‘We Treat These Photographs As Achievements’

at

images

You know who you are.

Stephen Murphy writes:

“I made a video essay around the idea of people taking videos on their cameraphones at gigs and how there’s a need for more sufficient imagery in modern society. It includes a brief appraisal of A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2015) by Ana Lily Amirpour….

18 thoughts on “‘We Treat These Photographs As Achievements’

    1. Serval

      +1
      I love being on a higher level than people who think they know what’s good and what’s not good in relation to any art form.
      You’re blind, baby.
      It’s just what you like versus what you don’t like.
      Nobody can say what’s good or bad because it’s not measurable.

          1. Serval

            That’s funny.
            In actual fact, the narrator of this video is actually making the claim that art is measurable.
            This is a claim that he can’t prove.

          2. rory

            He isn’t making the claim that you can measure art. He is measuring art. Surely that is proof that art is measurable.

          3. rory

            I find the definitions in your link a tad odd. What objective measurement hasn’t been devised through personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment?

          4. rory

            I don’t think your answer is correct.

            I think an objective measurement could only be devised if the deviser had the ability to perceive things objectively.
            I don’t think humans are able to perceive things objectively.
            I think anything they perceive goes through loads of filters of subjective experience.

            So, I don’t think a subjective perception/s can devise an objective measurement. I think their measurements are subjective creations, just like the video maker up there, who devises what is good/bad cinema through his own measurements of various criteria.

            I don’t think degrees Celsius, kilograms etc. are objective measurements.

          5. Serval

            So,
            Imagine if you have a stone and you put it on a weighing scales on Monday and it shows 2kg
            If you wait until Wednesday and put it on the scales again, do you think it is going to weigh something different?
            No, because weight is measurable.
            We have an unchanging way of measuring the weight of something using particular units of weight that nobody can argue with.
            It is scientific.

            But we can’t measure the goodness or badness of a piece of art until someone comes up with a unit of measurement.

            Is it valid for somebody to say that stone is not 2kg?
            No, because it is measurable and you can easily determine whether that person is right or wrong by simply putting the stone on the weighing scales.

          6. rory

            You are saying a person can objectively measure something through kilograms, because it fills out various criteria which people have decided to be true. (Perceived constancy being one of the criteria.)
            People have decided the criteria to be true because they consider the criteria to be the bedrock of their experience.

            Imagine if there is something else in the bedrock. But this perceived ‘something’ doesn’t conform to the criteria mentioned above. How can one measure it and communicate it to others? It appears that people have come up with a different criteria to do so (and in so doing, different methods to communicate it to others.)

            Both the criteria in the first and second paragraph were deliberated over by a group of learned people. Why is your criteria valid and there’s are not?
            Your argument appears to be
            Because of the way it measures things.

Comments are closed.