I can't seem to find any info on the new item in the left hand column titled Lonely Images. Can someone explain?

Has everyone had a sense of humour-ectomy? Oh well, probably just me then.

However, I do find this interesting. Some people obviously think I post images, and take time and effort in it, to please them. Personally I do not. Sorry about that. I post images, if I am honest, to please myself. The viewers can take of leave them. LynEve said something similar on another thread, about posting images she does not particularly like because if she only posted ones she liked people would get very bored. I am not quite sure how this works. For many months last year I was unable to post. Did people become bored? I cannot image they did, especially since I am only one of many posters to this site. Perhaps people are bored with my current series of B&W images. Probably not as bored as I am.

Perhaps I dislike the 'Thank you for sharing' simply because no thanks are necessary, and I am not looking for them either. It is probably the American familiarisation of the expression that embarrasses my reserved British sensibilities.

And Mimi, do not worry, I do not really scream, well I can't much nowadays.

Chris, I don't understand. Are you saying you post images and don't care how they are received by others? What is the point of that? Why do you bother posting if the images are only to please you? You could just leave them on your own computer. Seems to me that when you post here, you are 'sharing'. So some want to thank you for doing so. Seems a bit of ingratitude to object to a kind gesture such as that.

Humour injection

Having and camera makes you no more a photographer than having a hammer and some nails makes you a carpenter.
- Claude Adams

How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb?
50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that!"
- Anonymous

A neighborhood photography studio offered a special that few could resist.
The sign read, "Now Shooting Seniors for Free."

So, Lyn, obviously you must have passed on the free "ectomy?"

8P

I certainly don't post images to please others.

That particular thought never enters the creative picture when I am working on my next piece of crap..

Oh, and I forgot a few obligatory emotes in a post above.. here they are and in order:

:oP

:oD

Not at all obligatory, Les. Purely optional.

But.. how would 'you' know if I was joking or not?

:oP

(*reads posts since topic got derailed*)

That is a lot.. a lot of potential comments for the "Lonely Images" galleries inhabitants..

How would you know if "I" was joking or not?

Acknowledging and appreciating someones work or art doesn't imply other motives. Once the song/novel/ painting... is out to the listener/ reader / viewer it becomes shared. At that point the creation becomes not only what it was intended but what it is or can be perceived.

Well, I did it Chris. I submitted one of my mountain photos with the voting feature turned on and got what I expected... a 1. Do I feel okay with it? Not really. I just have to realize there's at least one member out there who looks at the world through their navel. However, I also got a 10 on it and, from what I've read in other threads, neither one will be counted. Oy! Can't win.

I just looked and the image has a CI, of 55. This means that on average the average Caedesian thinks that your image is average. This also happens a lot. However, if you leave it in the voting booth and vote a lot yourself, the image will acquire a lot of votes and mostly a real normal curve develops around the general consensus of opinion. This may or may not tell you something. Such is the power of the CI

When I submit an image, voting first in the VB, I always vote on a minimum of 25 images, and often more than that. Plus I comment on several of those as I'm voting on them (several have been yours, Chris). So I am voting a lot but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Also, in my own experience, after the initial voting on one of my submissions, within the first couple days, the CI drops more often than it rises, in a 4 to 1 ratio. I still have to wonder if I pissed someone off and, since they may recognize my images (I myself recognize many people's work, yours included, Chris) they may simply decide that any time they see mine come up they give it a crappy score... just because they can. People can be vindictive and there's not a hell of a lot you can do about it. If I'm right about this (and I'm just as likely to be wrong) it's a black mark on the site. I prefer to be straightforward with you people and those of you I know, are. And I appreciate that.

Chris, you are ignoring my questions? Purposefully? I really want to know why you post.

Sorry, missed your post. Why do I post?

OK. I post because I create images. Selfishly I want to show them off, so I place them here, and on several other sites. This allows people who want to to download them. I am not a great producer of images. I have slightly over 100 here (they are due for a bit of a cull). There are some variations between sites, and some have older pictures than I have here, but I suppose in all I have about 150 pictures to date that are present on different sites. This small collection has been downloaded over 200,000 times (but not many from Caedes). This means that my work has spread across the world in a way that would not have been possible 20 years ago, unless I got lucky with a publisher, and even then not to that extent. I also like the thought that when I am gone, perhaps this legacy will linger on and only gradually fade away. I sometimes lapse into morbid thoughts.

I do like recognition for my work. I like making the main galleries here and on other sites. I like being editors choice occasionally, or even having professional photographers comment favourably. I like getting high CI, but I am not mainstream enough, or actually perhaps good enough to warrant that often. I like these things but I do not post for them.

I post on several sites to get a balance. Images that here rate a low CI often rate a high on a different site. Images that did not make the main gallery here have appeared in calendars, on book covers, and even on an invitation to an international event. I do not seek these accolades, and I do not post to get them. I create an image and post it to show it off.

On this site people respond. Some responses upset me, some mean nothing, some encourage me, or send my imagination off in a different direction, but I cannot say I post for the benefit of these people. They may benefit from my postings in some way, but that is a by-product of the act, not a reason for the act in the first place. I actually prefer other sites where I get few if any responses and they act more like an art gallery where a picture is seen but it is not done to leave banal comments for the artist. Things are only said when there is something significant to say. The interaction is probably the aspect of this site I like least, although I concede that it has been of help in my development, but hardly more so than looking at excellent images elsewhere.

I realise that many people here value the interactions and friendships they form on this site. My life lies elsewhere, neither here nor on the internet. Photography is only one of many things I do. In quieter moments I will post to the boards, comment on images, vote if I must etc. I hope I add to the site, and if not that someone would have the courage to ban me.

Finally, I don't intend to make money out of my art. It is free for anyone to use, although it is nice when they ask. I just ask that my name is on the image, but for entirely selfish reasons.

I am not sure if that helps at all, but it is my answer.

A thought occurs to me. Can a work of art exist without an audience? Essays of up to 1000 words on this thread please.

Thanks for that thorough and complete answer, Chris. Definitely food for thought. I think there is always an audience of at least one. That's how it seems to me.

