Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Isaac on June 04, 2014, 11:59:47 am
-
"In a new book, Photography Today, writer, artist and lecturer Mark Durden analyses more than 500 works by 150 artists from the past 50 years, exploring the impact of various genres, from pop art to documentary.
Here Durden offers his insight on ten important photographic works (http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-27661889) from the book."
-
Boring conceptual tripe. Most of this stuff harps on the same weary themes of alienation, self pity and political correctness that tend to get recycled over and over again by art school graduates clutching their MA degrees and fawned over ad nauseum by academics who need something to analyze to death so they can justify their tenure. Strip these works of the tired old "concepts" that spawned them and all you have left is crappy photography that no one but effete curators would want on their walls.
-
Amen, brother! ;D
-
Waste of time.
-
Amen, brother! ;D
Amen and a half! Seems to be a parallel with those who cannot enjoy a glass of wonderful wine without blathering on about nuances of tobacco, leather, and gorilla crotch.
-
Firstly, there are some pretty good pictures in that lot. They're not Ansel Adams wannabes, nor oversaturated landscapes about nothing, to be sure. Which leads us to:
Secondly, it's art photography. Its job is to say something. Denigrating work for having the temerity to be about something is narrow minded, at best.
Thirdly, note the dates on the pictures. This isn't modern rehash of old ideas, in many cases it's the original hash or at any rate contemporary with it.
-
I'm not denigrating these photographs for saying something. I'm denigrating them because what they're saying is trite and if you take that away you're left with garbage.
-
As noted, I disagree on several points.
-
Art is 100% about opinions 100% of the time.
-
Boring conceptual tripe. Most of this stuff harps on the same weary themes of alienation, self pity and political correctness that tend to get recycled over and over again by art school graduates clutching their MA degrees and fawned over ad nauseum by academics who need something to analyze to death so they can justify their tenure. Strip these works of the tired old "concepts" that spawned them and all you have left is crappy photography that no one but effete curators would want on their walls.
There are a couple of pix in the lot that are interesting to me. But most are boring to me. I liked the house burning shot more before I read the backstory on it and found out it was not what I thought it to be.
Here is the thing. This forum is not known for doing great work when it comes to interesting humanist photos. So be careful with being so harsh. If you got something better...send it in. If you can't do better, then they are better than you with their ‘boring’ work.
I get trashed a lot for my work on the forums from these 'cowards behind the keyboards' that can't shoot a great street shot to save their lives. I was recently amused at how they trashed this photo. (NSFW)
http://zonefocused.tumblr.com/image/87592272229
75% of the viewers polled think my photo is staged.
Answer: Photo was not staged or posed...he didn't even know i shot him
Although I just shot it last week, it is already placed in a museum. Many more museum placements for it as well.
A lot of the criticism that floats around seems to stem from jealousy. One anon guy on a forum told me ALL my work should be trashed and it was ALL very boring. Well, he couldn't produce a damn thing with his cam and was jealous. So all his ego let him do was to tear down others.
Isn't it funny that EVERY photo people have told me to trash ends up in museums?
If you want to be successful, this is the best advice when it comes to critics.
“Never give up, don’t listen to the haters. Don’t try to be an artist unless you can work and live in isolation, without any thanks. Bleak advice, but needed until you get to the much lauded place. - Scape Martinez
I look forward to you all sending in your 'intersting' street photos.
-
There are those who can feel and who can't. That's all.
-
... Although I just shot it last week, it is already placed in a museum. Many more museum placements for it as well...
I heard there is a Museum of Sex in LV and some other cities. Is that it?
It took certain museum artifacts millions of years to end there. Some take hundreds of years, and for some artists, they are lucky if it happens in their life time. Your ultra compression of time into merely days is indeed making museum history. A suggestion: with today's wi-fi technology, your shots might end up in museums within seconds of being taken. Think about it. You are welcome!
-
Art is 100% about opinions 100% of the time.
