|
|
Post by millring on Nov 5, 2023 8:23:11 GMT -5
The subject has come up several times in different ways here: The world of art is ever-changing. Cultural relevance isn't available to the aged -- for any number of reasons (some we probably don't understand or else we could "re-relevant" ourselves as artists). I have a potter friend from up in MN. She hosts one of the sites on the world-famous St Croix Pottery Tour every spring. But before she started making pottery with her world famous (in the world of pottery) husband, she was a well-received wood carver. She was asked on facebook if she would ever return to carving. I thought her answer was poignant.  |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 5, 2023 8:48:58 GMT -5
I think we're aging out of most things.
It's not a pretty picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 5, 2023 9:20:09 GMT -5
Oddly enough, this subject has been on my mind for several reasons.
I was just reading an article in LensWork, which is one of the most respected photography magazines. The author's view was that artificial intelligence may well be fatal to photography. What photography always had going for it was believability. Since the image was mechanically recorded, viewers could trust that the subject actually looked like that, at least when the light and the weather coalesced in a particular way. AI has undermined that believability. There's very little you can't do now with 0s and 1s. I can direct Photoshop to put a dog in the middle of a desert landscape photo and it will do it. I suspect that AI will, indeed, undermine photography in a significant way.
But that may not matter because serious photography is probably obsolete anyway. Even the prominent photographers aren't selling many photographs. Phone cameras are excellent and will do all that most people want done. My semi-old-fashioned gear still has some advantages but they don't matter much to most people. Illuminated manuscripts had some advantages over printed documents but that didn't keep printing from essentially eliminating the production of illuminated manuscripts. Experience with framing, composition and the like still gives me an edge over most phone photographers, but not one that's going to prompt many people to write a check.
I'm not bothered by all this. It's just what is. But tomorrow's "art" won't be today's.
|
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Nov 5, 2023 10:11:29 GMT -5
Oddly enough, this subject has been on my mind for several reasons. I was just reading an article in LensWork, which is one of the most respected photography magazines. The author's view was that artificial intelligence may well be fatal to photography. What photography always had going for it was believability. Since the image was mechanically recorded, viewers could trust that the subject actually looked like that, at least when the light and the weather coalesced in a particular way. AI has undermined that believability. There's very little you can't do now with 0s and 1s. I can direct Photoshop to put a dog in the middle of a desert landscape photo and it will do it. I suspect that AI will, indeed, undermine photography in a significant way. But that may not matter because serious photography is probably obsolete anyway. Even the prominent photographers aren't selling many photographs. Phone cameras are excellent and will do all that most people want done. My semi-old-fashioned gear still has some advantages but they don't matter much to most people. Illuminated manuscripts had some advantages over printed documents but that didn't keep printing from essentially eliminating the production of illuminated manuscripts. Experience with framing, composition and the like still gives me an edge over most phone photographers, but not one that's going to prompt many people to write a check. I'm not bothered by all this. It's just what is. But tomorrow's "art" won't be today's.
Synchronicity rules. We just published an announcement on the website of Leica's new M11-P digital rangefinder camera, now equipped with "technology from the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) that will help users regain trust in digital storytelling." It seems to be an intelligent technology that can identify manipulations and verify authenticity in images, developed in cooperation between Adobe and Leica. We'll see if it has any sweeping worldwide effect in the near future.
If you care to read the details:
Tangent over, and now, back to the original gist of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 5, 2023 12:03:12 GMT -5
Howard, I read the details. Thanks. I can see uses for such software but I don't think it will be sufficient to restore most people's trust in photography.  The flower and the blurred background are real. The dancer and the mountains are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 5, 2023 12:13:34 GMT -5
About photography: Image manipulation and falsification is almost as old as the technology itself, and the serious photographers of my (doubtless limited) acquaintance took as much pride in their darkroom skills as in their ability to spot/frame/capture a scene. We have two small black & white prints on our walls, taken by a friend who made it clear that their quality as images-to-be-enjoyed was largely a product of what he did to the raw negatives (taken, to be sure, with a Hasselblad--I think a 500 series). His attitude seemed inspired by Ansel Adams, whose images are not straight-from-the-negative works.
Of course, for most people a camera is a device for capturing memories, and for that function phone cameras are much more effective and convenient than all but the snazziest amateur/consumer-grade digital cameras (of which I have two or three gathering dust, along with my '30s Leica, my pocket-size Minox, my Bolex 8mm movie rig, and my VHS-C video camera). And I suspect that for snapshooters with an urge toward art, most of the image-manipulation software is overkill. (Mostly I want to crop or maybe fiddle with contrast.)
|
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Nov 5, 2023 12:27:57 GMT -5
Howard, I read the details. Thanks. I can see uses for such software but I don't think it will be sufficient to restore most people's trust in photography. [...]
You're welcome. I agree with your view. We have come too far with misinformation and manipulated photographic/video documentation, deep fakes, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 5, 2023 13:12:31 GMT -5
On art, age, relevance, and commerce: The connection between the middle pair of terms is questionable at best, though when art and commerce are linked, they transform into a fourth: fashion*, captured by a Venn-diagram relationship that matters economically (to the producer) but not particularly aesthetically. Fashion might drive a degree of innovation (or recycling/rediscovery), but it mostly operates in areas adjacent to the aesthetic, the world of "court news, and . . . /Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out" (King Lear).
