Are you relegated to the periphery of the art world

[faberryman]

How about if it turns out that photography can be art, can that not mean that there is something that we may decide to aspire to with our photography, if we so desire?

Sure. If that is important to you, you can aspire to it.

 

[Don_ih]

The art world isn’t a fixed entity.

You will notice, though, that through all those movements and changes, the things that were considered art before are still considered art, now - even if outmoded or devalued. Every movement in art considers itself the next step in an evolution.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Most people have never even thought about it. Meanwhile, we have had conceptual photography for 40-50 years where the photographer is in complete control. Maybe people whose knowledge starts and stops with HCB's Man Jumping Over Puddle (1930) think photography is about capture.

Meanwhile, I find myself sort of in the capture group myself I am old and old fashioned. So I guess I am more a hunter-gatherer photographer than a farmer photographer. Conceptual photography seems to me to be almost exclusively about the concept, and once the artist has created it, photographing it seems almost beside the point. I mean, you do need to have a record of what you have created, so I guess you need a camera. Sort of like when you make your kids Halloween costumes, and you take a picture of your kids wearing them so they will remember them.

Conceptual photography can veer off and approach illustration. Is it then a visual art, or a literary, or other art?

 

[faberryman]

Conceptual photography can veer off and approach illustration. Is it then a visual art, or a literary, or other art?

Beats me. I guess I would have to look at the photograph, read about what the photographer has to say about it, and then probably do some research. I'm pretty sure the lines are somewhat blurry.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Photographic "capture" is actually more like recognizing a butterfly than capturing it in a net.

This is a useful concept, I hadn't thought of it, thank you.

 

[Pieter12]

Beats me. I guess I would have to look at the photograph, read about what the photographer has to say about it, and then probably do some research. I'm pretty sure the lines are somewhat blurry.

Gregory Crewdson comes to mind. And Jeff Wall and Cindy Sherman…

 

[winger]

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…”

Because of the title of the show, I don't read that quote as being about photography being on the edge of the art world, but more about women frequently being relegated to the periphery of the art world. Though I do think photography is still seen as less than painting in the eyes of many. Now that anyone can take pictures with their cell phone, I don't think it's going to improve.

 

[Pieter12]

Because of the title of the show, I don't read that quote as being about photography being on the edge of the art world, but more about women frequently being relegated to the periphery of the art world. Though I do think photography is still seen as less than painting in the eyes of many. Now that anyone can take pictures with their cell phone, I don't think it's going to improve.

True. The intro refers to women being on the periphery of the art world. Being a female photographer was and probably still is to a certain extent two hurdles to leap in order to gain acceptance into the art world.

 

[snusmumriken]

Because of the title of the show, I don't read that quote as being about photography being on the edge of the art world, but more about women frequently being relegated to the periphery of the art world. Though I do think photography is still seen as less than painting in the eyes of many. Now that anyone can take pictures with their cell phone, I don't think it's going to improve.

True. The intro refers to women being on the periphery of the art world. Being a female photographer was and probably still is to a certain extent two hurdles to leap in order to gain acceptance into the art world.

I hadn't grasped that, point taken. I withdraw posts #94 and #95. A good half of my favourite photographers were/are female, so I am very grateful they managed to find a way in.

 

[KerrKid]

To some, there is a pecking order to painting as well.

Oil painting at the top, acrylics in the middle, and water color on the bottom.

Painting styles are more difficult to put in order, but I think many people would put realism at the top and modern art at the bottom.

 

[Don_ih]

Because of the title of the show, I don't read that quote as being about photography being on the edge of the art world, but more about women frequently being relegated to the periphery of the art world.

Nevertheless, the question posed in this thread was "Do you feel that you are “relegated to the periphery of the art world” because you are a photographer?"

I think the "glass ceiling" applies to women in almost every area of life. Art, as represented by galleries and critics and celebrated in culture and society, is no exception. There are probably more female artists than male, but they rarely get elevated to the state of the "great man" (if you're familiar with that theory).