Yes, it is.
And, I'm finding that there are lots of 'ideas', opinions,and concepts put forward about even so-called 'masters' that are simply piling on, and playing 'follow the leader'. Once someone achieves a certain amount of notoriety, there comes a tipping point after which everything and anything certain people produce is lauded and the explanations for why the praise is deserved are, of course, subjective....but also often seem completely contrived and seem to be not in good faith. Nan Goldin comes to (my subjective) mind...
-
The main problem with Durden's "insight," Isaac, is that it's just plain silly.
-
The main problem with Durden's "insight," Isaac, is that it's just plain silly.
+10.
Most of his "insights" have little or nothing to do with the images he has selected to comment on.
-
+10.
Most of his "insights" have little or nothing to do with the images he has selected to comment on.
Ok. Let's take his first example, Thomas Struth's 'Audience 1 Florence, 2004'. What's wrong with his commentary?
-
Ok. Let's take his first example, Thomas Struth's 'Audience 1 Florence, 2004'. What's wrong with his commentary?
Nothing. He's spot on.
Peter
-
The commentary is general on target, but it's a bit florid, and strikes me as trying too hard to make the picture seem important and weighty.
There's a basic problem here, in that most of these pictures are part of a larger body of work. Pulled out, they seem random, banal, trite. Within the larger body there is at least the chance that one might see what the artist is "up to" and the pictures make more sense. The commentator, having rudely extracted the picture from that context, feels the need to re-establish the context with a torrent of words.
These words are genuinely useful, he's simply telling us what the artist is up to. It's a shabby substitute for the missing pictures, though.
-
The commentator, having rudely extracted the picture from that context, feels the need to re-establish the context with a torrent of words.
Who's being florid now? :)
I'm looking forward to reading Durden's book. It's refreshing to see so many British photographers represented. The likes of Peter Fraser and Anna Fox deserve to be more widely known.
-
Great discussion here.
I think I'm on the side of: they may be great photographs in someone's eye, but they'd never make it on my wall. I love being intellectually stimulated by a number of different media - music, visual art, even BBC news on a daily basis - but if I don't enjoy what I am looking at (or don't understand why it even makes the initial cut, never mind the final cut) then I'll leave it to others to enjoy and write massifs about.
These photographs remind me of the notion that works of art should be able to stand on their own without commentary. I'm not sure many of these photographs fit into that category, at least not from my perspective.
That being said, art is meant to challenge us and our perceptions which is how we have "grown" as a civilization. We may not understand or agree with contemporary art (as I'm sure many have felt about Picasso, Renoir or Matisse in their day), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a forum. Luminous Landscape, by it's very nature, is perhaps the wrong forum for enthusiastic acceptance of the genre of photography shown.
Thank goodness art doesn't only cater to the masses, otherwise we would only have black velvet Elvis paintings to look at. Now where is that old cranberry glass in the cupboard that I should photograph!
-
You might call yourselves artists because you might believe you create art. However, there is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper. All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.
-
There is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper. All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.
This part is true.
Peter
-
You might call yourselves artists because you might believe you create art. However, there is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper. All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.
Some will find this offensive, but, like it or not, it's true.
-
I think Andrew makes a good point. If someone is telling a story with pictures and maybe prose as well, an extracted picture may have no point out of context nor have aesthetic value as well.
There's another factor at work too. Everything's been photographed pretty much. So in an effort to be different, we shoot what's left or what's already been done in ways that seem different. Tilt the camera, stick the person in the upper right corner, blur this or blur that, etc etc. That gets pretty boring and what makes it banal as well. How many pictures of blue cans can you look at? I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success.
-
I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success.
Only 3 seconds? Really!?! That's barely enough for ad impact. I'm looking for a lot more...something I can put on the wall and not tire of. I know that means decided fewer "successes" but how many do we really "need" to feel a sense if success? Maybe I have low expectations of myself, but if I get one "keeper" per outing and 6 to 10 good enough for the wall per year, then I'm successful (given that I'm also working more than full-time hours at my day job).
