Continues the theme below. This photo, too, is untouched. Scroll down to see the place from a few yards back.
(Not a reflection but seen through a sheet of water.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Taking photos of eyeballs....
so you don't have to.
About Me
- Mike Bailey
- I started taking pics in 2004. I use a Canon PowerShot A640. I live in Rome, GA. I'm married and have three children. Feel free to post a comment on my pics or commentary.
Eyeball Central is also about....
what eyeballs do.
Labels
- bee(s) (15)
- cheer out the wazoo (1)
- Cloud Gate (30)
- eyeball(s) (77)
- Hands (blue or otherwise) (94)
- Harvey Hill in Hell (1)
- Homage to Marcel Duchamp (7)
- moon (blue or otherwise) (3)
- mortally wounded sugar Christmas cookies (1)
- public nudity (2)
- self-portrait (55)
- Videos (59)
Reading: Living Justification
Author is my brainy friend, Jonathan Huggins
listening to nowadays: Lana del Rey
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
.jpg)
Eyeballs AND Hands
Brought to you free of charge!!
Some of my favorite art, one piece at a time
Shuttlecocks by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen
Eyeball Central
It's what it's all about
12 comments:
Both of these make me want to reach into the photo and feel the water, see what the faces are made from. My laptop screen thanks you for that.
I really like this photo. I think it is one of your best. I never would have guessed that in real life, it was pretty small.
cool, cool, cool. nice photo of my favorite spot in the botanical garden. love it! - claudia
Are photos of another person's art, fantastic as they are, themselves art?
Discuss.
PS - I feel the need for one of my unnecessary disclaimers, which at times I view as necessary nonetheless due to my sometimes very hard to read "is he gigging me or is he serious?" deadpan tone. That essay question is not designed to malign any of these photos. It's a real question.
A real goooooooooooooood question.
Justcurious: I like that. Very nice.
Technoprairie: Thanks so much!
Anonymous: Heya Claudia!!!! I'm impressed you recognize this place. Cool, cool, cool right back atcha!
Andy D.: Quick answer. Yes, of course they can be art. Consider Warhol's silk screens. (Or look them up if you need to.) The art present in photography of other art emerges from the sensibilitiesof the photo--that is, from how the object is captured and interpreted. In that sense it's no difference from taking a picture of a mountain. You can't take credit for the mountain, but you can take credit for how it's framed or presented. But the problem is that it's just extremely difficult to photograph art in artistic ways--that is, as original moments that transcend the object. I do think that different art forms do tend to have their own sets of aesthetics, but great artists are fantastic at adding to that set.
Well I agree they "can be." the question I've been thinking about. Is, when are they?
If I take a straight on photo of the Mona Lisa, I think most people would say sorry Andy, not art.
Your photos here (which I like far more than the Warhol silk screens, which yes I've heard of...) by contrast, are amazing. I think most people at first blush would say yrs, art. So a line has been crossed somewhere between the two examples. I'm wondering whether it can be found, or if it has to be "I know it when I see it"?
So some middle examples: I photograph the ML from 20 feet back and show people looking at her.
I photograph just the smile of the ML. Is that mine? And is it art?
I write an essay about a book I've read, reacting to it. Probably not art. But what if I instead write a tribute story using the same characters and/or situation?
Similarly if I do something like that with music? Or, what if I take my straight on ML poster shot, highlight it in a red spotlight, and play my own musical composition in the background?
I just think it's interesting to think about these examples. And I don't know that there is a defined line, though I'm searching for one. You're right, I think it has to do with framing and interpretations of a piece, but I'm not sure what the defining point is after that.
Anyway, I love all these fountain photos.
I
Well, I think taking photos of art that's art itself is hard. But I think most photos don't qualify as good art, anyway. What would have to make it art is what was brought to the piece by the act of photography itself. So with Worhol what he does is makes us look anew at Marilyn Monroe as a commodity, or as a person objectified by fame. His reprints of existing photos prompted the reevaluation. Similarly, the photo of an object of art can only be art if something about the photo itself promps artistic thoughts that the piece of art being photographed doesn't by itself. For example, the art may prompt questions about reproduction (of images), or it may reveal the importance of angle. Or, as may be the case, it may present only a piece of the art, or put the art in a different context, that says something new about art itself. But it's really no harder to do this with art than with anything else. Making pretty or even visually interesting artifacts isn't so hard. Making art is. I'll let you know when I do it. Heck, I'll let EVERYONE know when I actually do it.
Andy D--another fun thing to think about is that it is possible to load an image file into a computer, do various transformations on it, and output it as a music file. I actually saw a presentation in which someone did that in order to create soundtracks to a an old silent movie using itself as the soundtrack. Is this art?
If not, it's at least freakishly cool.
I agree with you here -- except where you say you haven't made art yet. Au contrair.
But you have inadvertantly stumbled onto the subject for the next time: Can "art" be subdivided into "good art" and "bad art"... or does "art" by implication only include "good art" and leave "bad art" to other description? I.e., horse puckey.
Westside.
S-S: Freakishly cool, indeed!! I'm curious whether any pop songs have done that yet. I'd buy it, art or not, but I'd have to see the image at the same time, you know, to see what I'm listening to.... Ok now I'm confusing myself.
Next step in the art discussion: what if a musician loads a person's life facts into a computer algorithm which converts it into a melody. Oh wait - that was Pete Townsend in "Baba O'Reilly." So: Baba O'Reilly - art? Or just 40 years before its time for discussion?.....
Andy D-I quite agree, I don't care how nice the song is, I am not listening to music created from a photo of Paris Hilton.
The life facts is actually a completely fascinating question on several levels. An image (as stored in a computer) is a thing entirely complete unto itself with an agreed upon way of representing it in a computer, .jpg, .bmp whatever. But for a person's life facts you first have to determine *which* facts and then how to represent them.
So, assuming I ever have time and motivation again, (and yet I troll blogs) how do you want your life to look like inside my computer, and do you want that stored life with or without the mass murders? What about the fluffy bunnies?
*disclaimer* I know nothing about you other than that your initials are AMD, which is cool. So I have no idea whether mass murders or fluffy bunnies apply here.
Baba O'Reilly. I would say that the song isn't a complete representation of a life because the song itself isn't complete without the accompanying images of The Who in all the clothing and hair choices that made the 70s ridiculous.
Post a Comment