Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Pete Myers museum  (Read 6605 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Pete Myers museum
« on: March 13, 2007, 11:54:03 am »

Pete Myers reconstruction of his efforts to get a national show is a funny piece of writing, but the situation isn't funny. In the nineteenth century, the French had themselves an academy which more-or-less ruled painting, and decided who would make a living at it. The system was finally broken by the Impressionists and others, but now it has crept back. We have a collection of painters, photogaphers and sculptors who are "certified" by critics, the large art magazines, and their museum friends. Little of this stuff is actually made for human beings to look at; it's made and sold as an investment, and is so large that it can only be hung in museums or huge homes with expansive walls.

Of course, the people who do this don't think of themselves as another regressive, reactionary academy; they think of themselves as the cutting edge, but they're not. They're the same old heavy, anti-art weight holding us down. I was in Fort Worth a couple of years ago, and a friend who is a museum docent pointed me at a room with a Carl Andre sculpture that consisted of a bunch of very large plain flat metal plates laying on the floor. My friend came in behind me, just to see if I'd walked on the plates, in the process of looking for whatever art work that was supposed to be there. I knew Andre, though, and hadn't walked on the plates, although there were footprints all over them. There is essentially something wrong when you are in the presence of what's supposed to be major work by an internationally famous author, and you can't detect it...

This is not an anti-modern/contemporary screed, by the way; I like much of what came out of the 20th century, even the latter part of it. But I hate the certification process and what it produces. Have you ever noticed that the "best" contemporary artists tend to be good-looking fashionistas?

At least, with the elephant turds in Pete's story, somebody got a sandwich out of it...

JC
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2007, 12:52:35 pm »

John - there's a huge problem here with galleries and museums and it's all financial. The better-located ones cost an arm and a leg to rent, never mind operate, and the sales that permit the places to exist have got to be of mammoth proportions to allow the game to continue. So, the images are large both to match the prices and so as not to get lost in banks, offices, museums and similar semi-public venues, the repositories where the big bucks hang out. It was ever so - back in the days of Da Vinci and Michelangelo it was the church which did most of the financing of art, money to maintain art is seldom available from the small, private person's pocket.

But this sholdn't worry today's art photographer that much: the web exists and interest can be generated in that manner; specific 'likely buyers' can be reached by various means and that includes the smaller companies which might have an art budget - it does create some company kudos to have a small collection and not all such companies want to pay through the nose for that.

Yes, it would be nice if that level playing field existed, but in business I have yet to find one.

I am led to believe that many photographers do quite well from digital prints they produce by themselves - some write on this site; perhaps Pete shouldn't care too much about these galleries or museums - it isn't always possible to beat the house; he already does well with prints... and do you want to be in a museum in the first place?

Ciao - Rob C
« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 01:16:27 pm by Rob C »
Logged

image66

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2007, 03:10:36 pm »

Sadly, I agree with the Museum's actions in this case.  This isn't a slam on Pete's work, as it is very good.  But the genre is a bit "worn". Everything is cyclical and it eventually will come back into vogue, but probably not in our lifetimes.

At issue, the work that Pete does as well as most of us, is a commodity.  Do people specifically seek out our work, or does our work happen to fit the "interior decoration" of the house in which the buyer is happening to fill?

Museums do have a responsibility to display:

1. That which hasn't been seen before
2. Something that moves us, as a culture and individuals, forward

If Pete is just looking for another "market" for his images, maybe his own intentions are flawed.  Museums are not "gallery shows" nor are they "art shows" and "vendor stands".  Granted, sales are made through Museums, but they do have a higher standard than our traditional means of sales.

The person from the Museum gave Pete a specific thing that they are looking for. Of that, I give her tremendous credit. Now, if Pete chooses to go pout in the corner, that's his business, but how is that any different than our fulfilling the requirements of any of our clients?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2007, 04:21:52 pm »

image66

You are describing a problem common to all photography: it has all been done before. I think you could extend the argument to painting too, but it is perhaps the unavoidable differences in brushmanship(?) that allow paintings to appear more individual, more original, as it were, when they damn well are not, they just look that way because of different levels of painter talent; the themes are as worn as an old shoe.

Yes, too, to your implication that museums are not galleries; but then why on earth do they put on shows that are rightly the province of galleries? I think this is also a fiscal problem, because they have to engender an interest in order to get people through the doorway. The allure of old armour and Egyptian mummies is not all that inclined to encourage repeat visits, particularly if paid ones. Putting on something more contemporary might just do the trick, particularly if the photographer or painter has managed to create an aura of star quality, of celebrity value... sucks, doesn't it?