-
Referencing one's own work...I put that image on my desktop. If it survives that, it's good enough to hang on my wall. ;)
-
I think Andrew makes a good point. If someone is telling a story with pictures and maybe prose as well, an extracted picture may have no point out of context nor have aesthetic value as well.
There's another factor at work too. Everything's been photographed pretty much. So in an effort to be different, we shoot what's left or what's already been done in ways that seem different. Tilt the camera, stick the person in the upper right corner, blur this or blur that, etc etc. That gets pretty boring and what makes it banal as well. How many pictures of blue cans can you look at? I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success.
All of this speaks to technique or manner and that does little to make something any good. Concepts are what make works of art. For that we all need to dig a little deeper.
Peter
-
...something I can put on the wall and not tire of.
You seem to be confusing art with decoration.
-
You seem to be confusing art with decoration.
Is there a difference? I mean we decorate with art, no? Granted, it can be kitsch art, low art, high art, etc., but some kind of art it is with which we decorate.
-
Is there a difference? I mean we decorate with art, no? Granted, it can be kitsch art, low art, high art, etc., but some kind of art it is with which we decorate.
Yes there is a difference. One you show and collect.
Peter
-
I mean we decorate with art, no?
And we decorate (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/decorate_1?q=decorate) with non-art objects.
(And there's art that we probably wouldn't choose to decorate our homes with.)
-
Yes there is a difference...
So, what is the difference then? This is a genuine question, not trying to be difficult.
-
And we decorate (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/decorate_1?q=decorate) with non-art objects.
(And there's art that we probably wouldn't choose to decorate our homes with.)
I understand that. However, when we decorate with non-art objects, aren't we at the same time creating art, however low and personal it might be?
-
Oh boy! Now we're going to get a definition of "art." After all this time. . .
-
So, what is the difference then? This is a genuine question, not trying to be difficult.
Art has a soul and it lives. That's a start. The rest is a full life's journey to that understanding.
Peter
-
However, when we decorate with non-art objects, aren't we at the same time creating art, however low and personal it might be?
Perhaps; or even if we are artists perhaps, this time, we are just decorating.
-
Only 3 seconds? Really!?! That's barely enough for ad impact. I'm looking for a lot more...something I can put on the wall and not tire of. I know that means decided fewer "successes" but how many do we really "need" to feel a sense if success? Maybe I have low expectations of myself, but if I get one "keeper" per outing and 6 to 10 good enough for the wall per year, then I'm successful (given that I'm also working more than full-time hours at my day job).
I too enjoy looking at photos I like over and over. That's why I said three seconds or more. If a picture doesn't grab you for at least three seconds, then you won't put it up on your wall. It could grab you in the first second when you won't have time to notice the technical problems. That's a successful picture. Most technically accurate photos have no real content so they don't grab you. This is why content almost always wins out over technical competence and we should spend our time where it really counts.
-
Agreed, Alan.
Art has a soul and it lives. That's a start. The rest is a full life's journey to that understanding.
Peter
[Rambling alert!]
First of all, Peter, I agree with what you are saying, including the comment about "one you show and collect". High art is also conceptual, communicative and evocative. It causes one to stop and think.
I'm curious, though, about what gives art it's "soul" and "life"? The artist or the collector?
I'm not being facetious; I'm only trying to make a point about how seemingly shallow this concept of art really is in that high art is defined not by the "artist", but by the collector. I realize anyone can claim to be an artist, so we apparently require some gold standard, a stamp of approval by a "collector" to be in the high art league.
One could make a million photos of out of focus glassware in a cupboard or two blue pails or people at a museum, but none will have "a soul" or will "live" until a collector (someone "in the know") comes along and says "I'd like to buy that one for my collection." Or, one could make stunning, large format black and white landscapes of areas of the US southwest rarely photographed at the time (say the 1930s or 1940s) or even flowers or peppers beautifully lit. If someone "collects" it, it's high art.
