my parents dont see the difference between dslr video and camcorder video

Wast majority (around 80%) of people will not be able to self reflect on their own mental and physical processes to tell you why they feel the way the feel or even think the way they think. That doesn't matter that a minority will not be able to control their emotions or manipulate them for their own gains. If people were aware how they arrive to their conclusions marketers wouldn't be in business. All they would have to say is: buy it because it's good because it does so and so... And yet we never really see adds like that. Why? Because those kind of adds are for people who are aware of their processes and WAST majority of people are not. Your parents don't need to see difference between one camera or one camera move or another - their ignorance of the difference doesn't meant that the difference doesn't affect them.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Your parents don't need to see difference between one camera or one camera move or another - their ignorance of the difference doesn't meant that the difference doesn't affect them.
Click to expand...
True. But. It will only affect them to the capacity of their ability to be affected, their individual sensitivity to absorb visual information. How else can you explain the vast preference for intense mediocrity over fine art?
 
rsbush said:
True. But. It will only affect them to the capacity of their ability to be affected, their individual sensitivity to absorb visual information. How else can you explain the vast preference for intense mediocrity over fine art?
Click to expand...

Good questions but...
I don't think you go far enough in your analogy. Fine art is not forcing itself on us while mediocre art does. Fine art doesn't need your recognition while mediocre art's survival depends on your acknowledgement of it. As such fine art doesn't employ the techniques mediocre art does. Fine art is for people who seek out to see something else while mediocre art is for "parent's who don't see any difference."

In essence there are two kinds of people: those who seek out new experiences and those who seek confirmations of their past experiences (more of the same). That's why you often hear "we want something cool but not too cool". They are telling you exactly what they need/want: more of the same disguised as something new. Fine art isn't hampered by "more of the same", if anything it actually thrives on uprooting it thus making us a bit uncomfortable. At first the discomfort is definitely there but with little bit of time it transforms into something else depending on which group you represent. If you are in the one group seeking new experiences the discomfort turns into pleasure because the art opens up new horizons in your mind. If you are in the second one you blame the art for its ineptitude to please (to give you more of the same).
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Good questions but...
I don't think you go far enough in your analogy. Fine art is not forcing itself on us while mediocre art does. Fine art doesn't need your recognition while mediocre art's survival depends on your acknowledgement of it. As such fine art doesn't employ the techniques mediocre art does. Fine art is for people who seek out to see something else while mediocre art is for "parent's who don't see any difference."

In essence there are two kinds of people: those who seek out new experiences and those who seek confirmations of their past experiences (more of the same). That's why you often hear "we want something cool but not too cool". They are telling you exactly what they need/want: more of the same disguised as something new. Fine art isn't hampered by "more of the same", if anything it actually thrives on uprooting it thus making us a bit uncomfortable. At first the discomfort is definitely there but with little bit of time it transforms into something else depending on which group you represent. If you are in the one group seeking new experiences the discomfort turns into pleasure because the art opens up new horizons in your mind. If you are in the second one you blame the art for its ineptitude to please (to give you more of the same).
Click to expand...
I think this definition of fine art is too narrow. Fine art can be a realistic depiction of a basket of bread, or of melting clocks on the Spanish plain. Indeed, Salvador Dali has created both, and each is an exceptional example of fine art. My take is that what makes art fine, is in the quality of the communion between the viewer and the art, which doesn't need to include some kind of challenge to the viewer's comfort. I believe your definition lies more in the realm of conceptual preference.

But, I have to note, as I've noted before, you're work is exceptional.
 
Last edited:
rsbush said:
I think this definition of fine art is too narrow. Fine art can be a realistic depiction of a basket of bread, or of melting clocks on the Spanish plain. Indeed, Salvador Dali has created both, and each is an exceptional example of fine art. My take is that what makes art fine, is in the quality of the communion between the viewer and the art, which doesn't need to include some kind of challenge to the viewer's comfort. I believe your definition lies more in the realm of conceptual preference.

But, I have to note, as I've noted before, you're work is exceptional.
Click to expand...

Nietzsche's famous "if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you" is of help to understand the issue. Fine art is a product of the viewer looking into it with intention of possibly seeing more than what appear on the surface AND it's the ambition of the art to be more than what it appears on the surface. Much of fine art appears to be fundamentally simple but it is not. That's why your use of words like "communion" is indeed very appropriate. The thin wafer is nothing but a mixture of flour and water and yet it stands in symbolically for way more. If neither you, nor the priest, nor the wafer (via it's historic and spiritual significance) accepts that there is more to this "transaction"then there indeed isn't much more. The reason why the challenge is vital to fine art's position is because the challenge signifies fine art's depth of search for a new meaning - and yes, sometimes that depth can be expressed in seemingly banal basket of bread.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Nietzsche's famous "if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you" is of help to understand the issue. Fine art is a product of the viewer looking into it with intention of possibly seeing more than what appear on the surface AND it's the ambition of the art to be more than what it appears on the surface. Much of fine art appears to be fundamentally simple but it is not.
Click to expand...
That is not how this phrase is generally understood.

The full quote is:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

The second part is generally understood as that you can become what you abhor because of your constant involvement in it.
 
Cary Knoop said:
That is not how this phrase is generally understood.

The full quote is:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

The second part is generally understood as that you can become what you abhor because of your constant involvement in it.
Click to expand...

The very energy that pushes us to create is the very same energy that makes us destroy. The difference is razor thin thus we always have to be aware of the force that pushes us in one direction or another.
That said, i cut out the first part of the quote because it unnecessarily opens up the conversation to good v evil. What is pertinent to the conversation is that for something to be "it" (fine art) we need to desire for it become "it" AND that it needs to want to be "it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top