Are you relegated to the periphery of the art world

VinceInMT · Jul 1, 2022

One of my favorite art-related sites is This Is Colossal (http://thisiscolossal.com/), a blog that features art from across a variety of mediums and artists from all over the world. I find it helpful in discovering new artists and also motivating in getting me to produce more work of my own.

A posting from June 30, “Modern Women/Modern Vision’ Celebrates the 20th Century’s Most Influential Photographers,” covers an exhibition currently up at the Denver Art Museum. In introducing the show, editor Grace Elbert says:

”One of the more accessible mediums, photography has long been an entry point for those relegated to the periphery of the art world…”

That raised an eyebrow. Really? Yes, photography has, historically, fought for acceptance in the art world but that has changed over the past 50-100 years. Or has it?

Do you feel that you are “relegated to the periphery of the art world” because you are a photographer?

And when she refers to photography and “one of the more accessible mediums,” accessible for whom? For the photographer or the viewer?

Sirius Glass · Jul 1, 2022

No I do not feel "regulated to the periphery of the art world". I can also go to a museum any time I choose.

greg zinselmeier · Jul 1, 2022

IMO it has NOT changed. Photography is a medium that is unlike, painting, lithography,etching, sculpture. It does not require an “ extension of being “ whereby the artist hand lays claim to authenticity. It’s strictly mechanical. Film company makes film, makes paper, Auto focus, auto exposure, lab process, lab print etc. all the photographer does is depress the “button” exposure. Sends straight to frame shop to matted and framed, sent straight to the gallery where the talking points are awaiting the physical object. Volle!! Instant Art!!!!! All you had to do is stand there and click the button. That’s why photography isn’t art. Digital is even more of quagmire with Lightroom etc . . And all other software. All photography both analog and digital It becomes contrived very quickly and easily. Overly reductive, slick, transparent, and utterly misunderstanding humanity. Now give a REAL artist a paint brush, an etching needle, a stone chisel . . . . Now we are in business, oh! Btw you (photographer) didn’t even make your camera or lens, you suck! You can’t make anything, you stand there like an idiot talking and doing coke, run your mouth about how amazing this lens is, did you say you only shoot with Leica? Hassleblad? Nikon? Or was it Canon, because”that’s what only REAL photographers use”

Photography in the public mind is something similar to the fictional account of the aforementioned. That imo will never change. That’s why it is relegated to the margins . . . Of . . .

juan · Jul 1, 2022

I haven’t gotten to the periphery yet. I almost got there but when I expressed negativity about the PSA “Rules of Photography” I was pushed away again.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 1, 2022

greg zinselmeier said:
IMO it has NOT changed. Photography is a medium that is unlike, painting, lithography,etching, sculpture. It does not require an “ extension of being “ whereby the artist hand lays claim to authenticity. It’s strictly mechanical. Film company makes film, makes paper, Auto focus, auto exposure, lab process, lab print etc. all the photographer does is depress the “button” exposure. Sends straight to frame shop to matted and framed, sent straight to the gallery where the talking points are awaiting the physical object. Volle!! Instant Art!!!!! All you had to do is stand there and click the button. That’s why photography isn’t art. Digital is even more of quagmire with Lightroom etc . . And all other software. All photography both analog and digital It becomes contrived very quickly and easily. Overly reductive, slick, transparent, and utterly misunderstanding humanity. Now give a REAL artist a paint brush, an etching needle, a stone chisel . . . . Now we are in business, oh! Btw you (photographer) didn’t even make your camera or lens, you suck! You can’t make anything, you stand there like an idiot talking and doing coke, run your mouth about how amazing this lens is, did you say you only shoot with Leica? Hassleblad? Nikon? Or was it Canon, because”that’s what only REAL photographers use”

Photography in the public mind is something similar to the fictional account of the aforementioned. That imo will never change. That’s why it is relegated to the margins . . . Of . . .

