Are the greats really that great?

[benjiboy]

"are the greats really great " is tautology, if they weren't they wouldn't be called great.

 

[SebastianKrauss]

The artist is more important than the single piece

My 2 cents: I think if somebody judges every single picture of an artist separately, you can "pick apart" and deconstruct every artist, photographer, craftsman etc. We would be talking on a "I could do that too level".

I prefer to put the single image in the context of the entire body of work of an artist. And I have no problem to confess, that I prefer images of artists who I admire as persons. In a blind test judging by objective criteria (do those exist?) I'd probably be a lot more critical. This "only content counts" is not my coup of tea.

If I know an image was hand printed by Ansel Adams I like it, even if that special image is not amongst the greatest of all landscape pictures ever made. Purely because I fully respect and admire his life, work and heritage as a great artist. Same for HCB, Van Gogh or Johnny Cash for that matter. If I hear old records of Maria Callas I like them, probably because the myth around her. Was she objectively better than than todays sopranos? Probably not. I think a lot of of todays girls are better trained and educated and technically superior.

For me the dedication of those masters and the stories and history around them is a big part of their work and I honor that, the artist overall is more important than the single piece to me. Without knowing about Van Gogh nobody would stop for one second in front of those sunflowers today...

Best,
Sebastian

 

[cliveh]

Without knowing about Van Gogh nobody would stop for one second in front of those sunflowers today...Best,
Sebastian

I would.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Something else one must consider in this context is the body of work the 'greats' have amassed. Usually it's a fairly large body of work that's in question, and while the way they operate and their tastes change over the years and decades, it is to me the body of work that is impressive rather than any single work of art. That's what makes me appreciate certain artists, perhaps because of their humor, their sadness, their profound and unusual compositions, timing, what have you...

 

[Vaughn]

Many of the greats are great because of their innovations and the boundaries they pushed at and broke beyond. And here we sit, safely within those new established boundaries, saying "What was so great about that?"

 

[ambaker]

Greats - Masters... Potato - Potahtoe

As mentioned above, they were called great because they usually were. Same with masters/old masters... They were masters in their field.

I'm very fond of Mr. Adams work. Did he make clunkers, I would imagine so. But he also would not have Instagramed them to all his friends.

Could I do what he or Capra, or the others did? Technically, maybe, on a good, really-really-really good day. But then that would really be replication; not creation. Others "could" do what they did. They are the ones who did it.

A Xerox machine can make a real close duplicate of any book you've got. It just can't write one.

 

[markbarendt]

I would.

Me too.

 

[chip j]

To take a line from Scripture---there are those who Look but can't See.

 

[cliveh]

Actually, I can think of one or two contemporary photographers who get much publicity, but are not all that special (but no names).

 

[analoguey]

Isn't among the qualifications for being a 'great' a lil bit about surviving history/ longevity?


Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[removed account4]

Many of the greats are great because of their innovations and the boundaries they pushed at and broke beyond. And here we sit, safely within those new established boundaries, saying "What was so great about that?"

i think you are right vaughn ...

i sometimes have this conversation with my kids about music, tv, movies and animated-stuff.

these days, everything is over produced its hard to know when the greatness is due to the
post processing, or the actual starting point.
television and movies take billions of dollars, thousands of miles of film, and takes and out takes
and then they weave together a 90min story from 1000 hours of footage.
much different than the lumière brothers or Méliès film .. tv shows were actually filmed live before
a studio audience ( tele-play ? )
music, well, i remember listening to the first madonna album and hearing reports soon after how
people saw her live and well, she didn't sound anything like she did on the album because jelly bean benitez
did such a masterful job mixing and producing her music ...
and how and how it took 150 people 9 months to make a fully animated cartoon ...

there are things we all take for granted i think ...
some of the greats might not be great (to some), but
hopefully they are appreciated ...

 

[ntenny]

i think you are right vaughn ...

i sometimes have this conversation with my kids about music, tv, movies and animated-stuff.

these days, everything is over produced its hard to know when the greatness is due to the
post processing, or the actual starting point.

There's a reaction against that in some circles too, of course. "Dogme" filmmaking is an example from the film world that might have some philosophical resonance with the APUG crowd.

Also, as Vaughn suggested, groundbreaking art can sort of cannibalize itself. I remember hearing the first Nine Inch Nails album back in 1990 and being dumbfounded; it was in this weird space between dance-floor music, industrial noise, and self-indulgent capital-A-Art, and I'd never heard anything like it and found it almost physically difficult to wrap my head around. And about ten minutes later, it had been assimilated into the cultural mainstream and started to spawn imitators, and now that same album sounds rather conservative and milquetoast ("wow, we used to think *this* was disturbing?").

