This is wrong, “classicism” is the correct term.
Classicists believed that there was the ideal. So if there is no ideal, they are wrong.
I never told my own ideology in this thread. What I wrote is simply a history and a common definition of modern art.
Yes, one can talk for a long time about the nature of art. To put it provocatively, great artists do not theorize, but create creative works.
Personally, I am not a great artist, but I love to experiment and try out different things within the limits of my possibilities. It may be that once I find “my style” and then make lots of similar photos. But at the moment I’m still a beginner and am very happy to discover new things.
3 Likes
We are going in circles now. I hope you can see the contradiction of that statement. If there is no ideal, there is no right or wrong, therefore classicism cannot be wrong. Just different.
To put it provocatively,
Leonardo Da Vinci, “A Treatise on Painting”, “Notebooks”
James Whistler, “The Gentle Art of Making Enemies”
Vincent Van Gogh, “The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh”
Miles Mathis, best of essays by Miles Mathis
To list just a few.
And you can be absolutely sure that every artist theorizes at some point, even if they don’t publish their thoughts. To not do so would be to go through life thoughtlessly. It’s not even possible to do that (although some people certainly appear to be giving it their best shot).
Obvious business related explanations aside: mass consumption breeds mass conformity, otherwise the whole concept of an influencer makes no sense. Innovation usually happens in isolation or at least with very small groups.
We’ve put millions of people together on the internet and with social media it’s even more difficult to find a small, isolated enclave. It’s probably only natural art starts to trend largely in the same direction. We’re a social species after all and acceptances among the group is paramount to that.
3 Likes
Ok, I got you.
Yes, that might be true. That’s why I said “provocatively”. However, my point was, that great artist have a strong disire to do creative work. Yes, they may also reflect about their work. But in my opinion, great art originates not from theory.
2 Likes
I am always amazed by the number of people who imagine that by pressing the shutter thousands of times, they will necessarily make THE “good” image, that it will then be enough to find like the golden flake in the tons of mud…
1 Like
My theory is that most people who make pictures theorise about their own work. What makes this picture good and that picture bad? What changes to some other picture would make it better?
With practice, the process can become instinctive. But in the early stages, the process needs thought and imagination, perhaps guided by teachers, certainly by considering works by other people. This develops into a personal aesthetic which is (or can be, or should be) far more than simply “style”. A style is about visual similarity. An aesthetic is deeper. It is about emotion, feeling, resonance, communication, evocation, call-and-response, digging into the subconscious.
On books by people who make pictures, I suggest anything by Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Johannes Itten. And Albert Henry Munsell. EDIT: and Ansel Adams.
3 Likes
Pressing the shutter thousands of times will train you in getting a good picture. Just because you can study most photographic elements like composition, lighting etc, it won’t make you a better photographer if you have no actual experience and practice. I don’t believe that just because the camera does all the capturing work nowadays, that you don’t need to train, like any other art.