Garry Winogrand: MonkeyCam Redux

[jjj]

But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.

If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.

The fact that a Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.

Dave

Nicely put.

[RSL]

But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.

If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.

The fact that Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Actually, believe it or not, it's not envy. I'm not pursuing Gursky's variety of art passionately; in fact I'm not pursuing it at all. I look at the incredible hassle in the art auction scene and think: At my age (84) to try to do the kind of thing Gursky's doing just wouldn't be worth the hassle.

I really don't think the art auction world has much to do with art. It has more to do with money and investment. Most people who buy art from major art auctions are a lot like stamp collectors or coin collectors. What really matters isn't the kind of transcendental experience one gets from truly fine art, but the price of the objects they buy and the chance that the "value" of the "art" will increase. In the world of money, Gursky certainly has succeeded. Beyond that, I don't find anything particularly artistic about Rhein II.

On the other hand, money aside, I always enjoyed selling my work. What I enjoyed about it was the boost to my ego. Nowadays I don't even care about that. What I continue to care about is how the stuff feels to me.

[jjj]

I really don't think the art auction world has much to do with art. It has more to do with money and investment. Most people who buy art from major art auctions are a lot like stamp collectors or coin collectors. What really matters isn't the kind of transcendental experience one gets from truly fine art, but the price of the objects they buy and the chance that the "value" of the "art" will increase. In the world of money, Gursky certainly has succeeded. Beyond that, I don't find anything particularly artistic about Rhein II.

Maybe that says more about your taste then Gursky's art. I've seen one of his works that may have been Rhein II or another in that set and it really stuck in my mind, there was something quite captivating about it. Would I pay £3 million for it, certainly not, I've make sure my local cat charity and hospice got the money instead.
What you said about art and investment can be true, but also most people who buy art at that or any level do so because they really like it. If simply making money was the goal, there are better investments than modern art.

[RSL]

I'd be quick to concede that you may be right, Jeremy, but that still doesn't make be appreciate Rhein II any more profoundly than before.

[jjj]

I don't expect it would.
But I think before one judges any art, you have to see it in person, because reproductions rarely do any art justice. I recall seeing a war photo in a the Manchester Art Gallery a few years back, one that  I'd seen it several times in magazines before that, but didn't do that much for me. But seeing the actual print with it's rich tonality gave the photo a depth than was missing before and it was now a powerful and quite moving image. So go see some Gursky in the flesh, so at least then you can dislike it accurately. 

[Isaac]

With Gursky I don't see anything more than mundane facsimiles of the mundane.

A mundane facsimile of the mundane? (So easy to say.)

Or "All of Stieglitz is here. His will, his masterful ability, his artistic sophistication, his gloomy Romanticism, his age, his heroic refusal to give in to the inevitable -- all are in this picture."

[Gulag]

The works of Gursky and some other German photographers belong to what's called the Dusseldorf School of Photography, which was an artistic innovation of 1970s in Germany in response to concerns of the New Topographics.  Perhaps this book can help a little bit.

[RSL]

"Understanding" a photograph, unless it's an advertisement or a newspaper column, is meaningless. Either the photograph gives you a transcendental experience or it doesn't. Like any art, a photograph has to stand on its own two feet. If it doesn't then it's a flop. Books have nothing at all to do with the situation.

[jjj]

"Understanding" a photograph, unless it's an advertisement or a newspaper column, is meaningless. Either the photograph gives you a transcendental experience or it doesn't. Like any art, a photograph has to stand on its own two feet. If it doesn't then it's a flop. Books have nothing at all to do with the situation.

Actually knowing about art can change your perception of it. Looking at old paintings can be much more rewarding when you know the context or maybe the hidden [to us] symbolism contained within. Some art requires effort or understanding to grok it, because it is not always just a 'pretty' picture.
With photographs sometimes a simple caption is what makes it.

[Iluvmycam]

It's not that landscape photographers are bad photographers, Slobodan. It's just that they don't quite understand what photography really is for. Painting is for landscapes; photography is for people.

If that was the case we would be missing lots of fantastic landscapes that the painters don't record. Photos are for anything and everything that one wants to record.

[RSL]

Actually knowing about art can change your perception of it. Looking at old paintings can be much more rewarding when you know the context or maybe the hidden [to us] symbolism contained within. Some art requires effort or understanding to grok it, because it is not always just a 'pretty' picture.
With photographs sometimes a simple caption is what makes it.

It's a good argument, Jeremy, and I've enjoyed a lot of art history courses which have helped me understand the history of art and the histories of artists, but the only "perception" that matters is what a work of art says to your soul. As far as "hidden symbolism," is concerned, if the symbolism is so hidden that you need reference to something other than the work itself, then the work has failed.

And regarding simple captions making a picture, consider HCB's "The Lock at Bougival." You can't find a caption simpler than that, and it does tell us where he was when he snapped the picture. But without the caption would anything change? It's a affecting picture that tells you something important about humanity, and the caption has nothing whatever to do with the effect it has on you.

[jjj]

It's a good argument, Jeremy, and I've enjoyed a lot of art history courses which have helped me understand the history of art and the histories of artists, but the only "perception" that matters is what a work of art says to your soul. As far as "hidden symbolism," is concerned, if the symbolism is so hidden that you need reference to something other than the work itself, then the work has failed.

I said "the hidden [to us] symbolism" meaning that in it's time [or place] it was understood, but nowadays the language of art has changed so we need it explaining. Same goes when looking at paintings from say China, some context helps you to understand and maybe appreciate the work better.

And regarding simple captions making a picture, consider HCB's "The Lock at Bougival." You can't find a caption simpler than that, and it does tell us where he was when he snapped the picture. But without the caption would anything change? It's a affecting picture that tells you something important about humanity, and the caption has nothing whatever to do with the effect it has on you.