@ Nik:

"Also, in my own experience, after the initial voting on one of my submissions, within the first couple days, the CI drops more often than it rises, in a 4 to 1 ratio."

I am still under the impression that a correction takes place some time and periodically, accounting for the initial votes, and then.. subsequent ones.

The corrections related to aberrant votes, and voters scoring predilections being taken into consideration (i.e. consistently high/low voters).


Used to be at around 8, or 8:30 in the a.m., EST ... each day or once in a 24 hour period. That time might have changed due to the load on the servers experienced in the past at that time and as noted somewhere on site.

"Can a work of art exist without an audience?"

Not sure if Cindy is referring to the artist that created the work of art initially, as the 'audience of at least one'.. however, from my own observations on site here and with respect to the furor (at times) over low scores received ... in a word ... yes?

(*insert appropriate emote.. here*)

Well, I like looking at some of my pieces, seeing them on my desktop, even on my mousepad. Some of them I don't really care for anymore, but there are a good number that I still enjoy, and some I didn't care for at first but go back later and think "that really is a nice piece after all!". So I think that counts as an audience!
I've noticed when I post a piece I think is especially good, it gets more recognition at RedBubble than here. Here the ones that are popular (or vice versa) often take me by surprise.

I cannot consider myself an audience of my work. I am its creator. An image on my computer is just a mass of electronic impulses. It takes human interpretation of the patterns to make it into something, in fact its existence relies on the cognitive abilities of the viewer. So to give my images life I place them where they can be seen. Sat on my computer they would indeed be lonely images.

Back to the sharing bit which triggered this particular diversion. I think that many people post pictures here because they want to share their experiences with others, holidays, cars, garden, pets, local area. As a result, many images are no better, visually or artistically, than any of the millions on flicker, Facebook etc, which is where such images should be. Very few of these images raise themselves above that level to become what others would want to place on their desktop. Perhaps some people see the pictures here like that and use low votes to make that point.

There is a fundamental difference between that and what I do. Unlike people who share images amongst friends on, say Facebook, where the intention is to share the experience, I am not sharing my beach experiences when I posted my recent pictures. Which is why I dislike the 'thank you for sharing' tag line. I am posting what I hope is a visually interesting image in its own right, without the encumbrance of it being me on a beach in July in particular that took the image.

My images should stand for themselves. Also, you cannot see many of my scenes by going to where I shot them. Each image is interpreted and I have added to it, to change it from its original to something else, hopefully something more. If I have not, then I have failed as an artist.

[I wonder how far this thread will deviate before someone says enough is enough and archives it.]

There is only one 'creator'. All we do is move the parts around or capture the light coming from them on a sensor or imitate them with a brush, digital or otherwie. He too is the "audience of one". Can you bring these images to life? No. But there is One who can and already has.

Welll, whaddya know..

Asked and answered:

"You know the riddle, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound?" I subscribe to the reasoning that it does not make a sound as there is no person to perceive the sound. A falling tree only creates a vibration in the air. It is the human ear that translates that vibration into a sound.

I feel the same way about art. If there is no human to perceive it and translate the experience into an emotion, then there is no art. Art is a strictly human concept and requires a human presence to be perceived as such. Maybe it is enough for the creator of a painting, sculpture, photograph, poem, to perceive the work for it to be art, but how much more is it art when there is a second, third, or ten million observers, readers, listeners.

So just as a falling tree needs to be heard in order for it to make a sound, art needs to be heard, seen, felt, in order for it to be art. It seems clear to me then that there is no art without a patron, they make art "heard". They are the human ear that registers the "sound"."


And more about ... "more art"..

"It appears as though my idea that art which is appreciated by more people is "more" art has created some discussion (Guy Tal and Skolai Images) . By "more" I do not mean "better".
"Better" is a supposedly objective determination made by a rule set derived by people who study art. What I mean by "more" is "greater impact", and that is I feel, what gives art value. I believe that the creation of art is a cognitive process combining imagination and skill for the purpose of expressing some emotional response to a subject or just the maker's state of mind. What makes art powerful is its communicative, or emotive impact on others.

If, as I believe, art requires a viewer in order to be complete, to count as more than just paint on canvas, words on paper, than something is "art" as soon as that first responsive viewer exists. But art is a subjective idea. The label of "art" is a judgment made by people. What I perceive as random marks, may hold emotional meaning for someone else. I suggest that the power of something as "art" ( it's "artfulness" )is a cumulative process so that the more people "see" it as art, respond to it, the "more" it is "art". Being "art" to more people, I feel makes it "more" art.

I believe the Mona Lisa is more "art" today than if it were locked away in a closet after made. It will be more "art" a hundred years from now than today. Artists understand this, museums understand this, galleries understand this, investor's understand this. It's the reason they put their works out into the public through exhibits, books, catalogs, magazines, DVD's, the internet and any other means they can find. The perception of something as "art" is a cumulative process, a work takes on the value of being "more" art, the more people respond to it as such."

(Paul Grecian - Photography.)


And lastly..

"My favorite definition of art is "subjects other than sciences requiring sensitive understanding rather than measurement"."

Now then, how about those "Lonely Images?

You know the riddle, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound?" I subscribe to the reasoning that it does not make a sound as there is no person to perceive the sound. A falling tree only creates a vibration in the air. It is the human ear that translates that vibration into a sound.

I pity the poor deer or bear or any critter with ears who doesn't hear that tree coming his way.

My son recently told me after I changed the window trim colors on a recent total repainting project, from dewkist white to hushed white, I was splitting hairs.... : ) I didn't want white at all, so it was a compromise he didn't understand.

Chris, I doubt seriously anyone who lingers at any of your submissions would ever think of them as holiday snapshots.

"An art worthy of the name is beautiful because it is true. Tradition has within itself a secret force which is communicated to an entire civiliztion".*

"In societies based on vocation, it is taken for granted that the artist is not a special kind of man, but every man a special kind of artist.

Truth about art is not a truth that remains to be discovered, but a truth that remains for every man to understand.
Traditional art is not in any current sense of the word, a 'self-expression'. Whoever insists on his own way is rather an egoist than an artist.

