But of course. :-> Nonetheless, it's a useful way of thinking about it - not 'Do I like this,' but, 'If I were being paid to create a group exhibition, would this fit?'
I don't see how my statement leads immediately to that state. Clearly, if a museum owned a Manet, and a curator was making an exhibition of, say, nudes, the curator could well select the Manet for the exhibition. Having a curator who doesn't think Manet is trash is a whole other issue. :-> As comparison: let's say the exhibition was 'Nudes of the Impressionist Masters.' Let's say they have Manet's Olympia and Van Gogh's Sunflowers, among many others. Can you see why that *particular* Van Gogh should not be included in that *particular* exhibition, irrespective of style or quality?
Originally posted by Journey:
I really don't care what Joe Voter or Joe Curator or Joe Art-Circle tells me i ought to like. If *I* like something, that's really all that matters to me.
YES! Vote like that. That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying, sometimes if there's a question in your mind, "Is this on-topic or does it completely not fit?" that it might be useful to say to yourself, "Ok, I'm a curator, and five hundred people are going to be at the opening next week. Does this *really* go into the exhibition, or not?" By YOUR tastes. Not mine. :->
[quote=eloise As comparison: let's say the exhibition was 'Nudes of the Impressionist Masters.' Let's say they have Manet's Olympia and Van Gogh's Sunflowers, among many others. Can you see why that *particular* Van Gogh should not be included in that *particular* exhibition, irrespective of style or quality?
[/quote]
Well, Manet's Olympia would NOT be included either in the show of
'Nudes of the Impressionist Masters' because it is not an impressionist painting nor was Manet known as an 'Impressionist'. He did some paintings in the impressionist style in the final years of his life and he certainly opened the door wide for the later Impressionists to approach art from an entirely novel perspective but the bulk of Manet's work and for which he was best known is NOT impressionism.
So, what was it again that you said about definitions?
These threads always make me wonder. How many of you understand the challenge perfectly but are just having fun with the argument? ; )
Oh, and would you believe me if I said I had a toaster on my desk at work?
I personally understand the challenge just fine. My first 2 weeks on DPC or so, I used to get annoyed by the challenge complain thread, but now, a bunch of us just have a great time trying to see how far people will go, and how serious they will get.
By the way, there had better be a stapler reflected in that toaster, or it's getting a 1 from me.
I don't remember who said it, or where in this thread, and i don't have time to hunt right now, but whoever said the words "voters" and "cut some slack" in the same sentence, might want to reconsider.
And bod, I always understand the challenge perfectly, and submit a picture that is a perfect technical representation of the challenge, the voters just don't get it! :-)
Well, Manet's Olympia would NOT be included either in the show of 'Nudes of the Impressionist Masters' because it is not an mpressionist painting nor was Manet known as an 'Impressionist'. He did some paintings in the impressionist style in the final years of his life and he certainly opened the door wide for the later Impressionists to approach art from an entirely novel perspective but the bulk of Manet's work and for which he was best known is NOT impressionism.
So, what was it again that you said about definitions?
Huh. Well, I look at the painting and I see lots of brushstrokes evoking the momentary fall of light, so I admit I assumed it was Impressionist because of how it looks. Would you feel better if I said 'Nudes by Famous White Dead Respectable Dudes'? :->
These threads always make me wonder. How many of you understand the challenge perfectly but are just having fun with the argument? ; )
Oh, and would you believe me if I said I had a toaster on my desk at work?
Hey Paul - I have a coffee pot in my office too very similar to the one I used for Kitchen art. The store where I buy my goldfish is much closer to my office than it is my kitchen. I also have a George Foreman grill in my office. That would be a little too cruel even for me. I have about 60 pictures of my kids on the wall. Who wants to see 60 pictures my kids as a challenge shot? I'm guessing not many. Lighten up folks, by the time you get this all sorted out it will be time for the next challenge. - Bob
[quote=eloise
Huh. Well, I look at the painting and I see lots of brushstrokes evoking the momentary fall of light, so I admit I assumed it was Impressionist because of how it looks. Would you feel better if I said 'Nudes by Famous White Dead Respectable Dudes'? :->[/quote]
Velazques' paintings also has lots of passages that have impressionistic brush strokes, etc. It doesn't matter to me what you call your exhibit :) What i am trying to convey is that some of voters here are very caught up on definitions of meeting the challenge but those definitions may be strictly their own definition and may be incorrect or unduly limiting. I don't see much point of using an imaginary curator as a yardstick because you're not a curator and you don't know what goes through the mind of a curator. No matter how you slice it, it's really YOU with YOUR definitions who is judging whether it meets the challenge or not and not some curator.
If one perceives an office as strictly a setting with a desk, computer, telephone, calendar, etc, then that person may vote down creative interpretations of 'office' that in fact may very well reflect someone's office reality.
