tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post6243128808916495610..comments2024-01-11T15:12:49.433-05:00Comments on Tao of Photography by Andy Ilachinski: Experience = f(Photograph; Context, Interpretation)Andy Ilachinskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14572501787099507666noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-60448049339862300032009-11-14T00:14:08.706-05:002009-11-14T00:14:08.706-05:00Addendum: There is a wonderful film done in the 19...Addendum: There is a wonderful film done in the 1950s called "Le Mystere de Picasso". It is a film depicting Picasso at an easel drawing/painting works on paper or like medium. Shot mostly from the perspective opposite Picasso, and lit to show his "process". It is a fascinating view and how wonderful to see something like this with more artists! <br /><br />Dora Maar's series of photographs showing the evolution of Picasso's epic "Guernica" is another example.tracehttp://traceimages.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-14973892914157641832009-11-14T00:02:12.268-05:002009-11-14T00:02:12.268-05:00I made a rather profound observation on art one ni...I made a rather profound observation on art one night when I was combinationaly drunk and stoned (I get profound in that condition). I was 17 or so at the time, and talking with a friend, I said: "Art is a second-hand view of the world, made third-hand by the viewer". What I was referring to of course, was the aspect of the process that the viewer cannot be a part of. They are removed from the creative process, and are left with observation/feeling for the artwork. <br /><br />Art is a second hand view by the artist in that we create from materials already present in the world. We create "another thing" by recombining what is already before us. We are still unable to create something from "total nothingness". This is God/Grandfather territory. We can participate, second-handedly, in the process which is inseparable from the artwork itself. <br /><br />One thing I think that perhaps helps the observer to come closer to the experience of a photograph's creation, is that so many today have the experience of photographing and creating their own images with digital tools. I think with the advent of so many photographers, there is greater appreciation for the image because there is a greater experience of the taste of the process on whole.tracehttp://traceimages.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-49095866036427436922009-04-24T03:56:00.000-05:002009-04-24T03:56:00.000-05:00I've returned to comment on your thought experimen...I've returned to comment on your thought experiment 1 (TE1) and noticed that you have added a second (either that or I didn't notice it last time I was here). I may be wrong but I think that the two are linked because the ultimate artwork of TE1 would certainly make you feel more alive than any other artwork possibly could thus satisfying the requirements of TE2.<br />Furthermore I would also suggest that the meta artwork referenced in TE1 already exists however one's ability to view it is most likely dependent on having a sense of <I>being</I> (or maybe that should read a <I>non</I> sense of being) that matches the beingness of that which created the artwork in the first place. This meta artwork is here for all to experience but the experience is severely diluted because no sooner is experiencing happening that the mind steps in and translates the experience. More often than not this is done by referencing the experience into the context of "I". In other words the mind turns the experience into another episode in the story of "me". In this way the real experience, the true seeing of the meta artwork is lost in translation. And so we continue to try and create the ultimate artwork or compose the ultimate song or catch the ultimate wave not seeing <I>that</I> which is right in front of us.<br />And this brings up a couple of questions. Is it possible for an artwork to be so fine that only those with the clearest mind can actually experience it? Or does a fine artwork automatically induce a state of clarity in the viewer which enables the viewer to experience... well... being, aliveness? Your hypothesis in this post suggests the latter but TE1, to me, suggests the former.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Cedric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-49741104815138341392009-04-23T07:59:00.000-05:002009-04-23T07:59:00.000-05:00I have finally managed to read this post in its en...I have finally managed to read this post in its entirety. Too many disruptions lately :)<br />Your final wording of the hypothesis presented here (with the help of Joseph Campbell) is strongly satisfying even though I was at first unsure of your approach. My uncertainty laid in your equation. I understood that you were seeking a definition of "fine photography" but was thrown when I saw "Experience" rather than "photograph" on the left hand side of the equation. <br />Also I have always thought that a photograph was in part defined by the photographer and yet your equation makes no reference to the photographer and instead puts the onus almost entirely upon the viewer. As the saying goes "Beauty is in the eye [or mind] of the beholder".<br />Naturaly one could say that the photographer also ends up as a viewer and thus is included in the equation. But it left me wondering back to an equation of my own which I once used to explain to a friend the relationship between a photograph and a photographer. The equation: Q=f(A/i) is not quite as comprehensive as yours and perhaps not as well thought out. But allow me to explain. I saw a relationship between the quality of a photograph (Q), the amount of presence or awareness (A) at the time the photograph is made and the photographer (i). However I took "A" to be a constant because my own experience tells me that Awareness is always there, unmoved and unchanging. But the amount of awareness or presence a photographer has seems to me to be directly dependent on how absorbed the photographer is in the belief of "I". In other words what part the ego played in the making of the photograph.<br />So with "A" being constant and an assumption that a healthy ego is equal to 1 you can see that the more absorbed the photographer is in his sense of self (i.e. i > 1) the more impact it has on diminishing the value of "A" and thus "Q". On the other hand the less involved the photographer becomes in his sense of self (i < 1) the more impact it has on increasing the value of Awareness and in consequence the quality of the image. Theoretically, the complete absence of self in the making of an image would create an image of indescribable beauty.<br />Anyway, your formula is much more useful and as I said earlier, strongly satisfying as an all encompassing definition. Afterall, the "deepest feelings of being alive", is <I>exactly</I> what pure awarness or full presence brings you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9493601.post-73305442415318519822009-04-19T16:49:00.000-05:002009-04-19T16:49:00.000-05:00What would an artwork that depicts all of the poss...<EM>What would an artwork that depicts all of the possible artworks, in all of the possible contexts and interpretations that a given observer might ascribe to them, look like, starting with - as an example - Adams' "Moonrise, Hernandez"?</EM>Hey, wait a second! Isn't that problem NP-Complete? First give me a non-deterministic machine, then I'll show you what that artwork looks like :-)<br /><br />(And I get to collect the royalties from other problems I solve with the machine).Seinberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234370928201525172noreply@blogger.com