{deleted by Moderator because it is rude invective, unlike the rest of the post}
Photography was accepted as art a century ago when major art museums like the Metropolitan and MOMA began collecting and exhibiting photographs, and art schools began teaching it. I have an art degree. Painters do not make their own paints, canvases, easels, or brushes so complaining that photographers aren't artists because we buy materials and equipment from manufacturers is an argument with zero merit.

Eric Rose · Jul 1, 2022

If you want to know just take your best framed images to an "art" gallery and see how far you get.

slackercrurster · Jul 1, 2022

Photography...is the easiest art to get into and the hardest one to distinguish oneself in.

...or some such thing...

Chuck Close

Alan Edward Klein · Jul 1, 2022

greg zinselmeier said:
IMO it has NOT changed. Photography is a medium that is unlike, painting, lithography,etching, sculpture. It does not require an “ extension of being “ whereby the artist hand lays claim to authenticity. It’s strictly mechanical. Film company makes film, makes paper, Auto focus, auto exposure, lab process, lab print etc. all the photographer does is depress the “button” exposure. Sends straight to frame shop to matted and framed, sent straight to the gallery where the talking points are awaiting the physical object. Volle!! Instant Art!!!!! All you had to do is stand there and click the button. That’s why photography isn’t art. Digital is even more of quagmire with Lightroom etc . . And all other software. All photography both analog and digital It becomes contrived very quickly and easily. Overly reductive, slick, transparent, and utterly misunderstanding humanity. Now give a REAL artist a paint brush, an etching needle, a stone chisel . . . . Now we are in business, oh! Btw you (photographer) didn’t even make your camera or lens, you suck! You can’t make anything, you stand there like an idiot talking and doing coke, run your mouth about how amazing this lens is, did you say you only shoot with Leica? Hassleblad? Nikon? Or was it Canon, because”that’s what only REAL photographers use”

Photography in the public mind is something similar to the fictional account of the aforementioned. That imo will never change. That’s why it is relegated to the margins . . . Of . . .

If it affects the viewer emotionally or spiritually, then it's art. How it's constructed, what the materials are, who made the instruments, and who did it are all immaterial.

Alan Edward Klein · Jul 1, 2022

Eric Rose said:
If you want to know just take your best framed images to an "art" gallery and see how far you get.

That has to do with a particular piece of art's scarcity, not whether it's art. Most art is repetitious. Museums are looking for something more unique.

greg zinselmeier · Jul 1, 2022

chriscrawfordphoto said:
{deleted} Photography was accepted as art a century ago when major art museums like the Metropolitan and MOMA began collecting and exhibiting photographs, and art schools began teaching it. I have an art degree. Painters do not make their own paints, canvases, easels, or brushes so complaining that photographers aren't artists because we buy materials and equipment from manufacturers is an argument with zero merit.

Museums have accepted, but rank and file have not! There still is an asterisk next to your name

greg zinselmeier · Jul 1, 2022

photographers do not need any skill to be considered an artist,?it’s already “automatic “ with cozy bed sheets with high tech companies. To do all your work for you. Just have your assistant set up the shot, yell at them for being stupid in front of your client so you look amazing and brilliant. It’s about cult of personality. Bigger than life MEOW, PURR, and ROAR!!! Go be famous will you

Alan Edward Klein · Jul 1, 2022

greg zinselmeier said:
photographers do not need any skill to be considered an artist,?it’s already “automatic “ with cozy bed sheets with high tech companies. To do all your work for you. Just have your assistant set up the shot, yell at them for being stupid in front of your client so you look amazing and brilliant. It’s about cult of personality. Bigger than life MEOW, PURR, and ROAR!!! Go be famous will you

Ah. But you have to know what to yell at your assistant.

Tel · Jul 1, 2022

whenever I am tempted to think about "art" I go here: https://artybollocks.com/index.html

MattKing · Jul 1, 2022

This thread has descended almost immediately into personalized argument, and as such is on the "periphery" of being closed.
Cool it - and try to get back to the question asked at the beginning, which I understand to be about the relationship between photography's accessibility, and its reputation in the art world.

