!

[mvjim]

blansky - I like your analogy to hockey. A friend of mine (Phil Perkis) once made the comment ".....sport is art without content...." Meaning just what you said , that the level of awarness at the moment of "creation" and in sport and art are the same.

 

[blansky]

How about this:

My dog puts nose prints on my windows and this is nose art.

A kid plasters paint on paper and this is kid art.

Farah Fawcett strips nude, covers herself in paint and rolls around on a big canvas, This is boob art.

A guy throws paint into the air and an aircraft propeller fires it onto a canvas and this is propeller art.

A guy paints soup cans really big. This is Warhol art.

A guy drapes fabric for miles across the countryside. This is landscape art.

Two lesbians make love on a pedestal. This is performance art.

A guy welds chunks of metal together. This is metal art.



I'm still thinking perhaps I'd rather be a craftsman.


How about craftsmanship + marketing = art


Michael McBlane

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Eric Rose]

I think the nose art has potential. You should take a picture of it, of course placing the snot in zone VI, N- development and printed on fiber paper using split filtration.

 

[RAP]

Here we go again?

Well let's see...am I a technician. YES!!!! If you don't know what you are doing, how can you control what you are doing? How can you produce a work of art without full control of your craft? You can't. To shoot hundreds of negatives and produce hundreds of prints to produce a few works of questionable art is no different then cave art, petroglyths by primitives. Artists have to be in control.

Am I in a trance? Sometimes, I think, well, maybe... let me ask my shrink... He says yes, but only on rainy Mondays. So I only shoot on rainy Mondays. The other days I am in the darkroom.

Seriously, AA said what, the negative is the score and the print the performance? Having your mental capacities are essential for creativity. Ever listen to a symphoney where the conductor didn't know the score before a performance?

Do I just like what I do? Absolutely! I truly love photography. It is one of the most unique arts in existence.

So I gusss that my answer to the survey is; 1.yes, 2. sometimes-maybe-yes/no, when my analyst say so, 3. yes.

 

[blansky]

Sorry Aggie,

I didn't mean to hijack your thread. The last thing I need is some outraged Viking climbing in her Volvo and driving the 50 miles up here to lay waste to my idylic lifestyle.


I'm going back to the darkroom with a bottle of cab and whip up some art.


Michael McBlane

 

[Nige]

How about this:

Farah Fawcett strips nude, covers herself in paint and rolls around on a big canvas, This is boob art.

Michael McBlane

that would have to be a photoshop job... she ain't got any, has she?

 

[Eric Rose]

Gee now no one will be thinking about my suggestion on nose art.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[frank]

I didn't get a chance to read through all the replies, I was so taken by the question (excellent one, Aggie) that I just had to reply quickly - I am definitly in a trance/zen state while photographing, but this gut reaction is based on my technical accumulation of knowledge.
Frank

 

[Ed Sukach]

How about this:
Farah Fawcett strips nude, covers herself in paint and rolls around on a big canvas, This is boob art.

that would have to be a photoshop job... she ain't got any, has she?

Oh, how quickly we forget ... THAT poster. Oh yeah ... they are there!

However, painting a nude person and rolling them around a large canvas has been done - many times. I think the most commonly applied name for this type of art is "Bodygram".

There was a female artist - name escapes me - who painted her breasts and pressed them against canvas. I don't know what she called those ... "Boob Art" seems to be a good fit.

 

[Ed Sukach]

To shoot hundreds of negatives and produce hundreds of prints to produce a few works of questionable art is no different then cave art, petroglyths by primitives. Artists have to be in control.

Why? What are the dire consequences that occur when the artists is NOT "in control"? - And can that ever happen, or will we merely give up conscious overworking and let ourselves work freely...?

"Petroglyphs by primitives" ... I don't see that as an automatic rejection. Some moving images that "reach" my aesthetic nerves are Cave Paintings. I don't think sophistication (would that be the opposite of primitive?) is invariably a good thing.

What about Grandma Moses work? Not very sophisticated, but I would not eliminate her work as "not art".

 

[Ed Sukach]

Everything has a technical beginning, It's how far you push the technique and evolve it to a point of absolute comfort that allows you the freedom to create. Is that not what we expect from an artist?

It is. I agree - fully.

 

[Ed Sukach]

How about this:
My dog puts nose prints on my windows and this is nose art.
A kid plasters paint on paper and this is kid art.