There is no more place in art than there is in science for any private truths of perfections of statement. The thing is either right or wrong.

Beauty of anything natural or artificial is an objective beauty, dependent only for its recognition upon the spectator, but itself intrinsic to the object seen. The beauty of the thing depends on its perfection, our powers of recognition, on our perfection.

Art is a summons "to" something and not to itself. Should we be so entranced by the dinner bell as to forget to eat"?**

"It is not the image we honor, but the archetype whose image it is".***

In this modern age, the world has done away with objective evaluation. Criteria are based on ones moods, likes and dislikes. Modern individualism has produced the forms that represent the ugliness that permeates the 'ordinary life' of our times. The 'unintelligibility' of modern art is given as its meaning.

By the standards of what constitutes the art of the last century, every man can have a theory that cannot be disputed because it derives from his own personal philosophy. The intrinsic value of an art, which is the process involved in producing an art work, lies not in how many people want it or will pay for it, but in the forms it represents, the meanings it conveys and the qualities of traditional understanding of the inherently divine; works of the original artificer who creates from nothing and has endless possiblitites which the human artificer emulates.

True art conveys an underlying truth, an immutable beauty that no man can deny, not that art is art because so many have seen it making it 'more' art. It isn't cumulative because it is already there expressing an underlying cosmological principle complete from the moment it was inspired by heaven.****

*Titus Burkhardt
** Ananda Coomaraswamy
*** St. Basil
**** Cynlee

Well, yeah.. but ... you are wrong.*

*purmusic's inner imp

'Me thinks' you should have a long, in-depth discussion with that inner imp, Les.

Certainly St Basil's quote is taken out of context since it refers to a religious picture, specifically images of Jesus et al, and not a picture of, say, a flower.

"In this modern age, the world has done away with objective evaluation." No, science in particular is full of this.

"Criteria are based on ones moods, likes and dislikes." So, are you saying that it is not possible to judge on technical merit as well as artistic ones?

"Modern individualism has produced the forms that represent the ugliness that permeates the 'ordinary life' of our times." I don't believe that all art forms are ugly.

"The 'unintelligibility' of modern art is given as its meaning." I am pretty sure that is not the case, but it might depend on which particular school you are speaking of.

"True art conveys an underlying truth, an immutable beauty that no man can deny,..." I do not believe the art has to do this at all. A lot of art is simply something that appeals and has no interest in any specific truth. However, as an argument for not posting snapshots this works for me.

"... not that art is art because so many have seen it making it 'more' art." Obviously not, but the existence of an art object is pointless without an audience.

"It isn't cumulative because it is already there expressing an underlying cosmological principle complete from the moment it was inspired by heaven." You may think your art is inspired by whatever definition you have of heaven, but I can assure you that mine is not, and I find it insulting that you wish to force your belief system onto others.

Just because Basil is a declared saint doesn't necessitate that what he says refers only to sacred art or religious artwork.

I offered quotes that expressed principles of art that prevailed and guided people throughout the ages where 'art' work was a matter of craft and followed a norm that they learned from a master artisan. People still do follow traditional norms. And even though photography is a modern art form, it too follows a set of rules of proportion, perspective and quality.

Yes, it is possible to judge art on technical merits as well as artistic ones because I think they are connected. I never said that all art forms are ugly. You inferred that yourself.

If you don't accept that true art conveys underlying truth and beauty, then what is it to you (or anyone else) with intellect, that appeals in an art work? Unless one has a distorted personality, it must be the beauty that is expressed in the form that appeals. Will that appeal endure or will it just suit the mood of the moment? All the great art that has endured has expressed some form of truth or beauty. "

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"
- that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". 1


Art must have an audience or a patron as you will. That you are insulted is by your own choice and not of my doing. The ideas I presented and quoted have been followed and expressed even up to the Renaissance and the Modern Age. They are not a belief, but a traditional principle long held by man, who "...can think, speak and produce works of art and these unique qualities enable us to contemplate and realize the infinite". 2


1. John Keats
2. Frithjof Schuon

As a long-time artist, photographer, sculptor, and graphic designer, all of which has been scrutinized, re-interpreted, slashed and burned by all kinds of folks, professional and otherwise, there is a particular cartoon, a favorite of mine, that puts being an artist (in any definition) in a nutshell. It's an old Walter Mitty cartoon, a long, skinny one that depicts an art gallery with open doorways on either end and the bulk of the cartoon cell being the far wall, covered with paintings. You see Mitty on the far left where he has pushed a chair with its back up against the wall. He is standing on the chair with his knees bent to facilitate him placing his nose against the middle of an ornamental-framed painting on the wall, getting the closest possible view of the art. Out in the middle the the room (in the cartoon) his wife is talking to another woman and she's saying "He doesn't know art but he knows what he likes." This is very true of many, many people and is precisely what can make this occupation an emotionally charged one. My dad was an accountant and he never had the same kind of issues.

"Unless one has a distorted personality, it must be the beauty that is expressed in the form that appeals."

Well, no mistake about these words.. no need for inferences here..


(*hides Cindy's thesaurus*) 1

1. purmusic's inner imp



Annnnyyyways.. before this blows up (possibly) I am going to suggest that those that wish to continue discussing this, do so in private. Thanks.

Way off track now (the gist of the immediate jibe above), and some of the "Lonely Images" are still lonely.

"Just because Basil is a declared saint doesn't necessitate that what he says refers only to sacred art or religious artwork."

Actually his argument refers to just that. He uses it in a refutation of the iconoclastic movement in the early church. The iconoclasts held to the literal interpretation of the Old Testament's second commandment that proscribes the veneration of any image. St Basils' argument was that icons in churches should be allowed because the "The honor shown the image passes over to the archetype." That is, christians honouring an image of Christ is actually honouring Christ himself, and not the substance of the image. This is, of course, why christians will stop and bow before images, or pray to images in churches, as they are not praying to the image, but to whom it represents.

What this has to do with photography I do not know, unless we agree that an image of a bridge represents the bridge it is an image of. But I wouldn't honour it.

In the mean time I left a couple of comments on some lonely images.

