New World Order

[Wirefox]

After all the sweat and tears over the landscape attempt yesterday I thought it wise to engage in some more light hearted imagery today. It comes far easier than trying to manipulate the natural world I can tell you. And there are less teeth marks in my Wacom tablet.

I have always been very taken with the work of Vorticists like Percy Wyndham Lewis. Well this is nothing like vorticism (or is it?)

[purplehaze]

I have always been very taken with the work of Vorticists like Percy Wyndham Lewis.

Well this is nothing like vorticism (or is it?)

Well that has been an interesting detour. I recognize some of the art, but had never read or heard that term before. Judging by the MoMA's characterization, it does not have the same emphasis on the forms of machinery and buildings, and it lacks the strong contours of Vorticism, but it does have "a radiant node or cluster …from which, and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing" (Ezra Pound). Which prompts me to ask, is it a self-portrait?

I like it.

[Katy Noelle]

eesh!

[Wirefox]

it does not have the same emphasis on the forms of machinery and buildings, and it lacks the strong contours of Vorticism, but it does have "a radiant node or cluster …from which, and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing" (Ezra Pound). Which prompts me to ask, is it a self-portrait?

Janis, you are quite right with all this. I think it was just that I have been preoccupied with the concept of vorticism for a while now. So much so that I produced something that has none of its key elements...which is interesting. I think this came from somewhere in the subconscious and could well be a self portrait now you mention it.

Anyway I do want to explore applying the vortex to photography. The problem is of course is that since artists intuit contemporary mood I cannot feel that for myself. I need to find some way to adapt and will most certainly give me a stonking headache.

eesh!

Is that a good "eesh" or a bad "eesh"

[Katy Noelle]

Is that a good "eesh" or a bad "eesh"

It's an appropriate "eesh"!

[Wirefox]

Ah, that's OK then. For a time there I thought I may have been at the receiving end of a Paddington Bear hard stare

[arith]

If you keep looking at it; it looks back. Maybe you need a cubic camera.

[rob marshall]

Well that has been an interesting detour. I recognize some of the art, but had never read or heard that term before. Judging by the MoMA's characterization, it does not have the same emphasis on the forms of machinery and buildings, and it lacks the strong contours of Vorticism, but it does have "a radiant node or cluster …from which, and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing" (Ezra Pound). Which prompts me to ask, is it a self-portrait?

I like it.

I can't keep up with this.

Can I just say eesh!. Or perhaps if it's not too passé, WOW! great shot...

[Katy Noelle]

Well, now, after watching Paddington Bear, I can see who your greatest mentor and inspiration is for your art and the likeness between your self portrait, here, and him is laid bear for all to see! (It must be the ketchup... or else, something strange in my coffee, this morning. Where's the worried smiley?)

[Wirefox]

Maybe you need a cubic camera.

Now there is a thought

Can I just say eesh!. Or perhaps if it's not too passé, WOW! great shot...

I can live with that

I can't keep up with this.

You can imagine what it did to a world that was entrenched in the complacency of Turner and Co. That is why it interests me so much. The sculpture of Gaudier-Brzeska just blew me away and that is what got me interested in vorticism. Gaudier embraced modernity and sadly that is what killed him....at the age of 27 fighting in the 1st World War.

[Wirefox]

I can see who your greatest mentor and inspiration is for your art

I read all his books when I were a nipper. It must have had a subliminal influence

[purplehaze]

Janis, you are quite right with all this. I think it was just that I have been preoccupied with the concept of vorticism for a while now. So much so that I produced something that has none of its key elements...which is interesting. I think this came from somewhere in the subconscious and could well be a self portrait now you mention it.

Anyway I do want to explore applying the vortex to photography. The problem is of course is that since artists intuit contemporary mood I cannot feel that for myself. I need to find some way to adapt and will most certainly give me a stonking headache.

I know you like to be intentional and all, but I'd be content just to mainline your subconscious.

Gaudier is another discovery for me, btw. Do you know this quote (found in the Wikipedia article on him), "When I face the beauty of nature, I am no longer sensitive to art, but in the town I appreciate its myriad benefits—the more I go into the woods and the fields the more distrustful I become of art and wish all civilization to the devil; the more I wander about amidst filth and sweat the better I understand art and love it; the desire for it becomes my crying need"? Does that explain something of your relationship to landscape photography? (I ask that having missed the photo you referred to at the top of the thread.)

[purplehaze]

Steve,

Deep thought #1: You are a Vorticist born in the Atomic Age and now living in the Age of Information.

Deep thought #2: Neither atoms nor information have hard edges.

Deep thought #3: Something about chaos theory---wait, wait --sorry, it's gone. But you'll figure it out.

[Wirefox]

I know you like to be intentional and all, but I'd be content just to mainline your subconscious.

You are right. But it does intrigue me.

Gaudier is another discovery for me, btw. Do you know this quote (found in the Wikipedia article on him), "When I face the beauty of nature, I am no longer sensitive to art, but in the town I appreciate its myriad benefits—the more I go into the woods and the fields the more distrustful I become of art and wish all civilization to the devil; the more I wander about amidst filth and sweat the better I understand art and love it; the desire for it becomes my crying need"? Does that explain something of your relationship to landscape photography? (I ask that having missed the photo you referred to at the top of the thread.)