Dedication to an unfashionable art is tough, and if its practice requires material and logistical support, it's even tougher. Poets can poet get away with nothing more than a notebook and a pen, and even a Sunday painter can manage with a modest investment in materials, but heaven help the potter, sculptor, orchestrator, or theater director who lacks a paying audience or a patron.
* Which is a kind of faux relevance--or, to be fair, a relevance to whatever some arbitrary group of people decide is interesting or amusing or pretty. But longitudinal relevance is not the same as fashion. C. recognizes, in ways her students find difficult to follow, that Ovid and Homer remain "relevant." As that old fascist nutball Pound pointed out, "Literature is news that stays news." This applies to art in general, even if there are no words involved. Yeats dug it:
The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees
[. . .]
commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 5, 2023 14:14:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Nov 5, 2023 17:01:26 GMT -5
Carl Barks was the best ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 5, 2023 17:02:08 GMT -5
For those of you who may be interested in getting into Duck art, the artist you want to focus on is Carl Barks, the fellow who wrote and illustrated the classic Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comics. I have his collected works. I have done a lot of strange things during my time on this planet. (but, at least I didn't collect Little Lulu comics like a buddy of mine. That would be embarrassing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 5, 2023 17:02:59 GMT -5
My Duck Buddy! Good to see you!
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 5, 2023 17:16:18 GMT -5
Carl Barks was the best ever. Terry is back -- HOORAY! |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,900 
|
Post by Dub on Nov 5, 2023 18:49:46 GMT -5
Carl Barks was the best ever. This is the most welcome post I've seen since August 11. So glad to see you post, Terry. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 5, 2023 19:30:26 GMT -5
I'm not bothered by all this. It's just what is. But tomorrow's "art" won't be today's. I'm bothered by it in the same way I might miss a great dog, or music if I go deaf, or good food if all that was left me was maidrites. As someone completely immersed in living by my craft -- and surrounded by others who did likewise -- I can say without equivocation that the characterizing of making a living by one's craft as "commercial" may be strictly accurate, but it's far from the reality. Anyone who thought it might go on forever was naive, but thinking we're not losing anything is brutally glib. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 5, 2023 19:48:21 GMT -5
John, I'm an amateur. You're a pro. There's a big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 5, 2023 20:15:38 GMT -5
I'm not bothered by all this. It's just what is. But tomorrow's "art" won't be today's. I'm bothered by it in the same way I might miss a great dog, or music if I go deaf, or good food if all that was left me was maidrites. As someone completely immersed in living by my craft -- and surrounded by others who did likewise -- I can say without equivocation that the characterizing of making a living by one's craft as "commercial" may be strictly accurate, but it's far from the reality. Anyone who thought it might go on forever was naive, but thinking we're not losing anything is brutally glib. It's heartbreaking, really. |
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Nov 5, 2023 20:53:48 GMT -5
I'm not bothered by all this. It's just what is. But tomorrow's "art" won't be today's. I'm bothered by it in the same way I might miss a great dog, or music if I go deaf, or good food if all that was left me was maidrites. As someone completely immersed in living by my craft -- and surrounded by others who did likewise -- I can say without equivocation that the characterizing of making a living by one's craft as "commercial" may be strictly accurate, but it's far from the reality. Anyone who thought it might go on forever was naive, but thinking we're not losing anything is brutally glib. John, every time I wish I could add another piece of your work to my small collection, and am reminded that I can't, I'm keenly aware that something has been lost. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 5, 2023 21:21:41 GMT -5
I'm bothered by it in the same way I might miss a great dog, or music if I go deaf, or good food if all that was left me was maidrites. As someone completely immersed in living by my craft -- and surrounded by others who did likewise -- I can say without equivocation that the characterizing of making a living by one's craft as "commercial" may be strictly accurate, but it's far from the reality. Anyone who thought it might go on forever was naive, but thinking we're not losing anything is brutally glib. John, every time I wish I could add another piece of your work to my small collection, and am reminded that I can't, I'm keenly aware that something has been lost. Thanks for that. Really. But I'm also feeling the broader loss of our generation's art. And I guess a loss of a whole view of the world. It's not just visual arts and craft. I see the same thing in every activity that used to fill my life. The music has moved on. The Goshen jam (just for instance) didn't keep getting vital new young blood. It's the same people -- now grey haired and half crippled. I can look at the anomalies -- Josh Turner, Molly Tuttle, Billy Strings -- and I guess they're in about the same number as those who influenced our generation (I don't think it is, but it might be). Dar's dog world is the same -- her training club aging and no young people are interested. Other interests seem to be the same way. I'm guessing every generation has gone through this. And to the extent that anyone is engaged in culture, they may feel the loss deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Nov 6, 2023 7:38:20 GMT -5
I can only imagine how the French Impressionists must have felt as they aged out.
|
|