But, you can analogize the meaning from his observation, religious or otherwise.

"I find it insulting that you wish to force your belief system onto others."

I see no evidence to support this accusation Chris.

If a communist shares his or her perspective on a given subject from within the frame of reference of his or her political belief system one who is not communist does not accuse said person of trying to "force" communism upon the listener. Yet if a religious person does the same supposedly open minded people suddenly become extremely close minded and offended.

I respect you. You are clearly a well educated and well rounded individual with significant knowledge of both history and art. You find the history of oppression in such things as concentration camps to be sad and horrible. Yet it seems you take offense with the religious based solely on the religious flavor of their point of view. When this becomes the norm for a society or nation such sad and horrible things begin to happen again. Think about it.

Healthy debate grows the mind but to take offense exposes weakness.

Maybe my own belief system is not that ingrained.

Which, could be construed as meaning that I am open.. to debate/discussion.


Without a lengthy explanation and yet, another diversion (though, has to be said ... 'tis the Caedesian way of discussions)..

Whenever religion enters the discussion ... comes across as proselytising at times. To.. me.

And historically (on site here).. leads to more than that of a heated debate. And more so, away from something that is healthy and productive (subjective, of course).


No offense intended with what is to follow (just my personal observations), I do believe/think that Cindy simply gets caught up in the life of the debate at times, and her fingers get ahead of her some.. when I read these particular words;

"Unless one has a distorted personality, it must be the beauty that is expressed in the form that appeals."

... ergo, my cautionary words/post above.

I fear that some may have taken that comment personally which was certainly not my intention. It simply meant that since ugliness is a distortion of beauty then some distorted minds will be drawn to ugliness.

I was certainly not advocating any religion. I merely cited quotations that set forth some traditional principles of art.

Often times, in this day, the mention of angels, heavens, God, saints sends people into a tizzy, but these things are talked about and studied by anthropologists, cultural historians, etc. without them being considered proselytisers.

Had I quoted historical figures of noteriety or well known athiests, would that have made me an advocate for non-relgion?

The observation is correct to a degree that I do/can get caught up in a discussion, but that is only because thoughts and ideas challenge me and I enjoy a hearty, healthy debate.

No crime/sin intended and hopefully no crime/sin commited. ;0)

I guess Im wondering what all this has to do with the "Lonely Images"?

It turned to a general discussion about art, but that seems obvious enough. Maybe the authors of the lonely images were reading along.

Cindy, because humankind is such a diverse lot, no matter what you say, no matter how clearly you try to say it, there will always be someone to misinterpret it, particularly in terms of dialog on the web. It's human nature.

LOL

"Art should be independent of all claptrap —should stand alone [...] and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as devotion, pity, love, patriotism and the like." James Whistler

On the other subject, there are two excellent images in the lonely images, Another Day and Dreaming of being an aeroplane.

There are a lot of budding artists in Caedes that can be better supported.

Ah, but what is the 'artistic sense' based upon? Where does it come from? (So art should be dissociated from being human?)

I agree about the budding artists and as some of them have done, they make themselves visible by commenting on the work of others as well as being in the Lonely gallery. Sometimes the images that appear there are postings of older members who don't much associate with the rest of the artists who frequent the site.

Not to mention Mannie's Wheat Field 2, now in the Lonely Images file. No, I'm not putting a link in here--you have to go look for it yourself. Hmmm? Oh, alright, sheesh!

I think artistic sense comes from many things, all of them human, but not necessarily devotion, pity, love or patriotism. For example, rule of thirds, golden rectangle, balance and composition,. A well exposed image is inherently better than one that is over or under exposed. I think Whistler was going along those lines.

I have found some of my images in the lonely images files. Usually the more weird ones. I am also not a prolific commenter, and I spread myself around too. I do find that comments build up slowly on my images, but are usually of good quality.

Do you think you can have a technically balanced, well exposed, etc. image that doesn't appeal to most people?

I agree that pity, patriotism and devotion don't enter into my view of what's beautiful either. I think beauty is more universal and more absolute.

On the note of members, with respect to the "Lonely Images".

For me ... there are two considerations (there are more, but for exposition sake.. keeping it simple here), should their images appear in the "Lonely Images" galleries.


If an 'older' member.. and they haven't been around for some time.. comments placed are that of a 'welcome back, nice to 'see' you and your work once again'.

If a newer member.. again, 'welcome' or 'welcoming' are the operative words.

Encouraging, breaking the ice, etc... community-minded.


And as mentioned by Chris above, typically it is those images that stymie most on how to comment, what to say.. that end up in these galleries.

Could be subject matter, new techniques.. or, that of someone who really could benefit from some tips, advice, et al.


"Giving an Image Review:

Don't be afraid of hurting someone's feelings. As long as your review is mature and polite most people will love your attention."

@cynlee. yes. An image may pass all technical aspects yet fail to please most people because of the colours chosen. My image sleek failed to please most people, judging from its CI, yet is a perfectly valid image technically. Fractals are a good example of Whistler's "Art for Art's sake", since they have no archetype to encumber the image.

@Les. The ones I have difficulty with are the the ones where someone has seen something on holiday and wants to share the scene with us, but fails to deliver an image of any sort of quality. I usually fail to find anything good to say to balance the list of criticisms and here create a balanced comment. However, I recognise that this is my failing.

There are some lonely images that are difficult to comment on because the words just don't come easily enough.

Can't welcome back someone who is here a great deal, but doesn't comment on anyone else's image.

Cynlee, quoting you here because I wanted to address this viewpoint: "It simply meant that since ugliness is a distortion of beauty then some distorted minds will be drawn to ugliness."

I disagree that ugliness is a distortion of beauty. We as humans have several different things that are hardwired into us and that are socially learned/experienced that are background to having an understanding of something and being able to appreciate it.

For some brief examples, some people are *from birth* more disposed to orderliness and will appreciate symmetry and find more asymmetrical compositions (sometimes meaning balance as opposed to literal symmetry) less appealing. Others are looser and pre-disposed to enjoying individual detail against a background, the contrast of that more appealing.

