"Art" is dangerous

Thank you victor but I have yet to post to this forum. I do not have regular access to a scanner.

Of course I compose. What I mean is go take pictures instead of worrying about what others are doing or saying. Their little fantacies about who they are and how good their own stuff is, is mental masterbation: fun for them but no one really wants to watch.

There are those who think that you should just shoot to get past the block. Like those writing mindless strings of words to get past writer's block. for 35mm and MF this works pretty good for me LF is too expensive per sheet. In fact I will be taking my own advice this weekend and burning some film through my cameras.

Composition is part of the seeing for me, as it is for many. I have an idea of what something will look like then I try to get the picture there. Sometimes I get it sometimes I don't but at least I feel better about life. Things are super stressful here (Graduate degree work, teaching a hundred something kids a day, a wife and child I want to spend time with more than the rest) so I am feeling a lot like Mr. Fugazzi, pissed at everything and needing a break so I will burn film, get it processed and see what I get. Focusing on the beauty around me should clear my head. Just like it does for most people. We would not shoot if it was not the case.

Shoot film and have a good day(okay cheesy but I am trying to be more positive.

bjork..

can u express yourself in your own words... u make here intresting points that i would like to comment but im too expirienced not to hold useful discussion with constant referances. i can talk with u about what u think, i can talk with u about grosz or benjamine, but i cannot talk to ctosz

mark.. u see
u r positive and u have fun, and im sure u dont call each of your pics masterpiece, actually u are very aware as u say that something gone rite and sometimes not so rite. besides, u know that u have past at least the basic studing in order to create good stuff. u r not one of whom we r talking about... those whome we are talking about are almost antichrist to u, and i think that the original post was talking about this kind as well.
by the way even if the cost per frame is not high as in your case, that doesnt mean firing the roll without consciousness.

bjorke said:

Ed Sukach said:

The way I understand it, George Grosz and Weiland Herzefeld were bemoaning the "danger to art" caused by the strict limits being imposed on art by politics and commecialism. As I see it - this is a call for re-introducing FREEDOM into art - translation: "Do your own thing - and save art."

Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. To retreat into what's so glibly described as "true" art -- that is, self-involved art and "self-expression" -- is to fail. As Grosz writes: "No answer is an answer."
This is all fine, actually. Art workers need to eat too. But to put on airs about it, whether of the beret-wearing above-the-social order type, or the radically indignant sandinista, is to be pointlessly sidetracked by words.

Click to expand...

I printed out the entire article, from the .pdf file.
Fortunately, I have access to someone who majored in English, is 'way more intelligent than I, and spends her days deciphering intensely complex legal documents (written with the express intent of causing confusion) for the Law Firm where she works. She happens to be my youngest daughter.

Her verdict? "Not a clue to what is going on here. Too many "inside terms" with meanings known only to a select few, and no indication of any possible "key" to what they do mean."

Uh huh. "... Goethe under bombardment, Nietzche in rucksack, Jesus in the trenches ..." and ... under "No Answer is Also an Answer" ... "When such artists enter the service of industry and applied art, there can be as little objection raised as when a politician engages himself as a craftsman. A matter of talent. When this art of literary attraction is pursued for its own sake, decidedly blase' indifference and irresponsible individualistic feelings are propagated."
What the **#$#! are they talking about when they say, "... they finally arrived at the task of overpainting the with beauty and interesting features the face of Anno 13, which daily unmasked itself more and more."?

Possibly we must interpret all this in the light of the atmosphere of Berlin, Germany in 1925.

Grosz was a proponent of "Dada", and this article was written in support of that movement:

Dada, n. - a movement in modern art and literature rejecting the standards and values of society by proposing unrestrained expression in behavior and artistic form. Dadaism got it start in Zurich, Switzerland, during World War I with a group of rebellious young artists who thought the world was going nowhere...

and,

Dada, n. - a movement in art and literature, occurring especially in France, Switzerland about 1916 - 1920, that declared a program of protest against civilization and violently satirized all previous art."

Possibly, I got it all wrong ... but it sure sounds like, "Do your own thing", to me.

(tangential rant continuing...) It is unfortunate that the PDF is so clipped -- we get the last two pages of the entire "Art is in Danger" book (and an odd translation, at that).

Ed, the dictionary definition of anything in art, past perhaps simple nouns like "paintbrush" or "stop bath," is likely to be wrong, if for no other reason than its isolated brevity. The Dadaists had reasons for their objection to the existing art world, which they saw as a validation mechanism for the bourgois classes that had in the years previous ("Anno 13") brought great ruin onto the German people; a people whom the Dadaists (notably the Red Group like Grosz et al, members of the KDP) felt had been dragged into the war by the forces of industry that ruled the press (much as many Americans feel that the Iraq war was partly perpetrated to keep Fox News & Halliburton busy). By the 1920s, the war was over, but the problems remained and the same people were mostly still in the same seats of power. "The Kaiser is gone, but the generals are all still in place," or so the saying went. Without those underlying purposes, there would be no Dada.

The term "tendency" (used above, & in the PDF a fair bit) to the art world of the time meant "art compelled by a larger purpose," such as a social one (e.g., Goya's book of war atrocities); it's dialectic opposite was "formalism," where art is executed purely for the sake of "beauty," "form," and so forth. In other words, "do your own thing." (In the modern world, one aspect of formalism is an absurd emphasis on the technical processes of photography, rather than the content and potential meaning of the pictures. Thus we have varying camps of fetishism: compact digitals, Leicas, toy cameras, Cyanotypists -- all with their own micro-sized Academy subcultures.)