By simple I do not necessarily mean mundane captions, but ones which help with understanding or add something to the image. I saw a recent exhibition of images from around Everest and after looking at a few I suddenly twigged what the captions/titles referenced. They were all songs by the very influential British band Joy Division/New Order [they changed name when original singer died] and this gave an added layer to the photos as the titles were well chosen to match the images. I then went back and looked at the images afresh with the captions in mind and it made me smile and like the exhibition more.

[RSL]

. . . nowadays the language of art has changed so we need it explain[ed].

So the Mona Lisa needs explaining?

I think that if you're talking about language -- poetry in particular -- you're right. Almost twenty years ago I wrote an essay on Archibald MacLeish's Poetry and Experience. (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/acrisisofsoul.html):

-----------------------------------------

T.S. Eliot pointed out in “Four Quartets” that: “. . . Words strain, / Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, / Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, / Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, / Will not stay still. . .”

And of course words don’t stay still. Consider this poem from the thirteenth century, set down in The Norton Anthology of Poetry

Nou goth sonne under wode—
Me reweth, Marie, thi faire rode.
Nou goth sonne under tre—
Me reweth, Marie, thi sone and the.

Translation:

Now goes the sun under the wood—
I pity, Mary, thy fair face.
Now goes the sun under the tree—
I pity, Mary, thy son and thee.

The problem isn’t just with the denotations of words. The milieu in which the words mean changes and the words’ connotations change along with it. When this poem was written wood and tree not only had their modern meanings but also meant the cross."

------------------------------------------

But I don't think the same thing applies to visual art. Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago, and Mona Lisa is still Mona Lisa.

Same goes when looking at paintings from say China, some context helps you to understand and maybe appreciate the work better.

It's certainly true that your background and culture have powerful significance for how you react to a work of art. In the case of Asia, I know from my own three years there that just becoming familiar with that world helps you to understand what's happening in Asian art. Nevertheless, I think you have to be born and brought up there to really grasp its significance.

I then went back and looked at the images afresh with the captions in mind and it made me smile and like the exhibition more.

That was a case of "understanding" the photographs. But that's not the same thing as the reaction you have to a work of art that grabs your heart and shakes it.

[Isaac]

Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago…

Not exactly even 10 years ago.

[jjj]

So the Mona Lisa needs explaining?
I think that if you're talking about language -- poetry in particular -- you're right.

I wasn't talking about poetry, but the language in art and paintings.

The milieu in which the words mean changes and the words’ connotations change along with it. When this poem was written wood and tree not only had their modern meanings but also meant the cross."

But I don't think the same thing applies to visual art. Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago, and Mona Lisa is still Mona Lisa.

Except it does apply.

Here's a explanation [for kids - but it's simply the first useful link I found] that explains subtle aspects of a painting that are not obvious to us later folks. It may not make you like it more, but you may appreciate it better.

BTW Ansel wasn't doing photography a thousand years back.  

[RSL]

BTW Ansel wasn't doing photography a thousand years back.  

But there's no way to know that from his landscapes. 

[sailronin]

I have seen a Gursky in person, multiple times. It still reminds me of the adage from first year photography in college..."if you can't make it good, make it big. If that doesn't work, frame it."

[Isaac]

“Of course, you know the adage, if you can’t make it good, make it big. If you can’t make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.”

[Iluvmycam]

Quote from: Dave (Isle of Skye) on July 31, 2014, 04:36:16 PM

But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.

If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.

The fact that a Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.

-------------------------------------------------------------


Well spoken post!

Jealousy is a big issue with the artist and the photog. Take a look at one of Cartier-Bresson's little known masterpieces called Tehran 1950 from his landmark 1952 book The Decisive Moment.

http://blogsearchtest.tumblr.com/image/110263740956

It is a room in the Shah of Iran's palace with bits of mirror embedded in the wall. I posted discussion on a photo forum for the photo.

Here is what the 'critics' had to say...

"Looks pretty marginal to me. Do you want me to bow down to him?"

"I found it more obnoxious than anything else."

'What makes it so great? The crooked horizon? The poor composition?  The distracting background?  The blown out chandelier?  The blown out black-blob of a curtain?  The distracting bright triangle from the area beyond the curtain?  The poor use of bokeh to make it hard to tell the wall is a mosaic of mirrors? The pushed-too-far contrast to remove any details."

The problem with online critics or any critics is they can't do you art for you nor are many of them in the position to know what is going on in your head. We are all on different wavelengths.

When I looked at the work of these critics it was nothing, absolutely nothing. The critic that said "Looks pretty marginal to me. Do you want me to bow down to him?" was an absolutely shitty photog. The other ones were nothing as well. As a whole they could not shoot their way out of a paper bag if their cams had razor blades glued on it. Yet...they all know how bad Cartier-Bresson is and they can out shoot the old master.

I've learned to not get my self-worth for my photography from online reviews. Photogs can be a jealous bunch. Lots of hatred within many of them. Our work defines us and is an extension of ourselves. But deep down inside many know their work will never amount to anything. Photogs as well as artists are stressed out trying to get attention for their work. All the while the market is polluted with so many images no one person could possibly look through even a fraction of them in a lifetime.

Bottom line...all this stress can put the photog / artist in a bad mood. But if freezing time  or art  is in your blood, you must produce and keep producing...whether there have an outlet for ones art or not. Personally, I've learned to forget looking for approval online. It can cause more harm than good.

[amolitor]

So you alone are qualified to judge? Apparently you know what's in other people's heads, or whatever is necessary to judge their work. But they can't judge your work or anyone else's.

Interesting.