My mother finds the colors that I enjoy trite and simplistic (I'm a big fan of jeweltones and deep jeweltones), and I find the ones that she enjoys flat and neutral to unappealing in general (she's a big fan of earth tones). I think that given what we know about biology and the differences in what each person can see in the color spectrum, that we're actually "seeing" different things when we view those colors. I believe that some of the same things come into play with lines and angles that are tied into our sense of physical balance and vertigo.

I think that there are very few things that I could look at and define as "universally" ugly - there is prevailing taste, which I think is comprised of the opinions of the majority of people who see things somewhat in the same spectrum and their comfort levels (both physical and emotional) with that spectrum. However, the fact that this is what the majority appreciate, I don't think means that other things which are not appreciated are necessarily distortions of those things.

One thing that comes to mind is a recent public works art installation on Park Avenue in NYC - a respected art friend thought they were fantastic. My husband and I thought they were creepy and just wrong. Mentioned this to my godmother (big art person), and she thought they were great too.

I don't think that this difference is because they were a distortion of what beauty is, but rather our varying experiences/understanding/knowledge of other things skewed how we viewed them on top of what our biological differences allowed us to "see" when we looked *without* our minds or views being distorted into anything that we would generally classify as an "abnormal" range.

This is a long way of saying that I think classifying ugliness as a distortion of beauty is an oversimplistic definition that can be a trap leading to a narrowminded perspective and unrealistic conclusions, and we should be careful not to try and categorize things so closely.

Beauty - in the eye of the beholder and all that. Each human bean different and all that. And unless you're chopping up your neighbors (or tempted to), all that individualism's a good thing, worthy of respect.

It's fine to disagree, Cat and I can't hold by your definition because beauty is an objective truth, not just something dependent on an individual.

Yes, there is taste, a simple matter of likes and dislikes, and sometimes there is no accounting for it, as they say. But taste does not determine beauty. Beauty is an absolute, whereas ugliness is not. The inherent character of a human being is beauty. To talk of Beauty is to talk of Love which transcends the individual and carries a person beyond the bounds of 'ego'.

The modern world has a hard time with absolutes and the 'isms'; hedonism, secularism, individualism, etc. disallow that there are universal truths that everything else is relative to, not that everything is relative to everything else.

'Individualism is the doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be paramount'. It is a doctrine that cannot grasp that there could be anything more important than 'self' or 'ego'. I just have to look at the world around me to see that couldn't be more distant from the truth, the real, the immutable and the infinite.

Beauty resides not in the eye or the brain, but there is something in the human being that allows him/her to recognize that Beauty in a less tangible location; in the eye of the heart as it were.

There is nothing that is 'universally' ugly because ugliness is only an attempt to nullify Beauty and Beauty will prevail. My definition of ugliness was simple and to the point, but in no way simplistic.

Beauty is not a measurable physical property, but a truth recognized the world over and Beauty shows us the nature of the Divine artist.

Kind of curious, if I got this 'Beauty' stuff down/understood as presented/explained in this discussion thread. For example..


A sculpture. Placed in an outside setting by the authoring artist.

Time marches on..

Decay, due to environmental conditions ... takes it's toll.


Add in some birds ... ok, a lot a birds to illustrate the point to follow.


Is the inherent and divine 'Beauty' still immutable and immediately recognizable on whatever levels by the viewer?

I am thinking.. maybe.

Not so much an 'absolute'.

"There are some lonely images that are difficult to comment on because the words just don't come easily enough."

I am not sure what the above means exactly?

(Wondering about the 'why'.. the words just don't come easily enough, and the 'what' it is about a particular image, here.)


Anybody care to link to a 'difficult' to comment on "Lonely Image"?

I am prepared to give it a go, as an example.

***** If I look at something and I like it that's nice if I look at something and don't like it that's not nice.Its not decided by anyone but me.I don't need a formula, to decide.I don't need anyone to tell me I like it,I just like it or for that matter dislike it.Maybe some people need "HELP" telling them what to think but I kind of like to perform that task myself.If and when someone has to decide that for me I choose to close my eyes and never look again.*****

***** tbob

@Bob Indiviualism: the doctrine that the interests of the individual are paramount to all else. The "Me" generations if you will. If it is inherent to the human being (and it is), it will be recognized. (Beauty, truth, etc.)

@Les. You say you don't understand the question, yet proceed to ask for an example with which to try your wits and knowledge. It is a given that 'you' will find the words. Sometimes an image is just beyond comment for many of us. Should one say, "Oh, that's nice. What is it?" or some such thing? Or perhaps, "Knitting might be a better hobby for you". I am not saying that all the lonely images are like that. There is one artist whose work appears there who has been given comments, but his attitude is such that others no longer care to say much about his work.


Regarding an artwork that has been decimated, would Van Gogh's "Starry Night" be any less inspired or beautiful were it slashed with a razor? I think not, for the beauty lies in the work and not just the 'material' piece.

LOL so beside take pictures and trying to irritate people what do you do in your spare time?I'm still wondering what all this has to do with

****I can't seem to find any info on the new item in the left hand column titled Lonely Images. Can someone explain?****


**** Cynlee

Any "ism" can be taken to extreme, and individualism is but one.

When I think of individualism as *important* to be considered, I see it from the viewpoint of respecting the needs/desires of the individual to the extent that it is possible to do so while taking care of the whole. Individual should not necessarily trump, but neither should it be disregarded without due consideration for feasibility, and perspective.

My favorite advice columnist has a phrase for one side of this that I truly appreciate: "Not mistaking the limits of your experience for the extent of reality".

That some have carried individualism too far - yeah, people have a tendency to do that with all the rest of the isms too. Taking that as an automatic sign that the particular "ism" is a bad thing rather than (as with most things) a good thing only in some sort of moderation, leads to (again) to very narrowminded thinking in the wholesale rejection of whatever the particular thing is.

@tbob who is still wondering what all this has to do with
****I can't seem to find any info on the new item in the left hand column titled Lonely Images. Can someone explain?****

Simply by reading the whole thread it is obvious that Cynlee's query was answered - in December last year, and the thread was resurrected on 5/07/11.

