So We'll Go No More A-Roving
So we'll go no more a-roving
So late into the night,
Though the heart still be as loving,
And the moon still be as bright.
For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul outwears the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And love itself have rest.
Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a-roving
By the light of the moon.
This is a game to keep art alive. Click "like" and I will assign you an artist. Doesn't matter if you don't like them. Google them, choose an image you like most, reflect on it, and post it to your wall along with this message.A friend was assigned Diane Arbus (b.1928- d.1971), whom I was introduced to by my father and my ex-husband, both being free-lance photographers. Arbus was a controversial photographer because of her subjects, and because she was a woman that dared to cross the cultural boundaries in many ways. Her subjects were usually the 'invisible' people; those that lived and existed under our conventional societal radars: "deviant and marginal people or of people whose normality seems ugly or surreal".
I learned something about myself looking at this artists work. I will admit I had to force myself to look and as I did, it became easier and more interesting and finally filled with appreciation for human life. Something like learning to be comfortable in your own skin. However, it was the children I was truly drawn to.Art is a representation of so much more than a superficial view of one point in time and space. Unlike painting and sculpture, which are more malleable in the artist's hands, photography is capturing realism, whether it is unmanipulated or contrived, and presenting a spatial-temporal perspective. A photograph can be a narrative telling a story; reaching into our minds with a gazillion signals touching all the areas of our brain. Fear, loathing, anger, sympathy, joy, love, beauty, sorrow, peacefulness; the entire gamut of human emotion. It can represent a thousand words in one photograph, covering a myriad of emotions but with a common denominator.
“I immediately started to request more opportunities to take portraits,” he says. “I’ve been attached to the portrait ever since I was a little kid, but when I started to shoot serious actors, there was a whole new added depth of expression that our collaboration would provoke that was exciting. Actors certainly raise the bar of every shot.”Greco's portrait of the late comedian Chris Farley exemplifies his philosophy about portraiture. The photograph chosen to accompany the article linked to above communicates the man behind the comedy. This statement by the photographer explains how he develops an empathy with is subjects:
“There are so many publicists today driving the image machine of their clients,” explains Michael. “That’s why I will sit in hair and make-up and chat with talent in order to get to know them—in and out, what they’re about and what they are personally into.”
I have been a photographer for over forty years. My main subject matter has been people in the entertainment industry, but it always amazes me how even the most simple things in life can make a beautiful piece of art. It has only been the last several years that I have looked at my work as art. I guess sometimes we become so rapt up in the concept for the campaign that the only question is, does it suit the client? Often, I have had an art director tell me that this shot would look good over the fireplace, and always I would look at them puzzled. I don't look puzzled anymore.It reminded me of how I reacted to some readers' comments regarding my writing. After years of mostly technical writing (manuscripts, manuals, R&D documentation), I began writing for the general public and then sharing my own personal writing online. I was puzzled at comments that shared how my writing personally affected them, often eliciting empathy and a myriad of feelings. I never equated my writing with artistic expression. Nor with intent of eliciting empathy; what they read is how and what I am and feel.
There are two ways to make a photograph, one is to capture the moment and the other is to create the moment with artificial lighting. Many times I will tell a young enthusiast, go learn how to use those strobes and tungsten lights, and then the natural light will be more vibrant then ever. The best way to learn how to drive a car is with a stick shift , and then the automatic will be a breeze.Although I was once a purist, in both photography and writing, breaking out of that mold has given me a freedom in expanding my artistic expression. And I often play the Trickster in both mediums to challenge viewers and readers to also break out of their own boundaries. To see a story in a photograph or to feel or think beyond the words on their screen. And sometimes to just express myself even though no one else really understands. :)
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."Then this excerpt hit home. It was a mirror in my own earlier writing:
"And nowadays — this is where things get interesting — people who write in CSWE [Clinical Standard Written English] actually mark themselves as untrustworthy by doing so. Because the new usage, call it Modern Written English, is everything CSWE is not: first-person, colloqiual, breezy, open, and personal. That’s what readers understand and trust. But if you write like a high-school essay, or the Wall Street Journal? That is now a big red flag.Your readers don’t know you … but they do know that you have deliberately hidden who you are, by donning that mask called CSWE . And on some level they do not like it."
"When I say or write something, there are actually a whole lot of different things I am communicating. The propositional content (the actual information I’m trying to convey) is only one part of it. Another part is stuff about me, the communicator. Everyone knows this. It’s a function of the fact that there are uncountably many well-formed ways to say the same basic thing, from e.g. “I was attacked by a bear!” to “Goddamn bear tried to kill me!” to “That ursine juggernaut bethought to sup upon my person!” and so on [...] “Correct” English usage is, as a practical matter, a function of whom you’re talking to and how you want that person to respond — not just to your utterance but also to you."
"Because it seems to me that Standard Written English, for all its virtues, has become something of a desiccated undead corpse. I submit that whatever can breathe new life into it — even bizarre memes, subversive polemics, and the mad ravings of anonymous redditors; hell, even 4chan — should be welcomed with open arms. Because words matter. Language matters. And, with respect, it’s past time for last century’s Standard Written English to give way to something a little more lively."