Provocative as ever. Clear discussion of things that we instinctively do whatever we are making a photograph but don't analyse at the time. A lot of wit. I think one that I have enjoyed the most so far but ... the journey proceeds, I hope.
I wonder about this a lot- as you say it 'sparks an emotional response' - what I cannot explain is the emotional nature of this response Perhaps futile to overthink it ! Very interesting video Thank you
About conceptual art:yes, it's true that conceptual communication may not have been possible for cavemen, but this is because they were burdened by a survavlist imperative. We've moved on since, an and we are not the way we used to be back then ...are not animals, and as such we are able to engage with things at an intellectual level as opposed to merely the gestural or emotive level. Art is obviously not just about conveying emotions, and most certainly not about cognitively empty emotions.
Ooooow, look who just got all contemporary. Personally I'm sort of maybies aye, maybies no about this concept. Although you can justifiably say that a gesture makes a photo, you can just as easily say that any photo of any animate object contains gesture: cat playing with ball of string, cat coming through a cat flap, cat sleeping. Is gesture just movement or can it be immobile. If it is immobile is there any intent, or meaning. If there is no intent or meaning, perhaps no life itself, are we just looking at interpretation by the photographer .... or the viewer? In which case any image of anything contains gesture; we could of course include music, architecture, food, texture ... the list goes on ... Is there intent, meaning, interpretation going on? Ultimately a tighter definition is required or it simply becomes meaningless as a concept, which is why conceptual art is often labeled as being meaningless ... or somebody has to 'explain' it to the recipient.
Very nice video, love the images, good samples, great explanation.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks RS
Provocative as ever. Clear discussion of things that we instinctively do whatever we are making a photograph but don't analyse at the time. A lot of wit. I think one that I have enjoyed the most so far but ... the journey proceeds, I hope.
I hope too. Many thanks
Enjoyed....thank you! Great to see bits of Motherwell included: one my favourite abstract expressionists. A very smart guy.
Extremely interesting lecture. Very insightful.
thank you Graeme for another interesting discussion, these are always illuminating and thought provoking
Loved this video, amazed at how many Vivian Maier images were there, thought provoking 👏👏
I learn more and more as a photographic artist watching your videos. Bravo!
Another fascinating video, thanks Graeme. Always thought provoking.
Excellent essay, Graeme. Thank you.
Thank you ...
I wonder about this a lot- as you say it 'sparks an emotional response' - what I cannot explain is the emotional nature of this response Perhaps futile to overthink it ! Very interesting video Thank you
Many thanks for this
About conceptual art:yes, it's true that conceptual communication may not have been possible for cavemen, but this is because they were burdened by a survavlist imperative. We've moved on since, an and we are not the way we used to be back then ...are not animals, and as such we are able to engage with things at an intellectual level as opposed to merely the gestural or emotive level. Art is obviously not just about conveying emotions, and most certainly not about cognitively empty emotions.
Interesting problem. I agree "gesture" and "trigger" are perhaps not the best terms. Perhaps evocative energy?
Do you think photographs can be seen in metaphysical terms?
Ooooow, look who just got all contemporary.
Personally I'm sort of maybies aye, maybies no about this concept. Although you can justifiably say that a gesture makes a photo, you can just as easily say that any photo of any animate object contains gesture: cat playing with ball of string, cat coming through a cat flap, cat sleeping. Is gesture just movement or can it be immobile. If it is immobile is there any intent, or meaning. If there is no intent or meaning, perhaps no life itself, are we just looking at interpretation by the photographer .... or the viewer? In which case any image of anything contains gesture; we could of course include music, architecture, food, texture ... the list goes on ... Is there intent, meaning, interpretation going on?
Ultimately a tighter definition is required or it simply becomes meaningless as a concept, which is why conceptual art is often labeled as being meaningless ... or somebody has to 'explain' it to the recipient.