Really successful groundbreaking art often renders itself obsolete, and that's a good thing, but it means that as a viewer or listener you can't really go back and bathe in the same river twice.

-NT

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I think photography is one of the areas, where we can safely assume that the greats are in fact great.

With the billions [guesstimate] of photographs that have been produced in the last century and half, it really takes something special to stand out and grab people's attention to the degree that they even remember the name of the photograher.

I often hear that this or that photographer is overrated. But people will always have different tastes. The fact that people are even talking about these photographers, is in a sense a testament to their greatness.

If Capa really was nothing special, people would just stop talking about him and forget his pictures. But they don't.

 

[removed account4]

There's a reaction against that in some circles too, of course. "Dogme" filmmaking is an example from the film world that might have some philosophical resonance with the APUG crowd.

Also, as Vaughn suggested, groundbreaking art can sort of cannibalize itself. I remember hearing the first Nine Inch Nails album back in 1990 and being dumbfounded; it was in this weird space between dance-floor music, industrial noise, and self-indulgent capital-A-Art, and I'd never heard anything like it and found it almost physically difficult to wrap my head around. And about ten minutes later, it had been assimilated into the cultural mainstream and started to spawn imitators, and now that same album sounds rather conservative and milquetoast ("wow, we used to think *this* was disturbing?").

Really successful groundbreaking art often renders itself obsolete, and that's a good thing, but it means that as a viewer or listener you can't really go back and bathe in the same river twice.

-NT

thanks, this nailed it for me ..
pardon the pun ...

john

 

[jerrybro]

There's a reaction against that in some circles too, of course. "Dogme" filmmaking is an example from the film world that might have some philosophical resonance with the APUG crowd.

Also, as Vaughn suggested, groundbreaking art can sort of cannibalize itself. I remember hearing the first Nine Inch Nails album back in 1990 and being dumbfounded; it was in this weird space between dance-floor music, industrial noise, and self-indulgent capital-A-Art, and I'd never heard anything like it and found it almost physically difficult to wrap my head around. And about ten minutes later, it had been assimilated into the cultural mainstream and started to spawn imitators, and now that same album sounds rather conservative and milquetoast ("wow, we used to think *this* was disturbing?").

Really successful groundbreaking art often renders itself obsolete, and that's a good thing, but it means that as a viewer or listener you can't really go back and bathe in the same river twice.

-NT

We judge based on a reference. Really good groundbreaking art resets the reference, for what comes later and for all that came before. Really good groundbreaking art causes you to re-evaluate everything in it's category. I think the challenge is in recognizing the difference between a new standard, and something that is just different, or new. I see a lot of crap out there that is just, different. I'm sorry, but a blurry poorly processed photo of an uninteresting scene taken by a crappy camera that is scratched and crumpled after being printed does not reset my standard.

 

[analoguey]

+1.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[Pioneer]

I believe there are "great artists" all around us. Most of them we will never know. A few of those become famous, either through their own drive and self-promotion, or through fortunate discovery by others. But in any case their art catches someone's eye. Lots of someones. If enough someones find their art to be great then their personal stories become important.

But even with all of this very few become recognized over time as "great." Those who become recognized as masters have survived the test of time. Their art and their stories have remained important to others across generations. This is true for music and painting as well as for other art forms.

The survival of any artist today depends on this generation. Do you recognize their work as art? Do you like what you see? Are you going to tell their stories to those generations that come after you? Will you curate their art, their stories and their portfolios?

I am a little afraid that the new Sony A7R, or Nikon 800E, or Instagram, or Flikr, has become the new focus of our generation. The stories of the masters are no longer important.

 

[MattKing]

I believe there are "great artists" all around us. Most of them we will never know. A few of those become famous, either through their own drive and self-promotion, or through fortunate discovery by others. But in any case their art catches someone's eye. Lots of someones. If enough someones find their art to be great then their personal stories become important.

But even with all of this very few become recognized over time as "great." Those who become recognized as masters have survived the test of time. Their art and their stories have remained important to others across generations. This is true for music and painting as well as for other art forms.

The survival of any artist today depends on this generation. Do you recognize their work as art? Do you like what you see? Are you going to tell their stories to those generations that come after you? Will you curate their art, their stories and their portfolios?

I am a little afraid that the new Sony A7R, or Nikon 800E, or Instagram, or Flikr, has become the new focus of our generation. The stories of the masters are no longer important.

+++++1