 

[faberryman]

Gregory Crewdson comes to mind. And Jeff Wall and Cindy Sherman…

Crewdson and Wall are academics, which puts them in the enviable position of not only making their photographs, but also of telling you why they are important in the history of art, which they can do for hours at a time. Sort of seems like cheating to me. A great deal has been written about Sherman and her work, so I would refer you the art critics. They seem to know where to place her photographs. Who am I to disagree?

 

[gone]

Being on the periphery of the art world would seem to be a lot better than being IN the art world. Sounds like something to aim for, actually.

 

[Pieter12]

Being on the periphery of the art world would seem to be a lot better than being IN the art world. Sounds like something to aim for, actually.

Why?

 

[VinceInMT]

Being on the periphery of the art world would seem to be a lot better than being IN the art world. Sounds like something to aim for, actually.

Ah, but if you are “In” you might get invited to events like this:

https://www.artforum.com/diary/linda-yablonsky-around-athens-and-hydra-88785

 

[VinceInMT]

….but I think many people would put realism at the top and modern art at the bottom.

I think that goes back to my point about “access.” “Access” can apply to the ease by which someone can create work in a particular medium or how easy it is for the viewer to extract enjoyment or meaning out of a work. A Rembrandt is easier to access than a Rothko, the same way that in jazz, swing is more accessible than bebop.

 

[Pieter12]

Many people would put Keane at the top and Kandinsky at the bottom. But what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Nevertheless, the question posed in this thread was "Do you feel that you are “relegated to the periphery of the art world” because you are a photographer?"

I think the "glass ceiling" applies to women in almost every area of life. Art, as represented by galleries and critics and celebrated in culture and society, is no exception. There are probably more female artists than male, but they rarely get elevated to the state of the "great man" (if you're familiar with that theory).

Women got a later start as in many fields.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know that I will never be thought of a great artist or a great photographer. I am happy to produce what I do for my pleasure and the pleasure and enjoyment of my friends and acquaintances.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Women got a later start as in many fields.

I disagree, they likely started early on and were ignored by the me. That is why Great Expectations which was written by a woman was published under a man's name as the author.

 

[MattKing]

Of course that is just my take on it. You may think Crewdson and Wall are the best thing ever and want to see their photographs as often as you can.

I've seen a lot of Wall's work, and I would be happy to see more.
Have you seen his wall sized transparencies in real life? They do actually benefit from the size.

 

[Pieter12]

Gagosian gallery in Beverly Hills recently had a show of his work. Very big prints, nicely displayed, although for me there were too many reflections on the glass form the giant skylights in the gallery. Here's a video of him discussing the work: https://gagosian.com/quarterly/2022/06/16/video-jeff-wall-an-exhibition-tour/

 

[faberryman]

I disagree, they likely started early on and were ignored by the me. That is why Great Expectations which was written by a woman was published under a man's name as the author.

Are you talking about the Great Expectations written by Charles Dickens? Is their another Great Expectations written by a woman. Or did a woman secretly write Great Expectations and Charles Dickens just take the credit? Or maybe you are thinking about the English writer Mary Anne Evans, who wrote under the pseudonym George Eliot. She wrote some fine books like Adam Bede, The Mill on the Floss, Silas Marner, Middlemarch, and others.

 

[faberryman]

Gagosian gallery in Beverly Hills recently had a show of his work. Very big prints, nicely displayed, although for me there were too many reflections on the glass form the giant skylights in the gallery. Here's a video of him discussing the work: https://gagosian.com/quarterly/2022/06/16/video-jeff-wall-an-exhibition-tour/

Thanks for the link. I can only take Jeff Wall talking about himself in small doses, do it will take me a while to make it through the video.

 

[Pieter12]

I sure hope Great Expectations wasn't written by a woman. The women in the book aren't very sympathetic, more like mean and self-centered if I recall.