tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post5717509974969022419..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: Outside of Timeamolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-64901842388315513722019-05-29T06:52:45.515-07:002019-05-29T06:52:45.515-07:00Science is a human construct, one way of describin...Science is a human construct, one way of describing some of what our senses apprehend. Scientists are forever learning what their predecessors didn't quite get right, and that's a good thing. What's not a good thing is trying to turn it into a religion.<br /><br />This is also true of art, except for the forever learning part, alas.<br /><br />What we are all just now learning is that there is no guaranteed 'eternal'; humanity's greatest achievements count for nothing without a humanity to tout them. That ought to focus our minds, probably won't.David Smithhttp://designartcraft.com/photo/afbp.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-68949721781645188182019-05-29T00:50:14.784-07:002019-05-29T00:50:14.784-07:00I thought I'd re-read that essay before commen...I thought I'd re-read that essay before commenting (oddly, it was originally published in the Village Voice in 1982) and, like you, I found his point hard to grasp. As a meditation on a painting (Giorgione's La Tempesta)it does veer off the subject pretty quickly.<br /><br />The opening Mandelstam quote reminds me of the excellent dictum that "time is what prevents everything happening at once, and space is what prevents it all happening to me"... Than which there is no greater truth. However, I *think* Bergr's point is simply that, from a progressive human point of view, scientism is not and never will be enough. Its truth is not a fully human truth.<br /><br />A famous quote of modernism is Cyril Connolly: "It is closing time in the gardens of the west and from now on an artist will be judged only by the quality of his despair". I think it's against that aesthetic of despair (in the face of, ultimately, entropy) that Berger wants art to stand.<br /><br />So why not just say so, John, FFS? There are better ways of spending a day in Venice...<br /><br />Mike<br />Mike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-33230206542347288862019-05-27T07:39:40.766-07:002019-05-27T07:39:40.766-07:00I can't promise that it's not circular, or...I can't promise that it's not circular, or that I understand it myself!<br /><br />The love itself isn't eternal, it is the fact that there once was love that is, in some sense. Which is sort of stupid, the fact that "my pencil once was" is equally eternal. Just not as humanly interesting.<br /><br />I'm no prude! I love nudity, also nudity in photographs!<br /><br />But nudity IS one of the lazy tropes a GWC reaches for. Street and landscape are almost invariably empty exercises in form. Sometimes nudes are as well, to be sure, but you can get Likes even if they're not. Hence my partition of the various empty shapes that photographs can assume.<br /><br />Of course, any and all of these general shapes can contain something eternal, or at least something interesting, as well. It's just that most photographers have no idea, and don't care.<br />amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-41046340109552699592019-05-26T13:16:37.881-07:002019-05-26T13:16:37.881-07:00For once, I have difficulty in following you. I un...For once, I have difficulty in following you. I understand that you're not enamoured of contemporary photography, and are trying to find out why. But there is so much in what you write that is unclear to me (and I don't want to read the Berger essay). What is this timeless love made of? What if it dies? Is it Eros or Agape or one of the other types the Greeks had words for? How can you show that modern stuff doesn't have it? Because you don't like it? I sense a hint of circularity here.<br /><br />Also, I know you are a self-professed American prude, but why drag those poor scantily-dressed women into the argument again? Because of the output of a billion GWCs? Bit unfair on the good stuff. Might as well mention street or landscape as categories also replete with rubbish. erickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409165571476557979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-16506969045693371722019-05-24T14:23:10.347-07:002019-05-24T14:23:10.347-07:00I think your conclusion, your last paragraph, come...I think your conclusion, your last paragraph, comes as close to this thing as I can figure out. As I have gotten older, I mean really older, and photography went from the wet darkroom to digital, I have been wrestling with what it is that makes it impossible for me to find contemporary photography interesting, for the most part anyhow. I used to devour photo books, magazine photo essays, and yes, advertising photography in slick women’s magazines. The old W got me excited with each new issue, now I can hardly stand to look at it. My wife mistakenly believed I was still interested in it and renewed my subscription.<br />It absolutely has nothing to do with film vs digital. I actually love digital, and it seems I am very much in the minority in that respect, certainly among old farts like me.<br />The question I have been asking myself is whether or not my interest in contemporary photographs [not in photography] has waned because of my age, or because of the current state of photography.<br />Now there are loads of contemporary photographers I still love and admire, from Masao Yamamoto to Sally Mann and Peter Lindbergh, but I don’t think these are really the ‘contemporaries’ we have in mind here.<br />christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057172033456543944noreply@blogger.com