Pieter12 · Jul 1, 2022

Yes, photography is at the periphery of the art world for many reasons. For one, the barrier for entry is extremely low. A camera and a medium for recording the image is all that is required. No talent is necessary, no eye for composition, just the ability to fire the shutter. Sometimes the result is art. Mostly not. Other fine arts (seeing as the original citation was from a museum, that is what is being discussed) require some imagination, dexterity, usually training and practice. And today, with digital technology to "correct" what might be seen as flaws or filters to easily stylize a digital file, even less imagination, training and practice are required.

And Mr. Glass, you cannot go to a museum anytime you choose. They have operating hours and days.

Sirius Glass · Jul 1, 2022

A big fight about nothing. I cannot wait so see what is next. NOT!!

VinceInMT · Jul 1, 2022

MattKing said:
Cool it - and try to get back to the question asked at the beginning, which I understand to be about the relationship between photography's accessibility, and its reputation in the art world.

Thanks, Matt. It’s wasn’t my intention to reignite that old argument but to address a finer point.

I think there is some validity to the point that says that with photography, all one has to do is release a shutter to create an image. That virtually anyone can do that, the accessibility that quote I included spoke of, is what keeps it on the periphery for many.

I am in both camps. While I know my way around photography, I am also an artist who works in other mediums and not everyone can jump right into most them a create an image as quickly as one can with a camera. I draw, a lot, and I hear over and over from others who claim they can’t draw. I’ve never heard someone say “I can’t take pictures.” This might be at the heart of the issue.

CMoore · Jul 1, 2022

Not sure what area of APUG it was in, but there was a Recent and Long thread ..............Are Photographers Artists...........or something similar.
If you have not read that, you might take a look.

OH.......i guess it was just a few threads below this one.

Is a photographer an artist?

While I prefer uplifting art as well, art that disgusts or creates hatred is art as well. The world isn't all lovey-dovey. Never said it wasn't art. Just that I might not like it. Some art is created with the intention to shock and instigate. Some art is absurd, some propaganda. Some art is...

www.photrio.com

gone · Jul 1, 2022

That's just art stuff, pay no attention to what museums say. Photography would be the last choice of many artists as it's about a complicated, indirect process that requires a fair amount of machinery, not a simple and direct process like drawing and painting.

It also requires a lot of knowledge on the craft. When I put on my painter hat (or beret), all I need to know is which end of the paintbrush to hold in my mouth and I'm good to go. There is art beyond what's in the museums. It lives in artist's studios and galleries, and goes to die in museums.

awty · Jul 2, 2022

I like the peripherals, thats were the best music is.
Don't need someone to tell me what is or what isn't

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 2, 2022

momus said:
That's just art stuff, pay no attention to what museums say. Photography would be the last choice of many artists as it's about a complicated, indirect process that requires a fair amount of machinery, not a simple and direct process like drawing and painting.

It also requires a lot of knowledge on the craft. When I put on my painter hat (or beret), all I need to know is which end of the paintbrush to hold in my mouth and I'm good to go. There is art beyond what's in the museums. It lives in artist's studios and galleries, and goes to die in museums.

Ahh, the old "photography is too technical to be art" canard.

When I was in art school, I discovered that there is a lot of technical knowledge required to do older forms of art like painting, sculpture, ceramics, and printmaking (etching, lithography, etc). An example with oil painting: the pigments in oil paint affect how fast the paint hardens. Oil paint does not actually dry; it contains no water. Instead it hardens through chemical reactions with oxygen in the air. Some pigments make the paint harden quickly; others make it harden more slowly. The paint surface will feel 'dry' long before the paint has fully cured, especially if you lay down thick layers of paint. If you lay down a slow-curing color, wait for it to feel 'dry,' then paint a fast-curing color over it, the painting will crack as it ages and some of the paint can even fall off years after the painting was made.