I have to comment here ... I have no doubt that "blansky" is mature enough to consider these comments to be generic, and in no way meant to be demeaning; I am only trying to expess my mindset:

It does not bother me a great deal if someone hangs an undeserved label on a work, calling it "art" when (whoo .. this is difficult - squint a bit when you read this ...) it is obviously NOT art. It is none of my business, nor do I CARE (although it may be of more than average interest) if someone shells out BIG money for obvious crap.

I have a standard answer to the gallery critics who condemns work on the walls ... I've heard it before: "How could anyone hang such a work on the wall - this is NOT art"; and that is, "Oh, look! There is another piece on the wall to the immediate right. If you take one sidestep to the right, you won't be looking at such an `inferior' piece."

It is a great,big world, and, to me, the art in it is infinite. We are not forced (like Malcom McDowell in Clockwork Orange, with his eyelids clamped open) to stare at the work we do not like. We are free to exercise our sidestepping options whenever we want to.

 

[blansky]

Ed:

Without using the usual flippancy that I usually use my feeling are these.

We as photographers are craftsmen. We study, practice and refine until we reach a certain stage or level of expertise. Photography is a craft, as is glass blowing, music, poetry, painting, sculpture, woodworking, jewelry making etc. It takes years to master and we are forever learning.

Ocassionally while doing or practicing our craft we produce something that is art. It is perfect or near perfect. It evokes emotional responses from an audience of one or of many.

However my personal feeling that because we ocassionally achieve this level, does not give us the right the be called artists. As I've said before I think this is all ego and self promotion.

Maybe in a great while a person comes along that everthing they produce is art. Then that person is an artist. Until a person has that kind of batting average then he is still a craftsman working at his craft.

As my previous post stated, anyone producing anything can call it art and themselves artist. The effect of this, then , is that any moron is an artist and the term has now become meaningless.

An please Ed don't assume that I'm mature.


Michael McBlane

 

[RAP]

Ed,

What are the dire consequences for not being in control? None, except that your efforts may please you personally, but they will not hang in a gallery or museum. Great works of art are not done by accident. They are created by disciplined minds, driven, passionate, fanatical, sometimes the insane.

Mozart was a genius, but he was also an obnoxious jerk as he was portrayed in the movie, "Amadeus." Yet when it came time to compose, the movie showed him as serious, engrossed in his work. My understanding is that he never erased, or crossed out anything, but his manuscripts were flawless, no corrections, no changes. His music, the notes all flowed from his head onto the paper, whether he was writing a full blown symphony, or a piano concerto.

Beethoven was another genius who wrote most of his works stone deaf! Even his great Ode To Joy, he never ever heard a single note played by an instrument. Yet he was able to hear, listen to ever nuance of sound of each instrument in his mind's ear and coordinate them all into a symphony. Does that not take discipline? Do such great works come about by accident, in a trance? No they do not.

Grand Ma Moses was a great artist. So was Georgia O'Keef. She is one of my favorite painters, with a sense of perspective that is photographic. A very intense worker who hated to be disturbed when painting. Does such dedication not require discipline?

Ever read Van Gogh's biography? Very interesting reading. So is AA's. Most great artists have one thing in common, they work hard as if their life depended on it. When they set out to produce a work in what ever their chosen medium, they slaved until it is exactly the way they wanted it to be.

Try doing that while in a trance.

 

[Ole]

Last weekend I went to an exhibition of "160 years of photographic art" in a local gallery.

The first thing that struck me was size - especially the modern offerings were HUGE. And the size of the frame was written in the leaflet as size of the work - which is ridiculous when you se a 6x4.5 platinum print in a 30x40" frame...

The second thing I noticed was quality. With a very few exceptions, it looked to me more like 160 years of steady decline...

So if you want to be taken seriously as an artist, get bigger trays! Never mind subject, composition - or even focus - just print BIG.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,

What are the dire consequences for not being in control? None, except that your efforts may please you personally, but they will not hang in a gallery or museum. Great works of art are not done by accident. They are created by disciplined minds, driven, passionate, fanatical, sometimes the insane.
Grand Ma Moses was a great artist. So was Georgia O'Keef. She is one of my favorite painters, with a sense of perspective that is photographic. A very intense worker who hated to be disturbed when painting. Does such dedication not require discipline?
Ever read Van Gogh's biography? Very interesting reading. So is AA's. Most great artists have one thing in common, they work hard as if their life depended on it. When they set out to produce a work in what ever their chosen medium, they slaved until it is exactly the way they wanted it to be.
Try doing that while in a trance.

