David Ward - Landscape Photography - Into The Light

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist25/03/2008, 13:59

It’s nice to see your shiny new site, which showcases your work well. Good to see you defining transcendence on the basis of examples – I found that genuinely enjoyable. I thought I could kick off this version of your blog in tones more spiritual than Schultz. When I attended the Nadolski evening at Joe Cornish’s gallery, JC said that the important consideration for an artist was to ignore the public and work for oneself. I rather suspect that you agree with that (to be confirmed) but to me, this blog entry raises the question of whether the public is a part of the work of art. I see two ways in which the public could become part of the work. Option 1: the artist takes the intended public into account (even if that public is himself) before defining & producing the work of art (which in this case is limited to the object produced by the artist). Option 2: the work of art is only complete if it consists of two mental images connected by an object (ie the work of art is much more than just the object). And there is also a much deeper question: Art or art? In the first case, the Artist is an over-arching intelligence conducting the movements of people and objects by one means or another. It might be the spirit of the human community or it may be beyond us entirely. If there is Art, It is a by-product of combinations caused by the Artist – it is not willed by mere mortals. Its purpose is unfathomable and its ultimate aim not for us to know. The artist would be a mere toy at the mercy of some grander scheme of which he has only an inkling at best. In the second case, there is no absolute, no grand vision, but the determination of wilful individuals to go about the business of creating. Each individual becomes a god of his own universe, where the objects are rearranged according to his will. He might be limited by the actions of others or the inertia of objects, but the scheme is borne within the artist. Then, there are half-way houses: (i) chance combinations of wilful artists making what feels like Art because no-one has any control; or (ii) referring to the previous paragraph, it could be that art requires two wilful people and that the artists are in fact always two-headed – that art happens at a community level. Of course, I realise that the cartoon refers to what the photographer sees rather than what the public sees –but at the end of the day, they are pretty well the same process. Anyway just a few thoughts to start your new blog. Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Peter Cook30/04/2008, 14:22

I know it could be a little late to comment on this as it was posted a while ago but I will anyway. I thought the cartoon was excellent and my feeling is that it was meant to show how easy it is, when commenting on art, to disappear up your own posterior. It is all too easy; it seems, for this to happen. When I look at a photograph, I know if I like it or not but it is very difficult to translate that into words, if I were to try then I would probably end up talking a lot of nonsense. Very few people can successfully do this and I know I am not one of them. I feel more twaddle is talked about in the world of art than anywhere else, it's as though by using lengthy prose and almost incomprehensible sentences it will create an ‘inner circle’ that will exclude most people and make art more self important than it needs to be. My general philosophy is ‘I make images for myself, if other people like them then I am flattered and happy.’ Art and photography should be created for the simple pleasure of enjoyment, be that fleeting or long lasting, so in some respects the cartoon is a good piece of art!

Highlight this Comment Chris A30/04/2008, 18:54

I like the cartoon and you can read into it at many levels. Perhaps the original intention was to make Charlie Brown the butt of the joke as he only sees a duck and a horse in the clouds. But both he and Linus have abstracted physical objects (clouds) into something from their own experience, both equally valid in my book. Whether you are seeing horses or Honduras, you are at least a step ahead of describing them as cotton wool. I also recall seeing somewhere that some of the best advice given by a tutor to a pupil was to describe what colour clouds were. If your answer is white, then you're not really looking at the world around you. Unfortunately I can't remember who said this to whom (it could have been a painter or a photographer), maybe someone out there knows...

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist08/05/2008, 12:28

Peter Cook: All this talk of posteriors and inner circles is wonderfully scatological but why should you pour scorn upon that which you do not comprehend? You’re only betraying what you associate those thoughts with. There are aspects of art which matter to some but not to others. There are subtleties apparent to some but invisible to others. One man’s Honduras is another’s horse. A little tolerance would be nice. You can’t expect to have everything dumbed down, even in modern GB. All the best, Charles PS: Peter, your email does not accept replies.

Highlight this Comment David12/05/2008, 09:43

Hi Peter & Charles,

I feel that I need to jump to Peter's defence Charles as you seem to have misinterpreted his comments. As far as I'm concerned Peter was making a simple comment on how he felt about art criticism and I tend to agree with him that quite a lot of what is written is as clear as mud, whether this is deliberate or not is to some extent a mute point.

Accusing Peter of pouring scorn on something he doesn't understand is certainly not helpful, in fact I would suggest Charles that maybe you are the one being intolerant rather than the other way around!

In my opinion Peter was just passing on a widely held, and to some degree justified, belief that the majority are being excluded from an understanding of art by an elitist group who use a specialist vocabulary made up of difficult and unusual words. I don't think he was making a pointed or calculated attack.

Who's fault is it if people like Peter feel excluded? Surely it's the fault of people like me and you Charles for not expressing our ideas clearly enough?! There can be little doubt that some of the concepts are difficult to grasp and describe but that's no excuse for making things harder by addressing them in such a way that only an inner circle can understand what one has written (btw Charles I think you need to look at your own perceptions rather than Peter's if you feel that inner circle is a bottom joke ;-) I'm fully aware that such an attack can be aimed at me for my past failings in this area and will endeavour to express myself more clearly in future!!

Highlight this Comment Peter Cook12/05/2008, 15:41

Thank you David for those comments, I think you understood my comments well. I generally have found your writing to be understandable and accessible, which I feel is important, so you have no reason to make an apology. I have been taking images for some years but have only recently tried to move forwards in my ambitions and improve. It helps greatly to find people that can communicate what they achieve in a digestible way. Maybe others cannot or will not do this! I do not feel excluded, because I can enjoy art and photography just as well as the next man, possibly better, because of my apparent (by some) ignorance. Maybe its a little like Hi-Fi buffs, who spend so much time caught up in the complexities of the system that they become unable to even listen to a piece of music without stopping to twiddle. I think it is may be better to look at an image with a clearer mind! I also hate dumbing down, but my point has sadly been missed (on some) Clarity is not dumb! If we are to learn these greater things then we must start at the beginning and be guided in a way that can be understood by the average person, (if you want to share your knowledge that is). Like I said in my original post, some people can do this others seem to like covering things in a veil. Finally, to assume you know what someone’s thoughts might be betraying from one paragraph is frankly rather daft, and the same goes for my comprehension. BTW: the ‘inner circle’ comment had no thought at all linking it with bottoms, so I don’t think I have the scatological mind.

Highlight this Comment David12/05/2008, 22:04

Peter, thank you for your kind comments on my imperfect explanations of art and photography. I'm flattered that you feel I can express my ideas about photography in a digestible way.

It's great that I've sparked a debate in this post but I sense a degree of animosity between you and Charles. A healthy exchange of opinions is great but confrontations are destructive. Play nice boys or play somewhere else! ;-)