I see no reason why Pete's commercial motives are suspect; it's how he makes his living. If he can create a higher profile for himself with a museum show, then okay, why ever not? it's a two-way deal, both for Pete and the venue.

Ciao - Rob C

thompsonkirk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • http://www.red-green-blue.com
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2007, 08:19:31 pm »

I have to agree with Image66:

Pete seems to make the sort of traditional western BW images that will appeal to folks who visit Santa Fe, & that's a nice spot from a marketing standpoint.  But a look at the work on his website forces me to agree with the curatorial staff - it just doesn't look, at least to me, like the caliber of work that's shown in the galleries & museums I visit regularly.  

From a negative - & self-justifying - standpoint, you can say that museums do sometimes show what you might call elephant scat.  My local museum (SF MOMA) has recently shown Robert Adams' newest project, which did look a bit elephantine to me; and soon they'll be showing Jeff Wall, who some will regard as just an artifical celebrity of the art-money circuit.  But I'm sure not everyone will agree with these opinions.  Some will be inspired & others will think this sort of work is at least rather unusual.  

But from a positive side, museums have a responsibility to show work that's more original / less derivative than Pete's.  Some of the more interesting recent shows at SF MOMA have been historical shows of Lewis Carroll & Weston/Modotti, great 'stars' like Arbus & Eggleston; major recent innovators like Richter & Gursky; the under-appreciated minimalist Hank Wessel; & Shomei Tomatsu, a historically very interesting but not widely known post-WWII Japanese photographer.  This list - including Adams & Wall - is a good mix of people who have set or are setting important examples for others, or who were underappreciated in their time (Modotti, Tomatsu).    

In our area we have some first-rate galleries that show work that is aimed to sell in the big-money market; middle-ranking ones that aim at judicious collectors; and some smaller but respectable ones that open their walls to less well-known photographers.  And the usual local arts organizations, some with quite attractive venues, are interested in photography.  From the website I'd say that if Pete were experiencing his disappointments at this level, he'd be taking his knocks in his own league.  At this level there's appropriate local recognition, collegiality, & an occasional print sale for us 'artists with day jobs' - those who have to thrive somewhere below the museum level of the food chain of fine arts.  

Kirk

www.dryreading.com/kirkthompson/
Logged

DiaAzul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 777
    • http://photo.tanzo.org/
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2007, 08:26:53 pm »

Why not rent a van, park opposite the museum and project your images against the exterior wall of the museum. As long as you are legally parked I am not sure there is much they can do about it. Same people will see it and you will probably get more exposure than the elephant poo.

Other tactic is to push thumbnail images using bluetooth to peoples mobile handsets whilst they are entering the museum with a link to your website. You can probably do it from a laptop in your van.

Urban guerilla tactics are called for when the committee has two wodges of elephant crap stuffed up their noses.
Logged
David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2007, 10:02:10 pm »

The relationship between talent and recognition as an artist is a fascinating subject.

It is sadening to see that the establishement probably still very much locks up traditional venues. On the other hand, success doesn't always means artistic failure...

Then we have our high digital hopes... but...

- Have digital technologies really opened up the playing field?
- Can recognition be distinguished from commercial success?
- When web images become a commidity threatened by IP theft, is the web credible as a media to promote high quality prints? Aren't we back to the traditional physical venues?...

My personnal feeling is that things haven't changed much, and that new digital leaders are trying to enforce new types of barriers preventing the entry of competition.

Assuming that the size of the pie is fixed, then it isn't very surprising that those selling big parts of it today are reluctant to let new guys come in.

All in all, the name of the game today still appears to be much more "the survival of the fittest" rather than "the victory of talent".
 
Cheers,
Bernard

DaFu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
    • http://www.davefultz.net
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2007, 10:52:52 pm »

I am relieved to see that Pete has his sense of humor intact, if not quickened, after his experiences. Much of what others, here, have said is true but I would add something further by way of explanation for what happened.

Pete isn’t dead.

Museums and collectors would be even more pleased if Pete had died in 1520. Then, when one of his thousand or so gorgeous prints surfaces in a chill castle off the Bosporus, they’ll know it’s rare, very rare, and no one knew this image existed so there would be immense curatorial interest and the starting price for this elegant photographer’s work from the 1500s would be high, indeed.

The brutal fact of the market for photography, with rare exceptions, is that the digital revolution with all its stupendous contributions to creativity has exacerbated photography’s problem of infinite reproduceability. After the photographer spends untold hours preparing an image, it now only takes one click to produce a thousand perfect copies on an Epson or Canon or Iris or HP. Museums and galleries don’t like that. They like Andreas Gurski because he can’t just click Print. They like contemporary photographers who work with collodion because they can’t just click Print either.

