Interpret this art?

[Stanley Edwards]

Right, I've gone off an read up on the piece/s. I won't tell you my findings because I think people want to still look at it and come up with an interpretation. All I'll say is it makes sense to me now. Title makes sense too.

Any chance you can PM a link?

As I understand it, the title (detail) was added at a later date. The whole collection is a work of art in it's entirety that was completed over a number of years. However, each piece is equally a work of art in it's own right.

As a complete collection the photographs obviously account for a passage of time in a far greater context.


--

e2a; It's alright, don't bother - I've found the artists blurb now. Paul Russell is either an art critique genius or, a cheat

 

[Stanley Edwards]

I think someone else should choose a piece for the next one. Something obscure that works on screen. Something we can't Google would be ideal.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Did you read the guardian article? Very very interesting.

Do a bit of detective work. Identity indeed

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Did you read the guardian article? Very very interesting.

Do a bit of detective work. Identity indeed

Hold on.

Who's idea are we interpreting. The interpreted idea presented or, the idea of the original artist/photographer?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

OK. Looking again knowing what I know now I'm going to stick my neck out even further.

They are as stated, 1959 polaroids by the partner of someone from Lebanon (possibly). To my eyes they are far from amateur. Given that it's 1959 they are technically and stylistically well above the average eye. The angles. The use of interior lighting. They obviously had a tripod.

It is an attempt at art. It's quite good. The woman walking into the first shot may or, may not have been a mistake.

So, it is possibly a record of a honeymoon in Paris. The photographer is female. The photographers abscence from the shots leaves out an entire half of the story.

They are akin to 60's reportage. They're way ahead of there time. The photographer was obviously a very creative thinker with a very keen eye and mind for new ideas.


Still haven't read that much about the project and this particular triptych so, I may have got it wrong again

 

[Vintage Paw]

Hold on.

Who's idea are we interpreting. The interpreted idea presented or, the idea of the original artist/photographer?

I started with the presentation of the three photos on the screen. But, as I said above, the manner in which they were presented sat awkwardly with me, so I started digging.

I said at the start I liked Paul's interpretation, and that still stands.

I'm all for death of the author you know ... but since I started digging it has turned up all sorts of very interesting ideas and (non)information.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...
I said at the start I liked Paul's interpretation, and that still stands.

...

You weren't supposed to go digging Just give your own view on what you saw. Cheat

For punishment I nominate you to go find a new piece for everyone to interpret without cheating!

P.S. I liked Paul's writing also. I think everyone got thinking for themselves. I thought Marius gave it the best though.

 

[Vintage Paw]

OK. Looking again knowing what I know now I'm going to stick my neck out even further.

They are as stated, 1959 polaroids by the partner of someone from Lebanon (possibly). To my eyes they are far from amateur. Given that it's 1959 they are technically and stylistically well above the average eye. The angles. The use of interior lighting. They obviously had a tripod.

It is an attempt at art. It's quite good. The woman walking into the first shot may or, may not have been a mistake.

So, it is possibly a record of a honeymoon in Paris. The photographer is female. The photographers abscence from the shots leaves out an entire half of the story.

They are akin to 60's reportage. They're way ahead of there time. The photographer was obviously a very creative thinker with a very keen eye and mind for new ideas.


Still haven't read that much about the project and this particular triptych so, I may have got it wrong again

After reading this I understand what you mean about who's idea, who's art.

The photos are said to be of Raad's father. That means, as you suggested, they were probably taken by his wife, or maybe by another companion on holiday.

I find it difficult to separate the original photographer's intention/vision/creative drive etc. from the way in which they are presented by Raad. But that might actually be the point.

I see it as a multi-layered piece, dealing with questions of identity and, as Paul started saying, authorship.


I find Raad's project as a whole very alluring (and rather wanky, but it works well I think). However, if there had been no information that started to get me thinking there may be more than meets the eye to the photos (the information underneath) I would have been happy to settle with Paul's analysis. It seemed to fit nicely with the way they three photos worked together, along with their content. And with their status as polaroids. But context was important to me in this case, and something I couldn't dismiss. Maybe just a fluke caused by the choice of this particular piece, but it happened nonetheless.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

The idea behind this thread was to encourage people to form their own views. There isn't really a right or, wrong answer. It's subjective.

As it turns out, those who looked with preconceived views from wherever could actually be viewing with badly informed ideas.

I suggest that Raad's mother was in fact a professional artist of some form. Possibly a photographer or, even a fashion designer influenced by fashion photography at the time. The style is very avant for it's day.

Anyway, I'm bored with this one now.

Vintage Paw - serve your punishment and post a new image up

 

[Paul Russell]

Well, I did a quick Google but I didn't find anything apart from the fact that the winner got 30 grand. Which must be nice.

Of course, I'm an inveterate liar!

e2a; It's alright, don't bother - I've found the artists blurb now. Paul Russell is either an art critique genius or, a cheat

 

[kyser_soze]

Looks like excerpts from a travelogue from the Picture Post in the late 50s/early 60s

 

[Vintage Paw]

As it turns out, those who looked with preconceived views from wherever could actually be viewing with badly informed ideas.

Don't we all have preconceived ideas of some sort though? None of us views art in a vacuum. We bring to it our own prejudices, preconceived notions of what is, or is not, art. Of what we expect something set out in a certain way to say. Every past experience we have had with art/photography informs how we see every new piece we look at.

We can try to disassociate ourselves with those ideas when we look at something for the first time, but obviously that only works with the preconceived notions we actually know we hold

Of course, if someone had read all about Raad and his project first, and then looked at the three pictures they would of course have a reaction coloured by what they had read. As per your instructions in the OP I didn't do that. I just looked at them. On their own.

I first looked as soon as this thread was posted yesterday. I kept coming back to it. I kept opening the link and looking again. I wanted to be able to write something about them, but the fact was I couldn't remove what I was seeing from the information underneath. The fact it said 'detail' made me realise I wasn't seeing the whole piece, and therefore as it was presented, as a triptych, was misleading. It said the whole piece consisted of 25 photos. Clearly there were only three being shown.

If you had said, take these three photos and tell me what you think of them as a triptych, it might have been easier (although I suspect not - again because of their context on the page). But you specifically drew attention to the title and to the fact that the artist had won a prize for the piece. This made the fact that the 'piece' as a whole wasn't actually presented in that link problematic for me.

I only started 'digging' after I had read some of the first comments today. As I said, I liked what Paul said, and if I was any good at expressing myself I'd have probably said something similar. However, after reading these things, and after weighing up all the information I had been given so far, I wanted to know more.

I really don't think it's a black and white issue. I hope this explains a little of why I felt it necessary to do that evil digging

And oh dear god don't make me choose the next one!

 

[Stanley Edwards]

..

I really don't think it's a black and white issue.

And oh dear god don't make me choose the next one!

I chose the triptych because the title suggested it was art not documentary. I think, by pure chance, it turned out to be a good opener. It's raised lots of issues and got people thinking in all kinds of ways. You obviously gave it lots.

Time to move on though. Another thread. If you really don't want to post it then I nominate Marius as he gave the first one the most honest and open critique. A self-formed opinion. Proper free thinking.

Next!

 

[Vintage Paw]

Yes, I nominate Marius too

(I just wouldn't know where to start looking!)