Quote in my signature by Marcel Proust "The question is not what you look at, but what you see"

. . . and each individual sees the same thing in a different way.

He also said "The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes."

@Les - rather than singling out an example of a difficult to critique Lonely Image why don't you comment on a bunch of Lonely Images and then we can all take a look and get some ideas from you. At the time of writing it is actually a good bunch linked in the left column, but it does happen sometimes that it is not so easy to be constructive.

So, beside take pictures and trying to irritate people what do you do in your spare time?
*******************************
(If the shoe fits, wear it). My intention is not to irritate, Bob. If you had read the entire thread, therein you would have found my intention.

I wrote in an above post, this:

"There are some lonely images that are difficult to comment on because the words just don't come easily enough."

I am not sure what the above means exactly?

(Wondering about the 'why'.. the words just don't come easily enough, and the 'what' it is about a particular image, here.)

Cindy responded:

"You say you don't understand the question, yet proceed to ask for an example with which to try your wits and knowledge."


I didn't write that I don't understand the question, there was no question. There was a statement.

So..

Guess I have to try and read between the other lines posted since (was expecting/hoping for something along what Chris made mention of in his above post ... as to his particular 'aversion' where some images are concerned)..


Ok, a truly bad image. Nothing artistically redeeming perceived.

And that is the end of the constructive critiquing story for some?


If anyone has been paying attention, or is inclined.. there are many examples on site from yours truly. As well as some other members who have taken the time.

It's not that difficult, really.

Stick with what is outlined in "Giving a good image review". Formulated for you. Fill in the words.. and done.


Something I have observed..

A regular member, one who comments frequently enough and in turn, receives comments frequently.

Posts a 'stinker'.


How do they or anyone else know that they posted a 'stinker'?

Simple.

Word count per comment. Drops dramatically. 'Some' don't even make an appearance, so, number of comments received drops off as well.

So..

Which is better for the artist in these instances, 'saying nothing (or little, as the case may be), 'cause you can't find something nice to say'?

Or.. actually informing them of what it is that didn't work this time (in your humble opinion), and perhaps, a suggestion or two to try next time/for future reference?


Me, personally?

Give me the latter each and every time. Much better to know, have some ideas/thoughts put out there to digest/consider.. then, to sit back and scratch your head from the 'roaring silence'.



"There is one artist whose work appears there who has been given comments, but his attitude is such that others no longer care to say much about his work."

Language barrier for the most part.

I know this, as I've corresponded with this.. ahem ... non-specific gendered unnamed individual. ;o)



Last thing..

'Beauty' is not inherently immutable.

If I did not know of "Starry Night" and then, saw it in it's 'reduced' state, as suggested above.. I would not be able to appreciate it as much, in short.

Or, if at all.

As there is no priori. A work of art does not transcend all things physical or metaphysical.

This is the point or points, I am trying to understand. 'Cause I am interpreting/reading some words as written.. otherwise.

Where did you get the idea that a work of art transcends all things physical or metaphysical? I know I didn't say that. 'A priori' is simply something derived through reason and not experience so I fail to understand what you are saying here.

If some have a language barrier, perhaps, you could instruct them at least to not be so demanding in their requests of others or be rude.
***************************************
"Me, personally?

Give me the latter each and every time. Much better to know, have some ideas/thoughts put out there to digest/consider.. then, to sit back and scratch your head from the 'roaring silence'."

That is your 'personal' choice as you put it, Les. Some folks are not so verbose or knowledgeable as you and choose to remain at their own comfort level of not saying much and those are the ones who sometimes end up with lonely images too.

"Blessed are they who have nothing to say and who cannot be persuaded to say it." James Russell Lowell

"Which is better for the artist in these instances, 'saying nothing (or little, as the case may be), 'cause you can't find something nice to say'?

Or.. actually informing them of what it is that didn't work this time (in your humble opinion), and perhaps, a suggestion or two to try next time/for future reference?"

Well, which do you prefer, Cindy?


An aside, not a criticism:

There's not much sense to me, in speaking generally (generally speaking :oP).

Offering what 'one' might think is the state of affairs/thoughts.. of others. Whether it was or has been actually transmitted by word at some point.

'Speak.. for yourself', seems to keep discussions more so on course, from my own personal observations. Eliminating conjecture, misconstrued ideas (happens), et al.



A priori:

"Knowable without appeal to particular experience."

I would not know of "Starry Night", as I mentioned in the scenario outlined above.

So.. seeing it defaced, reduced ... how would I know that it is a work of art? Or, possess some 'Beauty'? Divinely inspired/manifested or otherwise?

If you have nothing nice to say, it is better to say nothing at all as every good momma would advise.

Sometimes it would be best if we each followed our own advice. (Including myself in the statement).

Cynlee - above you made the argument that if Starry Night were to be defaced, that it would still be beautiful because the beauty was in the work itself, not the result. Thus, removing the physical (indeed, by your own words above "I think not, for the beauty lies in the work and not just the 'material' piece").

Les is questioning (and I agree and almost made the same statement) - if you had never seen Starry Night, and only saw it after it had been defaced, would you understand that it was not intended to be defaced? Would your first instinct be to evaluate it without the razor slashes, or with them - and would it "appear" to be the same thing to you.

If it would appear to be the same thing to you, I think you can make the argument that the beauty is inherent in the piece no matter what is done to it - but if you would view it differently, then the beauty is not inherent, it is a reflection of the current state. Where it might be possible to see the beauty that *existed*, where it does not currently.

What I would see is defaced beauty. One can tell that something was once beautiful and is now decayed or damaged. We are talking, so I thought, about the beauty in the accomplishment or the producing of the final image that let what inspired it's creation shine through.

We all know that even in nature things can be deformed, but it does not take away from the inherent beauty. While we deface the natural beauty of our environment, do we not know that what we are destroying is in reality beautiful? What is the root of that destructive tendency, perhaps man's own desire to use his will to mold his environment as he sees fit thinking it better than what was created for him? What is it in man that destroys forests, pollutes the air and disfigures the earth if not his own distorted soul?