Good or great museums focused on art history preserve the best of the past and put it in context for all of us. Modern art museums have some trouble deciding their priorities when the opinion of centuries is lacking. And some modern art museums make stupid choices—I can think of exhibitions in New York, San Francisco, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Chicago and elsewhere where the art on display matched or dived deep below the elephant dung.

Keep up the good work, Pete.

Dave
« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 10:59:01 pm by DaFu »
Logged

thompsonkirk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
    • http://www.red-green-blue.com
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2007, 11:58:42 pm »

Most digital artists, especially the big-print guys (Gursky, Wall, Burtynsky ,Misrach, etc.), have solved the mechanical reproduction problem with small limited editions.  That's how one of Gursky's 99c stores just sold for $3M!

Kirk
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2007, 11:58:52 pm »

It's not that Pete's landscape work isn't good enough -- it's that his **category** isn't good enough.  His individual ability and talent, I think, are irrelevant to museums as they are now run. I would be interested to know when the last time that somebody saw, in a major art museum (as  opposed to a dedicated photography venue)  a one-man/one woman show of contemporary straight landscape work that isn't skeptical, sarcastic, political, sneering or deliberately ugly...in other words, a show of really gorgeous landscape images, that are simply presented as that.

I don't even argue that this should be routinely shown everywhere -- but it should routinely be shown *somewhere,* and it isn't.

I'll add a personal story, and I swear to God, it's true. I've collected photographs for years. When I started, I didn't know exactly what direction I wanted to go in, and so I came up with a bunch of different stuff. One that I bought, just because I liked it at the time, was a well-known 1942 photograph by Arnold Newman of Piet Modrian in his studio. This  was "printed later," which cuts the value, but not the quality of the image, is a beautifully printed silver print, signed by Newman. Over the years, though,it came to not fit in the collection I was developing. A year or so ago, I was at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, looking at a photo show from the mid-20th century, including a Newman print of a different subject. I'm a member of the museum's patron circle, and I was thinking, maybe they could use the Newman print. So I went to the information desk and had them call up the photo department (which is hidden some place in the back) and I was switched to a secretary, and I asked her if the museum would like the print. She went off some place and came back a minute or so later and said, "No...not really."

All right. When it comes to museums, things are tough for everybody.

JC
Logged

George Barr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2007, 12:48:14 am »

John:

brilliant! Hope Pete gets to read it. Kind of puts things in perspective.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2007, 07:17:40 am »

What we need is far far more erosion and distruction of the natural landscape due to globabl warming, pollution, etc.

Then our work will be far more collectable!

*please note: tounge in cheek!*

National Geographic have just put their entire archive online for purchase and at very low prices considering. Is our photographic landscape art just not considered collectable? Should we be shooting landscape and waiting 50 years ala Ansel Adams, or shooting the human enviroment for 50 years later when it might truly be collectable as a part of history? Seriously though, I doubt Fine Art landscape photography from the past 30 years or so is to be considered collectable, yes its well done, but why is it particularly different?
Logged

mikeseb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
    • http://www.michaelsebastian.com
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2007, 10:11:50 am »

Quote
guerilla tactics are called for when the committee has two wodges of elephant crap stuffed up their noses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What? I hope I've misinterpreted what was intended to be a sarcastic post. Hard to judge intentions in the online format.

Peter can certainly follow his own lights, since he's a grownup. Better advice, it seems to me, would echo that of Kirk and image66, who recommended that he concentrate on producing the highest quality work and find in his marketing efforts--as many others have done successfully--ways to circumvent "The Man" who has barred the museum doors against him. They can presumably sling around the elephant scat wherever they choose.

DiaAzul's suggestion--be an annoying pain in the a**--if seriously intended, is the sophomoric tactic of a petulant anti-Something protestor, even if it's (questionably) legal to harass a person or place of business on private property, from public property.

Given that a few "stars" (never mind how they came to be regarded as such) command very high print prices, it seems a lot of people have forgotten that photography is, and always has been, a populist medium, aside from the reproducibility issue. When someone looks at an original oil painting by a renowned artist, s/he is unlikely to think at some level, "I could do THAT!". But nearly everyone has some experience of taking a photograph, and with all the digitoys out there, there is ever more contempt of the familiar directed towards even the work of the best photographers.

