| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. political and philosophical intent?
Asked by james mickelson
(K=7344) on 3/5/1999
|
As I've read some of these threads I've come to a question about political and/or philosophical intent. Without reading anything about an artist, how would you discern the political intent or philosophical bent of the maker of the body of work? Had you not read anything about Dali, E. Porter, E. Smith, Ansel Adams, Wynn Bullock, ect., ect., ect., how would you know what they meant with their body of work? Do your own directions in life color how you see? Do you feel so intelligent that you become expert in your opinions of what is meant by a body of work? It was stated by a regular responder, actually more than one, that all works are political in nature whether that was the intent of the artist or not. Are some of us reading in a little more than is really there? Without knowing the artists true being are we actually just guessing? Is it like statistics? James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Buffaloe
(K=235) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
This is a good question. My knowledge of Adams or Weston would be considerably diminished if I had not read their writings. It has been noted that a caption of a few words can completely change the way we view a photograph, as can the context in which the photo appears.
Adams' photographs were used in brochures by Standard Oil (now Exxon) in the early '50s, implying by proximity that Standard Oil was carefully managing America's natural resources, whereas in reality they were raping and exploiting the land and using every means at their disposal to obtain mineral rights from people who had no idea what they were selling. (see Deborah Bright's essay "The Public Landscape of Postwar America" in MULTIPLE VIEWS (Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1991).)
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=15) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
"Do your own directions in life color how you see?"
Of course they do. The meanings we attach to any words/pictures/sounds/smells depend very much on our history of experiences and current situation. I found it interesting in the thread about the Kosovo photos that some found them to be a cause for outrage (and, presumably, involvement), some were little affected, and one person saw them as further motivation that we shouldn't get involved. We all saw the same photos (and text), but our reactions varied widely.
"Do you feel so intelligent that you become expert in your opinions of what is meant by a body of work? . . . Are some of us reading in a little more than is really there?"
I'd say it's arrogant to presume you know the "correct" meaning of a body of work, especially since there's probably isn't a single meaning that will be perceived universally. Sometimes we read more than is there (and/or skip over those parts that don't fit out conception of what the work means).
"Without knowing the artists true being are we actually just guessing?"
Even if you examined everything an artist has ever done, you wouldn't know his (or her) "true being." You're still seeing only a fragment of that person's life--the fragment they chose to present to the public.
"Is it like statistics?"
Yes, in many ways it is. By being selective in what we examine, we can support just about any conclusiong we'd like.
It's virtually impossible for an artist to express his intent in a work of art in a way that cannot be distorted by others (at least not without being so heavy-handed that he ends up pounding you over the head with his "message.")
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/5/1999
|
Well, damn, Mike...I haven't got anything to say, now. I'm with you on all of that...t
|
|
|
|
|