Does a woman who ages and gathers wrinkles appear to be 'old' if her heart is pure and beautiful? Where does that beauty come from? Does her pure heart not glow in her very visage?

Ugliness takes it's existence from distorting something beautiful. One person may find it ugly and another may see that "Oh, this was a beautiful thing, but someone has tried to make it appear ugly". Ugliness is an accident, not the essential.

If a beautiful statue falls to the floor and breaks into a few pieces, but someone is able to glue it back together so it is hardly noticeable, is it not still beautiful in it's form? Can you still see the intention and creativity of the artist who produced it? I think some can and some can't.

Personally I find Van Gogh's work quite ugly, and a slash can only improve it.

*Awaits thunderbolt from the Divine Artist*

It was just an example, Chris, but I know that I could never create anything like it. lol _ wonder what Van gogh would have thought of your work? My favorite painter is Vermeer.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

- Margaret Wolfe Hungerford


"If a beautiful statue falls to the floor and breaks into a few pieces, but someone is able to glue it back together so it is hardly noticeable, is it not still beautiful in it's form? Can you still see the intention and creativity of the artist who produced it? I think some can and some can't."

Well, you structured your example so that no one could refute it. The answer is obvious to an extent, if 'it is hardly noticeable'.

However, the statue would still be less than, compared to it's original state, in my humble opinion. Ask any art appraiser.


'Beauty' is not inherently immutable.

A work of art does not transcend all things physical or metaphysical.


This sums up my own thoughts, feelings..

"I believe that the creation of art is a cognitive process combining imagination and skill.. ."



p.s. Thank.. erhm, God? Cat showed up as my translator.

:oP

Please read with care. I never said that a work of art transcends all things physical or metaphysical. Those are YOUR words, Les.

Of course, Beauty is immutable. What is beautiful today is beautiful forever. Couldn't be simpler than that.

I didn't 'structure' my example so no one could refute it. It is what it is because it is irrefutable from the get go.

Of course, you would believe that art is merely a cognitive process, but where does the inspiration originate? Who gave one the skill? Is man so fallen that he considers himself a god?
Such vanity and hubris is astounding if that is the condition in which we find ourselves. If that is so, then I pray that God have mercy on us all.

Dante Alighieri: "Heat cannot be separated from fire, or beauty from The Eternal".

"Of course, Beauty is immutable. What is beautiful today is beautiful forever. Couldn't be simpler than that."

Hardly. Buildings considered beautiful in the 19th century, especially, Victorian, are now felt to be quite ugly. Things you see as beautiful, I do not. Facial spots, added with makeup if you were unfortunate enough not to have them, in the 18th C were considered beautiful, and now are not. Tastes and styles change So beauty, which is viewed entirely in the eye of the viewer, cannot therefore be immutable. The argument is groundless and quite flawed.

"There is nothing that is 'universally' ugly because ugliness is only an attempt to nullify Beauty and Beauty will prevail."

By this definition everything is beautiful, since anything that is not beautiful, that is ugly, is merely something that is beautiful that has been disfigured, and the underlying beauty will prevail. Presumably a cat playing with and teasing a small animal, after perhaps maiming it so it cannot run away of several hours before leaving it to die is also beautiful. Since it is by your definition coming from the one creator, and everything he creates is beautiful. Mr. Joseph Merrick, the elephant man, is another example of your creator's fine work.

"Of course, you would believe that art is merely a cognitive process, but where does the inspiration originate? Who gave one the skill? Is man so fallen that he considers himself a god?"

Ones skills derive from the natural structure of the body and brain, due in part to your genetic makeup, your life experiences and the amount of effort you have put into the skill you are trying to develop. Many of us have latent skills we do not even know about. Inspiration comes from your life experiences. Not all inspiration comes from the natural things around us. Sometimes random bits of code in a computer generating a fractal pattern inspire images, my Bridge to nowhere is an example of such inspiration. I do not consider myself a God of any sort, especially not your type of God, nor do I need to be. Inspiration is a simple biological function based on chemical processes, and not just a human ability.

This type of false dilemma, or false dichotomy, epitomised in the 'you either believe in what I think or you are against me', typifies the thinking of a lot of statesmen of the 20th century, Saddam Hussein springs to mind, although Mao was another, Stalin too, and of course others that do not need to be named. It has led to some of the most brutal periods in history. One can think of many persecutions and genocides based on one people persecuting another because they did not think the same way, from protestants burning catholics, and visa versa, at various times in my own country to rather more massive exterminations.

Just because we now allow people to think freely does not mean we have a cult of individualism. Things are not just black or white as you would paint them. There are many shades of acceptable grey.

Tolerance of others and freedom of thought are not extremes. They are basic human rights, now recognised as such.

I see windmills on hills as beautiful elegant giants on the landscape. Many people feel they desecrate the natural beauty of the land. I am not sure how your arguments fall on this one, since you could argue either way. Man is defacing a natural beauty, but then the inspiration for such came from the creator, so how can he object?

Chris, you are talking about taste and fashion when you speak of things that are at one time thought beautiful, but later go out of fashion. That is not Beauty in the traditional sense. That does not make the argument for Beauty groundless or flawed, it means that fads exist and one man's idea of beauty is not necessarily going to be in sync with what true beauty represents which is something recognized by the condition of his soul. Were it not something in the fabric of his inner being, he would not be able to recognize true beauty when it was clearly there before him.

I believe you are correct when you say that everything is beautiful. It is. So too is everything good which can be equated with truth and love. What is beautiful is loved because God created the world out of love. He is beautiful and loves beauty. It is again man who, by free will, (freedom of thought as you put it) who introduces evil by his opposition to good.

The ugliness comes from the fall which is inherent in creation because man is not God. So while the world is good and beautiful, man, with his free will, attempts and sometimes succeeds in making things ugly. It is God, not governments or individuals, who allows men to think freely.

We always have a choice and that may explain some of the desecration and destruction of our planet by those who have made money their god.

There is no false dilemma, Chris. I am not twisting your arm or demanding that you believe what I have said. The choice is yours, but I must have struck some chord for you to keep thinking that I am forcing anything on you by the fact that you are defensive and annoyed. We are discussing ideas, remember? There is no coersion in my words or my voice.

