personal view.Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to ... (show quote)
larryepage wrote:
As for professional jealousy, TUA is the best way to prove ones skill. No need for jealousy, just prove ones worth by his/hers creation. This will allow the viewer to have a more pure way of appreciating a work and fully realize what is good, what is not and what really touches their heart.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).
larryepage wrote:
They say imitation is the best form of flattery. I believe in imitating to learn, not to duplicate and sell. 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.
larryepage wrote:
There was no intent to trick anybody and would not happen if the post were read without bias. The owner of the image is clearly there as well as the many links that speaks of the photo.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.
To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is exactly why such a prominent image was used for this discussion.
This was not about TUA. It was only touched because someone suggested its core value.
.
Apr 30, 2022 15:21:23 #
Apr 30, 2022 15:22:00 #
Apr 30, 2022 15:26:27 #
Apr 30, 2022 15:27:19 #
User ID wrote:
.
Magnificent facade and vine shot
⭐⭐💜⭐⭐
Apr 30, 2022 15:27:59 #
Apr 30, 2022 15:28:46 #
Apr 30, 2022 15:30:50 #
Apr 30, 2022 16:57:34 #
I think that it is a great B&W photo. I had the privilege of seeing one of his early prints, where the sky was a dark grey. And one of his later prints, where the sky was black. The great sky is good, but the black really shines.
It shows what viewing the scene and seeing the potential is. It shows what knowing your craft really means. Anyone could have seen this view, but how many would have taken it. And how many would have raised it to the level on an icon?
Ansel was an expert at post-processing, and he knew how to make a photo sing. And he did this with analog photography, imagine what he could do with digital.
There are many prints by Ansel that are icons, but this is one of the best. Many of his Yosemite photos are fantastic, but I think that this is the best example of what B&W printing can aspire to.
It shows what viewing the scene and seeing the potential is. It shows what knowing your craft really means. Anyone could have seen this view, but how many would have taken it. And how many would have raised it to the level on an icon?
Ansel was an expert at post-processing, and he knew how to make a photo sing. And he did this with analog photography, imagine what he could do with digital.
There are many prints by Ansel that are icons, but this is one of the best. Many of his Yosemite photos are fantastic, but I think that this is the best example of what B&W printing can aspire to.
Apr 30, 2022 18:22:15 #
Wallen’s post really raises two issues:
(1) Is Wallen’s goal to get viewers to react to a well-known image while putting aside any knowledge of the work or its creator realistic?
(2) Can any work of art be appreciated, analyzed and critiqued based on only having seen reproductions?
Several posters have expressed or hinted that (1) is an unrealistic expectation. I tend to agree with that. We might have opinions and feelings toward a work of art but knowing the background will always affect our reaction, but how and how much? (Maybe Picasso’s “Guernica” and Mapplethorpe’s work might be good case studies here!) But, as Wallen suggests, to approach an image while suppressing our “pre-programmed” notions is a worthwhile learning exercise.
My answer to (2) is clear: Yes, of course it can. But there are limitations (these could well fill another discussion topic) and we’re back to the ubiquitous “it depends”. Quite a few here have taken the position that “Moonrise” cannot be fully appreciated in reproductions, especially poor ones, because it’s greatness and appeal are largely based on visual subtleties that are lost in digital copies. I have come to share that view. But let’s not extend that to all works of art. Makes me think of another iconic work - "Guernica" - with dimensions exceeding 11 x 25 ft. I suppose that is another work where size enhances the emotional impact on the viewer. But few of us are lucky enough to see the original, and viewing and analyzing a copy is definitely worth while……
[Hey Wallen, thanks for stirring up the old grey cells!]
(1) Is Wallen’s goal to get viewers to react to a well-known image while putting aside any knowledge of the work or its creator realistic?
(2) Can any work of art be appreciated, analyzed and critiqued based on only having seen reproductions?
Several posters have expressed or hinted that (1) is an unrealistic expectation. I tend to agree with that. We might have opinions and feelings toward a work of art but knowing the background will always affect our reaction, but how and how much? (Maybe Picasso’s “Guernica” and Mapplethorpe’s work might be good case studies here!) But, as Wallen suggests, to approach an image while suppressing our “pre-programmed” notions is a worthwhile learning exercise.
My answer to (2) is clear: Yes, of course it can. But there are limitations (these could well fill another discussion topic) and we’re back to the ubiquitous “it depends”. Quite a few here have taken the position that “Moonrise” cannot be fully appreciated in reproductions, especially poor ones, because it’s greatness and appeal are largely based on visual subtleties that are lost in digital copies. I have come to share that view. But let’s not extend that to all works of art. Makes me think of another iconic work - "Guernica" - with dimensions exceeding 11 x 25 ft. I suppose that is another work where size enhances the emotional impact on the viewer. But few of us are lucky enough to see the original, and viewing and analyzing a copy is definitely worth while……
[Hey Wallen, thanks for stirring up the old grey cells!]
Apr 30, 2022 19:48:25 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Wallen wrote:
Let me begin by saying, "To train oneself to ... (show quote)
Wallen...thank you for your detailed responses to my comments. I want to make sure that you and others know that the purpose of those comments was not intended to be either vicious or ugly, but rather to clearly and unambiguously state my concerns.about some of the very valid positions you are raising. Ansel Adams has been a strong photographic guide for me, and one of my big tests (at least right now) is whether they would damage his position in performing that function. So I've undoubtedly come across as too defensive toward him. As I've come to understand your question, though, I don't think our thinking is very far apart.
Right now, I continue to think that art is indivisible from the artist. That means that while a work of art can be evaluated without knowledge or consideration of the artist, doing that will almost invariably force us to a point where the technical outweighs the esthetic. Without the context of who the artist is and what he is thinking, we can never have the path to the full story and understanding. That prompted my need and desire to know a little more about you.
In reality, I appreciate your raising this question. It is uncomfortable, which is a really good thing. Thank you for doing it.
Apr 30, 2022 20:16:13 #
Wallen wrote:
Let me begin by saying, "To train oneself to see through the fog of bias is the purpose of this post".
OK. Let's start piercing through the fog by specifically identifying exactly what we are being invited to analyze. The OP contains something "imaged by HA Auctions" along with a link to HA's website as well as wikipedia's article (with image) of Moonrise Hernandez and a link to the Ansel Adams gallery website. All three of these images are different, except in the most obvious way. Which one are we supposed to talk about?
Whichever, I think it's clear that the viewer of the OP is being set an impossible task, since you yourself provide bias-laden information in your links.
What you basically seem to be asking is a variation on the old chestnut, "if you didn't know it's a Rembrandt, would you still like it?"
Apr 30, 2022 21:44:08 #
Your photos illustrate the concept.
User ID wrote:
Its all about the vision thing.
Apr 30, 2022 23:46:57 #
User ID wrote:
Its all about the vision thing.
The first picture in this set (traffic cone) is fabulous, a "wallhanger".
The scraggly beard portrait (selfie?) I would rather not deal with, either visually or emotionally......
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.