Yes I have read this some years ago but it never really twigged at the time. Having thought about this today I realise I can totally relate to it. Can photographing nature be art or are we simply capturing art (art of nature). We can never better it so herein lies the frustration. Artists can possibly find inspiration in the natural world but they can never improve upon it. Art is about creation and we can not create nature only pay homage through flattery. The artist can of course lay down his or her own emotional interpretation of the scene but this is interpretation rather than creation. So I would empathise with Gaudier's - "When I face the beauty of nature, I am no longer sensitive to art". The next sentence - "the more I go into the woods and the fields the more distrustful I become of art and wish all civilisation to the devil" smacks of Rousseau and is a anomalie for a vorticst. However given the nature of Gaudier's death it is perhaps prophetic.

I think this is why modernism is so appealing. It is pure creativity, mind to canvas, sculpture or indeed photography. I am not convinced that photography was modernist when modernism reigned so it leaves an area that is perhaps little touched (modernism does exist as a photographic genre but I do feel it captures the modern rather than modernism) - can a modernist genre of photography be contemporary? - hmm...I dont know, but worth exploring.

Deep thought #1: You are a Vorticist born in the Atomic Age and now living in the Age of Information.

Deep thought #2: Neither atoms nor information have hard edges.

Janis, this is very perceptive. I think if I am honest with myself I need the definition of the hard edge. Both matter in its simplest form and information cannot be definitive. Information is interpretive and matter is definition without perceptible form (underlined for the benefit of the scientists) - neither lends itself to artistic interpretation in a pure form (it is always representative). The interesting thing about photography is that the vast majority of it is pure information - and for that reason I cannot see that it can be art. Where the photographic information is distorted by mental perception, then that can be art.

But you'll figure it out.

You reckon

[purplehaze]

Steve, you have wonderfully concentrated my mind and I thank you for it.

I take your points about landscape photography, and most photography being information and am inclined to agree with them, though I suppose we might differ about how much mental perception is required to make photography art, you being more exacting, no doubt.

I love your definition of modernism--so clear and concise! I am so much a creature of this era, I cannot wrap my head around many of the concepts associated with modernism, but I can appreciate that one. You say you don't think photography has captured modernism; I wonder if it has been captured by film?

You lose me a bit with the line about neither information or matter lending itself to artistic interpretation in a pure form. I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure I understand why it's an issue. Maybe I am too much of a linguist. "This is not a pipe", and all that. Showing the limits of my poor brain, I fear. I will sleep on it.

Anyhow, back to your question about whether your image had anything to do with Vorticism. Obviously, I don't know enough about the subject to say, but I daresay there are analogies to be made between it and Epstein's Rock Drill and Gaudier's Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound (minus the overt sexual references, of course ).

You do know, I assume, that an exhibition on the movement just opened today at the Tate.

[Wirefox]

You lose me a bit with the line about neither information or matter lending itself to artistic interpretation in a pure form. I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure I understand why it's an issue.

To be honest I lost myself a bit on this line of thought hence the gobbledygook. What I mean is that its portrayal will always be an interpretation rather than pure thought transferred to artistic medium. But having thought about this a bit more the information and matter can be (or is) the artistic medium. The way it is arranged and perceived is derived from pure thought. But...the information and matter in itself displayed as itself has poor definition in terms of 'edge'. That is why I see the hard edges and forms as being the interpreters of thought. If none of this make sense don't worry - art is a very intimate and personal thing and sometimes only art itself can portray thought....words are woefully limited and inadequate

You do know, I assume, that an exhibition on the movement just opened today at the Tate.

Yes, that is at the Tate Britain - no chance of me getting down there though....work commitments

There is a permanent collection at the Tate Modern though

[purplehaze]

If none of this make sense don't worry

No, I think I'm getting the idea...

Sometimes only art itself can portray thought....words are woefully limited and inadequate

Except maybe for lines like these:
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe"

Pure thought to information medium, no? But I'm getting a little far from the subject of photography.

Thanks, Steve. You have added to my knowledge of art theory and history and I have a better understanding and appreciation of what it is you do.

[Peter Ryan]

Well Steve,

At this moment I do not have time to educate myself on your work other than to say - I do like this. I don't understand it or the type of mind that can create it (a compliment) but I do like it.

[MiniChris]

I think if I did not teach high School AP Art, I would pass this off to "another twisted and lost mind," but since I do teach high school kids, I instead, use it as an example of pushing one's creativity...pudding for some, mush for others.

[rob marshall]

Steve

I keep coming back to this image. It has a haunting quality. And I noticed that the file name is 'Demon'. Given that fact, and the fact that my mother-in-law is a very keen Vorticist I thought I'd ask you for a print so she can hang it on her lounge wall. What your image needs, if I may be so bold to venture, is a context that is based more in the ordinary mundane 'reality' of life. On it's own it's striking, but seen in the context of suburban bourgeois blandness, it shines out like a beacon of hope...

Sorry for taking the liberty, but I wondered what you thought? Is this an appropriate hanging space?

PS: I suppose you are going to put me on your ignore list now?