One of the professors gave us a long list of pigments, rated by their curing times, to serve as a guide. Of course, the use of mediums (chemicals to thin the paint so it can be applied in thin layers or to affect its texture) will change curing times, too! So yeah, there is technical knowledge needed to paint if you're serious about doing work that will last a long time. Ceramics and printmaking are also very technical; ceramics is as technical as photography, maybe even more so.

Don_ih · Jul 2, 2022

The technical aspects of visual art can be described as knowing how and having the ability to use the materials to get the result you want. Technical proficiency is the ability to express your idea well via the chosen medium. So, as photography gets more and more automated, the amount of technical knowledge and "hands-on" ability required is reduced. It's just less trouble for a photographer, as an artist, to express his or her idea. However, unlike painting, where you can more or less imagine the scene and then realize it, a photographer needs something to photograph. In a way, a photographer has to manipulate either reality or the photo itself to realize the idea.

Anyway. Technical proficiency in painting, sculpture, drawing has always been used to bar entry to the art world. An artist is usually seen as someone who can do something. A photographer is normally seen as someone using something. But there is no real difference. A painter and a photographer can both have the same artistic idea they wish to express. The way they choose to express it is not what makes the art - the expression itself is the art.

Most people, however, judge what is most easily judged. So, a painting is most easily judged by how technically good it is. And that easily gets confused with being meaningful. No one has a clue how to judge photos. One thing that becomes obvious, though, once you fully accept that photography is art, is that meaning is so illusory it may not only be irrelevant, but just an artificial layer of sophistication meant to elevate the status of art above decor.

greg zinselmeier · Jul 2, 2022

So my comments where coming from a persona who I always meet at galleries and museums and artists meet and great.

My comments above reflect a general characterization from the comments I’ve heard over the years about photography, photographers, and digital artist, FROM other artists and or patrons. Most artists I speak with/ know are very critical and mock film photographers as “repeats” . You go out to take /make an image just like” harry Callahan” or whoever. Trying to recycle ideas from 50 years ago thinking no one is gonna notice. And then they laugh and snicker. Current Film photography shows tend to reinforce “the history” of the heyday of film, not commenting or making new work or ideas.

There are too many easier ways other than film photography, for someone who has an original thought to get that idea expressed. Film photography has relegated itself to the peripheral, because it is always about craft, techniques, gear, equipment, bla bla. Bla.

If someone who uses a camera, is “making it” as an artists, I would suspect it’s the art/cult of personality that is behind the drive. Not the originality of idea/image.

I think most people see film photography as a dead breed. Limping along to its last breathe, till it exsanguinates itself on sheer repetition of the same ol, same ol!!

The dialogue at the party goes likes this. I’m a film photographer!! They say oh you take pictures of( overly reductive, trivializing something something like ) . . . Then you no, but you mean yes

VinceInMT · Jul 2, 2022

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Ceramics and printmaking are also very technical; ceramics is as technical as photography, maybe even more so.

Well-stated. After going through a variety of mediums, I feel that ceramics is the one most difficult to control at the mastery level. In the ceramics classes I took, we had to mix our own clay from the raw materials like feldspar and then mix our own glazes. When rates of firing are put into it, there are a dizzying array of variables involved and a lengthy process to “do over” anything that blows up in the kiln.

VinceInMT · Jul 2, 2022

Don Heisz said:
One thing that becomes obvious, though, once you fully accept that photography is art, is that meaning is so illusory it may not only be irrelevant, but just an artificial layer of sophistication meant to elevate the status of art above decor.

As we look at the “movements” in the art world over time, we are now in the “Contemporary” era and “meaning” rules over everything else. Technical features and abilities take a back seat to whatever it is the artist is try to say. I recommend the film “Exit Through the Gift Shop” that demonstrates this.

That is my observation, not something I necessarily think is desirable. I just went to the Biennale in Venice and some of the most captivating work I saw showed extreme mastery of their medium while also providing meaningful content on the exhibition’s theme of “Milk of Dreams.”

Are you relegated to the periphery of the art world

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency