Basic Critical Theory Discussion Part 1

lofcuk

lofcuk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
352
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
There are a number of assignments/discussion points in Ashley Le Granges book Basic Critical Theory for Photographers

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Theory-Photographers-Ashley-Grange/dp/0240516524

I was wondering wether anybody would be interested in posting their thoughts from some of these discussions here?

The book does reference other books and essays e.g. Chapter one covers Ways of Seeing by John Berger.

I do not think you have to read every other book he covers to join a discussion, but it would be helpful.



1. What determines an images value?

Uniqueness?
Quality?
Meaning?
 
Read Ways of Seeing a few years back, but not the first book you mention.

In order to answer the question you pose though you would first need to define value. I would of thought that value would be dependent on the perpose of the image.
 
The viewer and the culture in which the viewer is embedded.

Values are assigned by the viewer and culture and can change as any form of art has no intrinsic value.
 
Here is a web definition of value

value definition
value (val′yo̵̅o̅)

noun

a fair or proper equivalent in money, commodities, etc., esp. for something sold or exchanged; fair price or return
the worth of a thing in money or goods at a certain time; market price
estimated or appraised worth or price; valuation
purchasing power the fluctuating value of the dollar
that quality of a thing according to which it is thought of as being more or less desirable, useful, estimable, important, etc.; worth or the degree of worth
that which is desirable or worthy of esteem for its own sake; thing or quality having intrinsic worth
the social principles, goals, or standards held or accepted by an individual, class, society, etc.
precise meaning, as of a word
denomination, as of a postage stamp, playing card, etc.
Art
relative lightness or darkness of a color
proportioned effect, as of light and shade, in an artistic work
Math. the quantity or amount for which a symbol stands to determine the value of x
Music the relative duration of a note, tone, or rest
Phonet. the phonological equivalent of a given letter the values of i in English sin, sine, sing

In Pirsigs Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenace, he talks about quality and what it is. As in, everybody 'knows' what quality is, but it is hard to define.

Artistic value is judged by economic value as well as subjective opinion, but why?
 
I'm not sure that artistic value is judged by economic value. Artistic value does have an effect on economic value, but as the economic value of the work increases the effect is diminished.

There are plenty of highly praised artworks that have no economic value.
 
If you investigate value systems in society you find that they are made up of all sorts of influences. Cultural, religious, familial, personal and experience . All interconnected to form your own personal belief and value system.

What is extremely valuable to a collector may be just so much junk so someone who does not subscribe to that value system.
 
AlexW said:
I'm not sure that artistic value is judged by economic value. Artistic value does have an effect on economic value, but as the economic value of the work increases the effect is diminished.

There are plenty of highly praised artworks that have no economic value.
Click to expand...

Are you saying , that the more art is economically worth, the less it's art worth?

I think the the two values are independent. Just because somebody will pay multi-million punds for something, does not make it worth any more artistically.

So why would someone pay millions for one piece, and nothing for another?
 
No not saying that. Just that the more monetary value an artwork has, the less important it's artistic value. i.e. the artistic value of the latest Hirst piece is irrelevant to it's monetary value, it has ceased to operate on that level. It is a commodity and will be bought and sold as such.
 
On one level it doesnt matter whether the value assigned is due to beauty, cultural significance or meaning, or economic value. Subjective value is more of a 'desire' quality with art and by desire i mean desire to possess or be influenced by. (including the desire for others to know you possess it, are influenced by it or so you in turn can influence others)

You can seperate that sort of value from the value of 'usefullness', the ability of a piece of work to perform an objective function, like a car or an eraser. Obviously these objects can still have subjective value too.

Each of the qualities a piece of art possess, (the value of the materials, it's popularity, it's 'artistic' merit, it's usefulness, its advertising potential are all able to influence one another) and are aspects of the total value assigned by the viewers and the cultural perception.
 
Huujuu said:
On one level it doesnt matter whether the value assigned is due to beauty, cultural significance or meaning, or economic value. Subjective value is more of a 'desire' quality with art and by desire i mean desire to possess or be influenced by. (including the desire for others to know you possess it, are influenced by it or so you in turn can influence others)

You can seperate that sort of value from the value of 'usefullness', the ability of a piece of work to perform an objective function, like a car or an eraser. Obviously these objects can still have subjective value too.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree with you. I think Cartier-Bresson images are of the highest artistic worth, but I have no desire to own an actual print. If I have access to his work through a modestly priced photo-book or even the internet, then that is fine, that is all I need.

Marx defined a commodity as having a use value and an exchange value. Are you saying all art is a commodity?
 
lofcuk said:
I am not sure I agree with you. I think Cartier-Bresson images are of the highest artistic worth, but I have no desire to own an actual print. If I have access to his work through a modestly priced photo-book or even the internet, then that is fine, that is all I need.

Marx defined a commodity as having a use value and an exchange value. Are you saying all art is a commodity?
Click to expand...

I also said 'desire to be influenced by it' which i guess is what you mean by accessing it through ....whatever means. I was using the word desire in a similar way to 'value' in that it can have personal as well as economical conotations.

No, not all art is an economical commodity.......but i'm sure we could re-define 'commodity' to make it fit :) (an exchange of ideas, inspiration etc, personally i like the idea of artistic definitions being fluid, but then you fall into the trap of it being incomprehensible to the majority consensus)
 
I also said 'desire to be influenced by it' which i guess is what you mean by accessing it through ....whatever means. I was using the word desire in a similar way to 'value' in that it can hve personal as well as economical conotations.

No, not all art is a, economical commodity.......but i'm sure we could re-define 'commodity' to make it fit

So you did, apologies for not reading your reply accurately.
 
AlexW said:
It is possible to assign objective (in as much as anything is objective) value to art though. The main one being originality. An original mode of expression has much more intrinsic value than a derivative one.
Click to expand...

What examples are you thinking of?

I'm thinking (in a pedantic sort of way :)) that all forms of expression are derivative to some extent. I can also see that something like the 'de stijl ' movement was original and has added value for being so. But you can still follow its path of evolution. There is the originality of photography as an art form but even that derives from painting, chemistry etc etc.
 
Just as a defining characteristic of 'good' art. Art progresses through innovation. A new style that rejects current practice and introduces a new way of representation. Impressionism, cubism, expressionism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, all movements that came into being because there exponents wanted to introduce a new mode of representation. And in the case of mininalism, stop representing other things altogether.
 
AlexW said:
Just as a defining characteristic of 'good' art. Art progresses through innovation. A new style that rejects current practice and introduces a new way of representation. Impressionism, cubism, expressionism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, all movements that came into being because there exponents wanted to introduce a new mode of representation. And in the case of mininalism, stop representing other things altogether.
Click to expand...

Cool, yeah, i'll go for that. I think the 'intention' to make something an original form also adds weight to it.
 
AlexW said:
Just as a defining characteristic of 'good' art. Art progresses through innovation. A new style that rejects current practice and introduces a new way of representation. Impressionism, cubism, expressionism, abstract expressionism, minimalism, all movements that came into being because there exponents wanted to introduce a new mode of representation. And in the case of mininalism, stop representing other things altogether.
Click to expand...

Surely all 'good' art cannot only be new art?

I suppose by innovation you don't necessarliy mean an ism, but any progressive method.
 
Lasagne said:
My only contribution to this discussion is to point out that Huujuu's reasons for editing his posts are worth the admission on their own.

Top work sir :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Just read 'em, spotters badge (as Big Ron would have said) to you.
 
lofcuk said:
1. What determines an images value?

Uniqueness?
Quality?
Meaning?
Click to expand...

IMO it would have to be who is looking at the photo, a photo of one of my old dogs long gone would have a much greater value to me than to an other for example.

The value of a photo taken of a generic landscape would be in the eye of the person looking at it, some may look at a scene and just class it as nothing special whereas someone else may look it and feel it's got a wow factor.

Every photo is indivdual, yes there are tips as pointed out on this forum which would help make a photo look special but is there such a thing as a generic answer ?

I guess it also varies on the viewers interest in photography as well, I look at photo's on here which I wouldn't normally be interested in and think wow, how has someone done that and wished I had that ability, as a total noob with a camera it may not be that the shot was that difficult to take with the right know how but as I don't (yet) have that know how to me it is a valuable shot :)
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Simon,

Course work is such a bind .........;)
Click to expand...

Maybe 30 or 35 years ago. Amuses me that people think I am trying to get my homework done for me though. I am just interested in critical theory and othe peoples opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top