What i am trying to convey is that some of voters here are very caught up on definitions of meeting the challenge but those definitions may be strictly their own definition and may be incorrect or unduly limiting. I don't see much point of using an imaginary curator as a yardstick because you're not a curator and you don't know what goes through the mind of a curator. No matter how you slice it, it's really YOU with YOUR definitions who is judging whether it meets the challenge or not and not some curator.
This is my point exactly. Everyone has their own interpretations. I just offered the 'curator' thought experiment as a tool to help codify *one's own* feelings about what that particular voter feels to be the scope of the topic.
Originally posted by Journey:
If one perceives an office as strictly a setting with a desk, computer, telephone, calendar, etc, then that person may vote down creative interpretations of 'office' that in fact may very well reflect someone's office reality.
With all respect, if a picture needs to be explained, it's likely too obscure and self-consciously arty. This isn't about 'someone's office reality' - it's about Office Art. :-> If it needs someone standing with you as you look at it, sharing the in-joke, the Deeper Aesthetic Meaning, the key to WHY it fits, then it needs way too much work on the part of the voter, IMHO, and you shouldn't be surprised if folks think it doesn't fit.
I should note that in the challenges that have occurred since I joined, far less than 10% of the entrants Completely Missed The Point, IMHO (though more in Home Sweet Home than in others I've seen). Almost everyone entering is making a good-faith shot at (a) working within the topic and (b) doing it in a way most voters can understand.
With all respect, if a picture needs to be explained, it's likely too obscure and self-consciously arty. This isn't about 'someone's office reality' - it's about Office Art. :-> If it needs someone standing with you as you look at it, sharing the in-joke, the Deeper Aesthetic Meaning, the key to WHY it fits, then it needs way too much work on the part of the voter, IMHO, and you shouldn't be surprised if folks think it doesn't fit.
Yeah - what Eloise said.
Down with thinking, too much of that sort of thing going on.
It's not like it is supposed to be art, its just taking pictures.
Down with thinking, too much of that sort of thing going on.
It's not like it is supposed to be art, its just taking pictures.
Hee. :-> From my POV, it's more like, "It's art, it's not calculus." Lots of art happens on a visceral level. This is not to say that studying an image and thinking about it deeply don't help, or give a different perspective, but if it's going to be High Art it has to be able to grab your hindbrain and yank, rivet your attention with some intangible quality. It shouldn't make you blink at it and wonder why someone put it there.
"...take your camera and your creative eye to the office this time" implies to me I ought to know the setting is an office of some sort when I look at the picture. I will interpret 'office' relatively loosely when I vote, assuming I have time to vote, but this seems really straight-forwardly focussed on stuff CURRENTLY IN an office setting, or photos taken WHILE IN an office setting. Home offices count as far as I'm concerned.
You can think all you want about how to make it creative, but the CHALLENGE here is to keep your creativity within certain bounds and guidelines, and stretching them too far WILL affect your score. (If you don't want to observe those bounds and guidelines, entering the challenges seems silly; pick another way to show off your creativity, for dog's sake.) It is up to the photographer to try to make a picture that speaks of the topic to the typical person -- or not, if they don't care. It is up to the voter to decide how well this succeeds, or not, if you're one of those voters who thinks that topic is immaterial (though I don't understand that concept).
YMMV. And no doubt does. Nothing I say here is anything but how it's going to work for me, and my confusion about why this is even an issue. Y'all do what you want.
With all respect, if a picture needs to be explained, it's likely too obscure and self-consciously arty.
So why do people study art, listen to lectures on art, have seminars on art, write dissertations on art? What ARE they all talking about, if the meaning of the Great Work being studied is so patently obvious? Most of that stuff doesn't usually occur around unknown, poorly-made works ....
Not everyone has an office (or kitchen, for that matter). I am perfectly willing to accept someone's "equivalent" for the purpose of meeting the challenge. Some of you may prefer more literal interpretations, and that's fine too!
With all respect, if a picture needs to be explained, it's likely too obscure and self-consciously arty.
So why do people study art, listen to lectures on art, have seminars on art, write dissertations on art? What ARE they all talking about, if the meaning of the Great Work being studied is so patently obvious? Most of that stuff doesn't usually occur around unknown, poorly-made works ....
I don't know why they do that or what they're talking about myself; if you figure it out, let me know. But then, I don't get why people play golf, either. :)
No, I'm not being totally serious. Although I don't care for a great deal of "deep hidden meaning of this painting" style art discussion, either; while explaining what I personally like or feel about a picture is something I sometimes like doing it doesn't have a lot to do with deep hidden meanings but rather obvious (to me) ones.
Anyhow, that wasn't the point. The point was this:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not everyone has an office (or kitchen, for that matter). I am perfectly willing to accept someone's "equivalent" for the purpose of meeting the challenge. Some of you may prefer more literal interpretations, and that's fine too!
Although I note that it doesn't say it has to be YOUR office. The office of a spouse, a sibling, your doctor, or some random person would work just as well. If someone without a personal office is feeling a little stumped or limited, I just figured I'd point that out.
You have five days. Shoo! What are you standing around here talking for?