Collectors want something special, something rare, it seems. Something that is unique and has not been done before. I get that. It's why the photos in the OP's link are different from what we usually see.
Unfortunately, the moment the masses say, "Wow, this amazing art" or worse "this is pretty; I want it on my wall", the same works somehow become relegated to the "low art" or "decorative art" shelf. It seems that as long as the masses don't like it, it remains rare, almost untouchable and, therefore, of interest to the high art collector.
While in one sense, I understand that "high art" could never be defined by the masses, after all, the masses are, in fact, ***es, and are too easily pleased by passing fads and trends. But I don't fully accept that high art can only be defined by someone other than the artist. There is much more to it than that, as you eluded to.
In the end, it doesn't matter one iota to my being and what I am creating as an artist. I may never be "collected", but I'm having a great time plying my craft and selling my work to those who appreciate it, be it for decoration or for the deeper thoughts and concepts my work represents.
-
Well said, Alan. I'd add this: If you get past the three seconds and hang the picture, the acid test will come three or four months later when you walk by the picture and decide you don't want to take it down. I love your statement about technical competence. Wonderful stuff, but as you said, it never, never, never can take the place of content. Good content can erase a lot of technical incompetence, but the reverse isn't true.
-
I'm curious, though, about what gives art it's "soul" and "life"? The artist or the collector?
An artist makes art. The value is the business of art. That is another topic entirely.
Peter
-
I had posted this in another thread. My point is, as an artist, one needs to keep these 10 points in mind for ones well being.
-
Art and Decor are not objects, they are functions or roles. The same object might function as one or the other depending on context or the mood of the viewer.
The two roles or functions, pretty much regardless of the details of how you define them, are quite different.
-
Art and Decor... are quite different.
I heard you guys the first time, so repeating it is not going to make the argument any stronger. But no one bothered to show me (for what it is worth), just how they are different. After all, most Art through history has been produced for Decor, be it for churches or homes of rich patrons. Whoever bought art, even high art, has to display it (and proudly so, unless they are pure investors and keep it crated, in a dark, humidity-controlled storage). Displaying it inside their homes is decorating.
-
I heard you guys the first time, so repeating it is not going to make the argument any stronger. But no one bothered to show me (for what it is worth), just how they are different. After all, most Art through history has been produced for Decor, be it for churches or homes of rich patrons. Whoever bought art, even high art, has to display it (and proudly so, unless they are pure investors and keep it crated, in a dark, humidity-controlled storage). Displaying it inside their homes is decorating.
Slobodan,
You are focusing on where art is shown. As an artist my focus is on what I make. All the other concerns work themselves out. An artist has to think in that order, otherwise they will not remain true to their own voice. Then decoration is all that will be left.
Peter
-
But no one bothered to show me (for what it is worth), just how they are different.
Sorry, it seemed to me that your "I understand that." response (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90516.msg737599#msg737599) indicated that you saw a difference?
After all, most Art through history has been produced for Decor, be it for churches or …
Surely not for "Decor" but for the glorification of God.
-
I'm not sure it's useful to refer to historical ideas of Art, here. The conception of what art is has changed a great deal in last century. In particular, ideas of decor and art have been separated rather more than they once were.
-
Another dominant theme of twentieth century art, is the absorption of low culture into high culture - from Duchamp (urinals) and Richard Hamilton (magazine cuttings), to Warhol (soup cans) and Jeff Koons (ballon dogs).
-
I might submit that not all evolution is necessarily a good thing. ;D
-
Not all evolution is a good thing, and I offer no particular judgement on the merits of the modern view of Art. Contemporary usage is different, though, and if we're talking about now, we should mostly be concerned with contemporary usage.
