And the $50,000 Scotiabank 2019 Prize in Photography goes to...

[Ivo_B]

Or, more likely, HCB wasn’t such a great photographer? Just another bored burgeois (or as kids say these days: boujee) 

Nothing new, this insight, imo 

[amolitor]

It is certainly a problem with photography, that the vast majority don't care about anything except if they're in the picture and is the picture sharp.

Next largest is the camera-owner population, who care largely about technical and formal properties. Is it in focus? How are the bokeh? Are there leading lines? Is there a tree growing out of the subject's head? Is the frame "balanced" and is the model "posed correctly"? Note that the concerns of this group do not overlap, even slightly, with  the concerns of hoi polloi.

Finally there are the Art Crew who care about whether the picture means anything, and if so, what.

There are probably other, even smaller, groups with concerns that are incomprehensible to me.

No group's concerns particularly overlap with any other group's, despite the fact that everyone claims that their concerns are truly the ones the unwashed masses will notice, perhaps subconsciously. Alternatively, and this one is hilarious, they will assert that the unwashed merely need to be educated, which is to put the cart several light years ahead of the horse.

[Robert Roaldi]

It is certainly a problem with photography, that the vast majority don't care about anything except if they're in the picture and is the picture sharp.

Why do you say "problem"? If this is what some want from their photographs, I don't see why that detracts from anyone else's usage.

[amolitor]

Why do you say "problem"? If this is what some want from their photographs, I don't see why that detracts from anyone else's usage.

Good point.

I did not mean that any specific set of attitudes is wrong, or "a problem," although it certainly reads that way, doesn't it?

My intent was that it's a problem in talking about photography. People tend to assume that other people share their criteria for judgement, and as often as not, one person's criteria have literally nothing whatever to do with the other person's. This leads to long, agitated, and pointless conversations.

[KLaban]

And if all this wasn't enough, there's the problem of the cynicism of the righteous.

;-)

[Robert Roaldi]

Good point.

I did not mean that any specific set of attitudes is wrong, or "a problem," although it certainly reads that way, doesn't it?

My intent was that it's a problem in talking about photography. People tend to assume that other people share their criteria for judgement, and as often as not, one person's criteria have literally nothing whatever to do with the other person's. This leads to long, agitated, and pointless conversations.

Ok, I understand. Sounds like those Venn diagrams that Slobodan mentioned, circles rubbing up against one another.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It is not just a body of work, though necessary. It is also a network and life path. These guys are in academia, from students to teachers, in galleries, art circles, mingling with curators, critics, other artists. Those others then become jury for a contest and they will look for those they know and whose work and philosophy they are familiar with. These awards and contests are not crowd sourced. You and I may snap thousands of sunflower walls and never stand a chance. I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It isn't a single, take-your-breath-away shot. It is a subtle leitmotif, flowing through the body of work and years, known to the initiated only. Again, I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It is just a different world, where you can't just jump in and out for the purpose of the contest. You have to belong.

[RSL]

The history of the Impressionists is a case in point.

[petermfiore]

The history of the Impressionists is a case in point.

The Impressionists are group that the artist's of today don't even look toward. Sure they know who is who, but that's about as far as it goes.

Today's anointed are their gods.

Peter

[amolitor]

The Impressionists are group that the artist's of today don't even look toward. Sure they know who is who, but that's about as far as it goes.

Today's anointed are their gods.

Peter

Interestingly among the unwashed (that is, the people who go to Art Shows At Museums) The Impressionists are pretty much it for painting. Painting is Monet and, ok, that Leonardo guy as well, and then a bunch of crap.

[32BT]

It is a subtle leitmotif, flowing through the body of work

This.

And if you can exhibit at least some amount of consistency in reproducing that leitmotif, it might just end up becoming a genre.

[rabanito]

It is not just a body of work, though necessary. It is also a network and life path. These guys are in academia, from students to teachers, in galleries, art circles, mingling with curators, critics, other artists. Those others then become jury for a contest and they will look for those they know and whose work and philosophy they are familiar with. These awards and contests are not crowd sourced. You and I may snap thousands of sunflower walls and never stand a chance. I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It isn't a single, take-your-breath-away shot. It is a subtle leitmotif, flowing through the body of work and years, known to the initiated only. Again, I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It is just a different world, where you can't just jump in and out for the purpose of the contest. You have to belong.

Hear!

[RSL]

The Impressionists are group that the artist's of today don't even look toward. Sure they know who is who, but that's about as far as it goes.

Today's anointed are their gods.

Peter

Right, Peter, but when the Impressionists started out they were banished from the Salon in the 1874 show. What they were doing simply wasn't acceptable.

[Ivo_B]

It is not just a body of work, though necessary. It is also a network and life path. These guys are in academia, from students to teachers, in galleries, art circles, mingling with curators, critics, other artists. Those others then become jury for a contest and they will look for those they know and whose work and philosophy they are familiar with. These awards and contests are not crowd sourced. You and I may snap thousands of sunflower walls and never stand a chance. I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It isn't a single, take-your-breath-away shot. It is a subtle leitmotif, flowing through the body of work and years, known to the initiated only. Again, I am saying it without any bitterness or criticism. It is just a different world, where you can't just jump in and out for the purpose of the contest. You have to belong.

Very true.

Curators determine what will hang in the next exhibition and artists are made that way.
I'm aware of one exception: Thierry De Cordier. Out of the blue he walked into a curator with his body of work, and he promptly got himself a solo exhibition. Very interesting artist. (he also uses photography as a medium)

[rabanito]

As far as my humble experience goes, curators discuss with the artist what will hang and what not and where.
Usually an artist brings only a choice of images that he would let hang (anyone goes) so the curator only has to choose among them.
Of course one can discuss this or that but if you bring a lot of rubbish among the choice you just don't get an exhibition.

[petermfiore]

Right, Peter, but when the Impressionists started out they were banished from the Salon in the 1874 show. What they were doing simply wasn't acceptable.

And now they barely get a nod in art school. Too traditional by today's students desires...boring and over played.

Peter

[rabanito]

And now they barely get a nod in art school. Too traditional by today's students desires...boring and over played.

Peter

Hahaha.
Like baseball 

Boredom is in the eye of the beholder

[amolitor]

And now they barely get a nod in art school. Too traditional by today's students desires...boring and over played.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to paint an Impressionist painting today. This makes just as much sense as building a 1970s era automobile. An interesting exercise in nostalgia, probably marketable to a modest audience, but ultimately an era of expression which has worked itself out fairly thoroughly.

Note that I distinguish between "Impressionism" and "Impressionistic" -- the latter, being a borrowing of style and conceptual notes from the former, is very much still with us periodically. The ideas live on, the actual movement is rightly concluded.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And now they barely get a nod in art school. Too traditional by today's students desires...boring and over played.

But, boy, is it a good investment!

[faberryman]

But, boy, is it a good investment!

I wonder whose photography, if anyone's, they will be saying that about in 150 years?