2016 Yale MFAs - YAWN

[removed-user-1]

Which is... ?

Evidently, they want a bad Instagram feed.

 

[cramej]

Which is... ?

Apparently not much.

 

[jmlynek]

Which is... ?

Right now it seems to be focussed on conceptual and academic ideas – see any recent "artist statement" usually beginning with "I am interested in" as if the photographer were a researcher of some esoteric cultural or social element. Mostly, however, there is very little for the visual cortex to enjoy in these images. Naturally so, since curators and critics are not visually oriented, but rather literal and organizational in nature. See http://www.ryerson.ca/ric/exhibitions/Grauerholz.html

I went to this show and some of the images are rather spectacular. I, however, have no idea what the author of that blurb was on about.

Oh, and BTW, I have an MFA from the Visual Studies Workshop. So do a lot of other real photographers. But, then my influences were other photographers, not curators or critics.

 

[removed account4]

that's a real large generalization you have made.

these photographers aren't influenced by photographers? they look just like the ones
in this thread: http://petapixel.com/2012/03/29/10-photographers-you-should-ignore/
artist statements and "heady artist statements" have been written by photographers about their art
and their interests for decades, they are nothing new, and photographers have been
exploring ideas, concepts, seeing things visually since graduate and undergraduate
programs in photography have existed. these things are no different than they have been
for a generation of people going through the programs. AND i find it kind of strange
that curators and critics are not visually oriented. i know of plenty of people who own galleries, have worked in them,
who critique art work, are trained in architectural and art and their histories who are visually oriented.

typically apug members hate art schools, their graduates, "conceptual art",
photographers and artists who "have made money or have made it" and photographers
who call themselves or other people call "artists" ... so fits right in i suppose.

its too bad...

 

[MattKing]

I think the linked images are arranged in a way that is incapable of doing justice to the artists represented. Very few of the images are likely to resonate with anyone unless they are accompanied by a representative sampling of the rest of their art.

Very few artists are evaluated in that context based on a single piece of art.

A couple of them do appeal to me on their own. I have a greater desire to see more from a couple of the artists represented, based on what I see there. The photo of the large group of young male swimmers (I think) probably stands best on its own.

 

[jmlynek]

that's a real large generalization you have made.

typically apug members hate art schools, their graduates, "conceptual art",
photographers and artists who "have made money or have made it" and photographers
who call themselves or other people call "artists" ... so fits right in i suppose.

its too bad...

Speaking of generalizations...

 

[removed account4]

yup, i have generalized a lot by saying that, but i have been here for quite a long time
and seen countless threads where people bring up these subjects and they go on
for pages and pages as apug members go to town.
look up the threads about cindy sherman, peter lik kinkade, art schools,
art galleries, MFA programs ... "artists" ...
it is too bad people are so narrow minded
because there have been a lot of people who are hella-artists who have been here
but they aren't anymore ... because of the peanut gallery.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

yup, i have generalized a lot by saying that, but i have been here for quite a long time
and seen countless threads where people bring up these subjects and they go on
for pages and pages as apug members go to town.
look up the threads about cindy sherman, peter lik kinkade, art schools,
art galleries, MFA programs ... "artists" ...
it is too bad people are so narrow minded
because there have been a lot of people who are hella-artists who have been here
but they aren't anymore ... because of the peanut gallery.

I've been a professional artist for more than 20 yrs now. I have a BFA in photography and an MA in Literature. I don't hate artists and I am not a narrow-minded anti-intellectual. That said, I understand where a lot of the hostility to the established art world comes from. Its not jealousy or sour grapes. The truth is that the art world long ago divorced itself from the culture. That's true in the United States and in Europe as well. The art world today seems to be caught up in a furious competition to see who can come up with the most vapid, empty, culturally empty and irrelevant work possible.

Art in the past was part of the wider culture. You didn't need a PhD in art history to understand Rembrandt's Crucifixion scenes; Everyone, even illiterate peasants, understood those paintings and engravings because they depicted something that was part of their religious beliefs. Other artists did work that depicted scenes from their national history, work that was just designed to be beautiful (eg. landscapes), and others did work designed to motivate people politically, like Goya's work.

Today, there are still people producing culturally grounded work, but its ignored by the academic art establishment, just as Impressionism was ignored by the academic art world of its time. If Americans today see no need for art, its because art long ago rejected them.

 

[Peter Schrager]

please check out my post about Carrie Mae williams commencement speech at SVA..not everyone is dead!!
best, peter

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I wonder how many of these pictures were part of an essay. Most of them might make sense in a series or essay, but hardly any can stand on their own.

Good observation, I hadn't considered that. I will say though that in my view even photos from a series should be able to stand on their own. Most of these don't. The hockey player, the baby with red feet, and the building front with cars in the bottom intrigued me.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

To put the work from the Yale MFAs into perspective, below is a link to a show from Venice Arts in Venice, LA.
They provide free art educational programs for low income and/or under represented communities.

Dead Link Removed

The ages of these students vary from pre-teens to late teens. Whose work do you prefer? The kids at Venice Arts or the Yale MFAs ?

Certainly more expressive than the MFA's. You would expect the MFA's to have a more "mature" quality to them, most don't.

 

[rpavich]

WTF is right!
I don't hate art schools, nor academia, nor graduates, nor anyone who makes money with their art...nothing really...I just know what something sucks and these images sucked.

 

[removed account4]

I've been a professional artist for more than 20 yrs now. I have a BFA in photography and an MA in Literature. I don't hate artists and I am not a narrow-minded anti-intellectual. That said, I understand where a lot of the hostility to the established art world comes from. Its not jealousy or sour grapes. The truth is that the art world long ago divorced itself from the culture. That's true in the United States and in Europe as well. The art world today seems to be caught up in a furious competition to see who can come up with the most vapid, empty, culturally empty and irrelevant work possible.

Art in the past was part of the wider culture. You didn't need a PhD in art history to understand Rembrandt's Crucifixion scenes; Everyone, even illiterate peasants, understood those paintings and engravings because they depicted something that was part of their religious beliefs. Other artists did work that depicted scenes from their national history, work that was just designed to be beautiful (eg. landscapes), and others did work designed to motivate people politically, like Goya's work.

Today, there are still people producing culturally grounded work, but its ignored by the academic art establishment, just as Impressionism was ignored by the academic art world of its time. If Americans today see no need for art, its because art long ago rejected them.

chriscrawfordphoto...
i didn't say EVERYONE is like this, but there is a peanut gallery here, unless they aren't they aren't here anymore
it was tiring .. and they constantly fill threads up with all sorts of nasty attaboy, back slapping commentary,
harsh - stuff. im not like that either, and i feel uncomfortable repeating any of what they wrote --- i wouldn't not even type
these things and have them associated with my user name. i agree there is a lot of emptyness out there, and in centuries gone by
it was part of peoples' religious and cultural tradition. i dont' really think americans reject or have been rejected art. i think our culture
(capitalism) decides what is art by how much it sells for.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

When art is created for others it lacks expression. When you create for the process the observer becomes part of the creation. At least I think so.

 

[chuck94022]

For the most part: good composition, close shots, a clear subject. The teens in Venice did very well. With the Yale photos, I don't understand why most of those photos were made.

Once those Yale artists have finished evolving the photographic medium, you'll understand.