Then you must take great issue with the statement, "Thirty percent of the world's great photographs are nothing more than fortunate accidents." Care to speculate who was the author?

Van Gogh sold *one* painting in his entire life - to his brother, Theo. It was said that his brother bought it to keep Vincent from starvation.

Intersting that you place both Grandma Moses and Georgia O'Keefe together as "masters" of perspective. Georgia O'Keefe may have been - I would not debate it - but Grandma Moses? "American Primitive"? I really think her LACK of perspective was a vital element in her art.

Be careful with labelling me as a "Trance-ist". I did not claim to be that - My selection was "Holist".

I must be some sort of wild exception, then. Without self-flagellation, I HAVE hung in Galleries,.. etc.

 

[RAP]

Andre Kertez, W. Gene Smith? I do not know for sure. I would think a photojournalist.

As for Grandma Moses compared to O'Keefe, they are both very different in their styles and subject matter. Moses' fame apparently seems to be more of an accident. Her fame was due to a chance finding by Louis J. Caldor, yet he recognized her talent. As compared to O'Keefe, who benefited more from that marriage, Steiglitz and her? O'Keefe was far more celebrated during her lifetime. Grandma Moses received fame for the last 25 years of hers. Chances are she would have remained in obscurity if not for that chance discovery of her paintings in a remote drug store.

Van Gogh, yes he starved, lead a tormented life, institutionalized for a time, was supported by his brother which Vincent resented. Actually he originally studied to be a minister and was very zealous before turning to painting. Mozart buried in a paupers grave, supposedly murdered by his arch rival Solieri who was very jealous of Mozart. Solieri was the court composer to the king yet history shows his work was mediocre at best and he may have deliberately oppressed Mozart's work out of sheer jealousy.

The one common denominator between most artists is that they receive little or no recognition during their lifetimes. Only the lucky few enjoy fame during their lifetime. Others get it postmortem, some taking years before a champion comes along to promote his work, most never. Just because one artist's work is promoted over another, does not mean it is warranted. What the galleries promote is often more of trying to follow or promote popular trends so they can make a living. Monetary success is not always the deciding factor. Is Thomas Kinkade a great artist or a great marketer, salesman? Picasso certainly was great and wealthy during his lifetime.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Andre Kertez, W. Gene Smith? I do not know for sure. I would think a photojournalist.

As for Grandma Moses compared to O'Keefe, they are both very different in their styles and subject matter. Moses' fame apparently seems to be more of an accident. Her fame was due to a chance finding by Louis J. Caldor, yet he recognized her talent. .

The author of that quote was Ansel Adams.

An interesting fact about Grandma Moses was the esteem she, herself, had in her own work. She couldn't understand what all the fuss was about ... and at her first show in a New York Gallery, she made sure that she brought some of her homemade jams and jellies ... so she would sell *something*.

I've been reflecting, here, on the idea that a *great deal* of effort and discipline is an absolute necessity to success in photography/art . An enterprising character once purchased the "wastebasket concession" from Pablo Picasso's landlord. At the end of the day, he would retrieve the contents - sketches, doodles ...whatever ... discarded by the Master, flatten them out, mat and mount them -- and sell them for *big* money. Picasso was shocked to see some of his throwaway work displayed ... and selling. I'd suggest there was not a great deal of disciplined, intense dedication by the artist going on here.

Then again ... Jackson Pollock. Look what happened when he slopped some paint on a canvas by mistake. He abandoned a great deal of rigid control ... and ... and...

I once once asked "*WHY* do you do photography" And, my answer - to my great surprise - agreed with what quite a few of the "big names" in the ARTS would respond--- "I do it, because I feel better doing it than I do when I am NOT doing it."

Photography is NOT, in my mind, a painful activity - I once *killed* myself trying so hard - and I found that my first great "breakthrouh" came as a result of "lightening up". Forcing, IMHO, a.k.a "overworking", does not help ... on the contrary, it hurts.

I'll confess to being obsessed - *gloriously* obsessed - with my particular choice in art - photgraphy. I'll work hard at it ... but "hard work" is not necessarily painful work.

 

[SteveGangi]

I voted for the third choice. Part technician, part trance occasionally (not often), mostly don't care. I never liked the term "artist". To me it always seemed to be pretentious and snobbish. It conjures up images of some neurotic no-talent Bohemian/beatnik weirdo with a freakishly large ego. Simply calling someone a photographer, musician, painter, whatever works better for me.