Better to expend one's efforts figuring better ways to get a product people want--and which for many is an overpriced discretionary purchase--to those who want to own it, sidestepping the museum philistines. The market will decide; it's up to us to make sure the market can "see" our offerings, and no large-animal fecal repository can prevent that. If no one is buying the stuff, then it's either overpriced or under-wanted, and only the artist can fix that.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 10:12:06 am by mikeseb »
Logged
michael sebast

Ken Tanaka

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
    • http://www.KenTanaka.com
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2007, 05:44:47 pm »

Quote
I have to agree with Image66:

Pete seems to make the sort of traditional western BW images that will appeal to folks who visit Santa Fe, & that's a nice spot from a marketing standpoint.  But a look at the work on his website forces me to agree with the curatorial staff - it just doesn't look, at least to me, like the caliber of work that's shown in the galleries & museums I visit regularly. 

From a negative - & self-justifying - standpoint, you can say that museums do sometimes show what you might call elephant scat.  My local museum (SF MOMA) has recently shown Robert Adams' newest project, which did look a bit elephantine to me; and soon they'll be showing Jeff Wall, who some will regard as just an artifical celebrity of the art-money circuit.  But I'm sure not everyone will agree with these opinions.  Some will be inspired & others will think this sort of work is at least rather unusual. 

.....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With all respect to Pete and the obvious craftsmanship he devotes to his photography I share the opinions of Kirk and Image66.

The primary mission of all museums is education.  Museums that rely on attendance, memberships, and donations must also create their exhibitions with an eye toward what draws visitors and what helps to establish and maintain the museum's name in the exhibition world.  Being somewhat familiar with this subject I can tell you that this is not an easy path.   Sometimes, like the late Jimmy Durante was famous for saying, "Everybody want to get into the act!".

I can certainly imagine a few of Pete's images included in some type of topical exhibit at a major museum such as New York's Metropolitan, the Getty, or at the Art Institute of Chicago (my local shack).   But I would be very shocked to see it shown exclusively in a 1-man exhibit at such venues.  It's just not the type of contemporary work that will draw a national audience.  I'm sure that it's popular in the American Southwest, perhaps at small local museums and galleries.  I also suspect that it would be popular with interior designers looking for striking but inoffensive artworks for certain clients.  In this regard, it's quite possible that more people would see Pete's images than, say, a Robert Adams landscape at the SF MOMA.

Speaking of Adams (mentioned earlier by Kirk), his work is as visually dry and lifeless to me as unpainted wallboard.  BUT, Adams' images are thoughtfully built around thematic concepts, most popularly his portrayal of how people have ruined the magnificent American West.  Curators love such thematic bodies of work.  The fact that Adams is also a good 10,000 foot writer and teacher makes his work all that much more attractive to museums.  The theme of Pete's images, in contrast, seems to be nothing more than sales and self-promotion.  He rather boldly anoints himself a "...master fine arts photographer.' smack dab on the (rather homely) main page of his Web site.  (Search for Robert Adams' Web site and you'll mostly find only references to his work at Wikipedia, museum sites, and art reference sites.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 05:45:23 pm by Ken Tanaka »
Logged
- Ken Tanaka -
 www.KenTanaka.com

luong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
    • http://www.terragalleria.com
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2007, 10:45:06 pm »

To be considered a "photographic artist", and be exhibited in top museums and galleries these days, you have to do work that engages the contemporary world in some original ways (note what the curator saw in the elephant dung pieces).  As beautiful as it is, Pete's work just doesn't do so.
Logged
QT Luong - author of http://TreasuredLandsBook.com, winner of 6 national book awards

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2007, 05:07:48 am »

Luong

I love your sense of humour; what a lovely way to say that the art world's a load of crap!

Ciao - Rob C

LoisWakeman

  • Guest
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2007, 07:24:56 am »

Quote
Why not rent a van, park opposite the museum and project your images against the exterior wall of the museum.
I think parking a ballista loaded with real elephant crap would perhaps demonstrate the point more forcefully.

Some people mentioned that conventional landscapes are a bit tired. The concepts behind much (but not all) conceptual art are also tired - and in some cases, so thin as not to be worth the time and effort that is spent in expressing them.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Pete Myers museum
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2007, 10:20:56 am »

Quote
I think parking a ballista loaded with real elephant crap would perhaps demonstrate the point more forcefully.

Some people mentioned that conventional landscapes are a bit tired. The concepts behind much (but not all) conceptual art are also tired - and in some cases, so thin as not to be worth the time and effort that is spent in expressing them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lois - thank God somebody else has found the same hymn-sheet as mine! Now, if Teflon Tony could find it too...

Ciao - Rob C
Pages: [1]   Go Up