Tolerance of others and freedom of thought are not extremes, but basic human rights, without doubt.

I agree that our skills are partly due to genetic makeup and experience, but the ultimate ability to accomplish any great task is not from our own fabrication, but from the one who made us as we are. It is a gift not to be taken for granted.

For those of us who don't believe that there is a God per se, or who feel that God is not necessarily the one and only master "Creator", I think it suffices to say that there are other ways to view many things. For myself, I believe that ugliness can be created ugly and not simply as a distortion of beauty. I do not believe that beauty is immutable or absolute and does not change - in fact, the very change is sometimes what is beautiful. Sometimes it isn't, and that's okay too. The differences from each other in what we as individuals are able to view and appreciate as beautiful are beautiful to me as well. Except for some of those ridiculous hats at the Royal Wedding Galore... That's okay. I just won't wear one.

@ Chris - funny you should say that about Van Gogh. I went to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam when I was about 17, and was left so seriously disturbed on emotional levels that I had to walk out. There is nothing that I can pinpoint about any specific image or the collection of images that caused me to be so disturbed, but the feeling was overwhelming.

Sure can't say that about Vermeer or Dante Gabrielle Rosetti. At least I don't think so.

Pre-Raphaelites don't do much for me either. Still.

I do not feel coerced in the slightest. Merely trying to point out the errors in your arguments, obviously unsuccessfully.

Just curious, Chris. Who does do something for you?

Ima guess.. Henri Cartier-Bresson and Gerhard Richter.


So.. what do I win?

Hope it's something good good!

... ...

Cookies work pour moi.. in case the prize selection committee has been slacking off.

:oP

I've just had a sudden flashback.

Remember how I bragged about having won over my then-bf's kids with brownies? (It was about 4 or 5 years ago if you don't).

Well - now they're my children and their current game of harassment is to ask me to make something and then argue with each other about what it is I should be in the kitchen making... all... the... time...

For some reason, the Cookie Thievery/Campaigning up there^^^^ gives me similar "It was a good idea at the time!" flashbacks... 8•P

Yes, I like Cartier-Bresson too. Didn't he use only one lens a great deal of the time? Will check out the other one.
I'm back. Now I remember him. He does nothing at all for me.

I like the whimsey of Tim Walker and the black and whites of David Goldblatt.

Who does something for me? I find this quite hard to answer, mostly because I have so few, if any who's that do things for me. In terms of people who create things, it would be Norman Foster, but even he does not really do much for me, although I like his buildings. Oh and Spike Milligan for the perfection of his madness.

This art/beauty conversation has been rumbling on so long that it's permeating my dreams! I woke this morning with a random line in my head: "Art is thinking, and it is learning."

A while ago, I looked up a dictionary which said art refers to objects with no useful purpose. (A bit of ham-fisted paraphrasing on my part). I had doubts, as I'm sure much thought, originality and skill can go into making something like a kettle beautiful, and to me 'art' is the work that goes into any object to make it beautiful. The more original or 'individual', the better.

Looking up an online dictionary just now, I notice it says that skill and imagination (human, apparently!) is employed in 'producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.' I see the word 'primarily' has crept in there now... either they had doubts and changed it, or it was a completely different dictionary I was reading before...

Perhaps not relevant to the discussion - just an observation that beauty can be found in the most unexpected places.
There is great beauty in the Sistine Chapel - awesome, overaweing, overwhelming most would say.
Being crammed in like upright sardines with the presence of the 'camera police' and the 'silence police' whose frequent loud claps and calls for silence were far more distracting than the low murmur of people, made it for me quite an uncomforatble and slightly nerve wracking experience. I was bemused why anyone would need or want to snap furtive photos of such massive and glorious artworks with their mobile phones - but they did.
Anyway to the point. When I think back on that experience it is beauty of another kind I first remember - and that was a little boy, Chinese, probably about 3 and no more than 4. He was lying on the floor, oblivious to the forest of legs all around him. One arm with his thumb in his mouth, the other with a finger pointing to the ceiling 20 metres above him, tracing what he saw. Totally absorbed. Michaelangelo and the Book Of Genesis were not on his mind, he saw only what he saw through his own eyes. If only we all had that innocence. Not sure that lying on the floor alongside him would have been the thing to do - but to share some of his wonderment and have the capacity to shut out all else was most enticing. I am sure his appreciation was as great if not greater than the brochure carrying army of tourists.

The expression on his face was pure beauty.

Memories like that are magic, Lyn... we can never go back to those times of lack of self-awareness, and that's a shame in many ways. I wonder if he was a kind of Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes) having a daydream about the figures he saw on the ceiling.

As you can guess, I'm a Calvin and Hobbes fan! Went into a charity shop and there was Hobbes, sitting on a shelf, waiting for me. I knew it was for me... who else was he there for??

About the dream I had, where a line stayed in my head after I woke up: "Art is thinking, and it is learning."

Random.

But the next day my mother bought home a book on Impressionism. I opened it up at random, and read: "Degas believed that art involved thought and that applied intelligence corrected vision; visible, mobile forms had to be dwelt on and considered so as to make them intelligible here and now... He used to think of his series as a continually renewed succession of forms in which all possibilities could be explored without limits or bounds, and where he could discover new rhythms and curves and impressions felt as well as seen... Every being is at the same time both one and many: so Degas sought to capture the one essential moment in the rich multiplicity of existence."

[p.87, 'The Concise Encyclopedia of Impressionism', Maurice Serullaz]

(*points to the left*)

The Lonely Images Gallery


And thank you to those that take the time to leave some comments/feedback. I am sure it is appreciated by the artists. :o)

~ le bump ~

(*points to the left-hand side menu items*)

"We would like to give them attention and encouragement so they are more likely to hang around and contribute further to the site. Try to visit each image and provide a constructive comment or two."

Thanks to those members that do the above.

And perhaps.. time and opportunity permitting, if you are not doing so already ... visit some of the "Lonely Images" and comment/welcome these members to our site.

As I am sure that they would be appreciative of the welcomes and any constructive comments.