-
I'm not sure it's useful to refer to historical ideas of Art, here. The conception of what art is has changed a great deal in last century. In particular, ideas of decor and art have been separated rather more than they once were.
Ah, the famous this-time-it's-different argument ;)
-
The famous introduction to The Story of Art (http://books.google.com/books?id=1-OfPwAACAAJ) (1950) --
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design posters for hoardings; they did and do many other things. There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence."
-
Sorry, it seemed to me that your "I understand that." response (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90516.msg737599#msg737599) indicated that you saw a difference?
I thought it should be clear from the context that I understood that non-art objects can be used for decoration?
... Surely not for "Decor" but for the glorification of God.
By the same token, it could be argued that Decor was used for the glorification of God? After all, when you build a church, the walls and ceilings come empty, so you have to decorate them, no?
Come to think of it, the very first human art was used for decorating walls too. Cave walls, that is. In other words, the original purpose of art is to decorate, so no reason to turn your nose up today at Decor as a lowly cousin of Art, as can be inferred from your condescending reply to Terry ("ou seem to be confusing art with decoration.")
-
to turn your nose up today at Decor as a lowly cousin of Art, as can be inferred…
Don't put words in my mouth.
-
Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't. I used the term "infer," the meaning of which is to "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements"
-
This is a genuine question, not trying to be difficult.
I don't turn my nose up at Decor and don't regard it as a lowly cousin of Art. Don't put words in my mouth.
-
I don't turn my nose up at Decor and don't regard it as a lowly cousin of Art. Don't put words in my mouth.
Speaking of cousins... I must be then a distant relative of Cardinal Richelieu ("If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."). In your case, I needed only eight words ;)
-
When it comes to hanging Isaac, eight words are a superfluity!
-
heART
eARTh
fART
ARTistic
There: I just made art. Art is and must be defined by the artist and the artist alone. That which is created by someone as an expression of something otherwise internal, and put forward in good faith as art...is art.
-
I'm delighted to see that we finally have a definition for "art." Now we can all pivot to something else.
-
... Art is and must be defined by the artist and the artist alone...
This reminds me of the ingenious solution to the five o'clock traffic jam, i.e., that everyone should leave work at four o'clock. Shifting the burden of defining "art" to defining "artist" seems equally ingenious.
P.S. My intention in this thread is not to go after the definition of art or artist, however, just to discuss the relationship between art and decor.
-
The famous introduction to The Story of Art (http://books.google.com/books?id=1-OfPwAACAAJ) (1950) --
Quote
"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design posters for hoardings; they did and do many other things. There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence."--
Wow - that's it, exactly. For once we agree, Isaac. :)
-
("If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."). In your case, I needed only eight words ;)
Oh! So that's what you've been trying to do!
-
Unfortunately, the moment the masses say, "Wow, this amazing art" or worse "this is pretty; I want it on my wall", the same works somehow become relegated to the "low art" or "decorative art" shelf. It seems that as long as the masses don't like it, it remains rare, almost untouchable and, therefore, of interest to the high art collector.
"The Metropolitan Museum also held the second-most popular show (http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/02/cx_0203hot.html) of last year [2003], a mid-career survey of German photographer Thomas Struth organized by the Dallas Museum of Art."
Daily 5,790, Total 273,793, pdf Thomas Struth, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, 4/2/03-30/3/03 (http://www.theartnewspaper.com/attfig/attfig03.pdf)
Thomas Struth, Auctioned pieces, prices (http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=85816&name=Thomas-Struth)
-
There's plenty of perfectly lovely stuff that's extremely valuable and collectible. The observation that once the commoners like something it loses value is simply false.
Quite a lot of contemporary art is unlovely. The common man will never want it for decor, because it's ugly and often much too big anyways. This is because the two roles of 'decorating' and 'meaning' (or whatever description of Art qua Art you like) have been separated. Art need not be decorative, and so, often, it is not.
This is a modern idea. But it is the idea we have now.
-
Move along now, nothing to see here.