The Dadaists declared that the criteria of art formalism were inherently corrupt, created and maintained by the elites and merchant classes for the sake of Keeping The People Down -- to dismiss the rising proletarian society as tasteless and without culture (see their companion essay "The Art Scab," which riffs mercilessly on this theme). So they declared art formalism as corrupt and pushed themselves and their art to find something different, something that could be as quickly-executed and changeable as the events unfolding around them in those years, and used satire and seemingly-random assemblage as a means to attack the previous aesthetics. By the 1930's, they would themselves be denounced as "corrupt, degenerate," and "broken apart" by the new Ministers of Culture; the local art world had moved to a clean, designer-driven and formalized corporate asthetic which proclaimed itself in the nationalistic service of "the unification of the people" instead of so much (as the accepted critics of the day put it) "jewishness."

• [list:8f8775417b]

[/list:u:8f8775417b]Interpreting "Dada" as "do your own thing" is a modern perspective that ignores all but the formal aspects of that art. As such it is the antithesis of Dada's purpose. Such a reading is not surprising, though -- modern art, IMO, went to hell with the ascendancy of abstract expressionism -- a sort of art that could make claims to be free, new, and vibrant while being so devoid of any social meaning that it was always safe to hang on the wall of any bank.

bjorke.. i dont really inderstand what u defende.. "the do your own thing". well, if so, im totally agree with u. art would have died if not so.
but the kind of converssasion confuses me a little bit, well, not really confussion, but i feal fruitless with it. u post very interesting points as i said. personally i would like u to forward your own argument (whet5her it is like that of daddda or gorzt or bejamine or tolstoy etc etc or wietgestein). than we can have some common ground in converssasion.

about the camps of equipment users... u know very well that without the leica there would be no "capture a moment", there would be no ch.bresson. etc. surprisenly, i found it even this days the best way to to tell a visual storry with a captured moment and my own mental envolvement. it is not a logo and it is not belonging to some camp. there are reasons for technical discussions etc, cause at the end it is reflected in ones works.
this "technical" is your wife with whome u have to build the family (=your art works). im not merried yet, i know there are many wonderfull ladies out there as well as many not really wonderfull. the question is what do u want. if u ignore of "technical" importance, u say that just marry no matter to whome - the point is to create family. u know that not all families look the same. the way the family looks depends not only on me but on that lady as well. it would be pitty if it was dependent on only one. that means no love etc. photographs at the end are in trush, or in gallery or packed in archival boxes. i live with my cameras and my darkroom. if u ask me what is really your photograph??? well the outcomes of course, but i remember and live as well that stuff along my ideas concepts and more or less constantly changing models, ppl, buildings streets and trees etc etc.

bjorke said:

(tangential rant continuing...) It is unfortunate that the PDF is so clipped -- we get the last two pages of the entire "Art is in Danger" book (and an odd translation, at that).
Ed, the dictionary definition of anything in art, past perhaps simple nouns like "paintbrush" or "stop bath," is likely to be wrong, if for no other reason than its isolated brevity....
Such a reading is not surprising, though -- modern art, IMO, went to hell with the ascendancy of abstract expressionism -- a sort of art that could make claims to be free, new, and vibrant while being so devoid of any social meaning that it was always safe to hang on the wall of any bank.

Click to expand...

I would not expect the dictionary readings to be a thorough, definitive examination of anything as complex as the Dada movement, or any other "school" of philosophy - or art. They serve/d a useful purpose in establishing some sort of "ground" from which to start my interpretation.

One point could be argued at length - whether or not the ultimate, or even an appropriate - "mission" of art would be as a corrective force. As I understand *some* of Dadaistic art, it was created to exhibit some of the depravity of the time and place ... with an assumption that too few people knew about what was going on.

There is an interesting analysis of Grosz's work - and motivation in "Twentieth Century Erotic Art" by Taschen, ISBN 3-8225-7764-6. He was hauled in court for obscenity and producing pornography - many times.

At one of those court appearances:

"Eroticism must contain a social message. Against medieval-style brutality", Grosz once said, "and against the host of human imbecilities characteristic of our century, the graphic arts represent a power that should not be underestimated - but only when executed by a resolute will and an accomplished hand". Grosz once explained that whle he was searching for a style commensurate with the wretchedness and misery of his models, he scavenged the walls of public toilets for the graffiti on the walls, and copied it it down, for he felt it offered the most direct insight into naked, forceful feeling."

A dark and desperate mindset - one I'll be grateful that it is one that I do not have. Simply, I've never considered any of my models to be "wretched" and/or "miserable". Not my models - and not my society.

There is another role that art can play - one far more intelligent, and effective - IMHO (n.b. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) - and that is of an escape mechanism from society - a safety valve that prevents us from becoming homogenously alike in attitudes and moral judgements - and mired in ennui.

That will lead to "do your own thing" - and that is to me (again, IMHO) a GOOD thing.

Ed, to what "escape" are you describing? A dream? Are you saying that IYO art (however defined) for the art-maker and/or art viewer, is best as a fantasy separate from their real existences? At which point does such indulgence on the part of the artist cross from self-entertainment to wasting the time and attention of the (potentially involuntary) audience?

Self-indulgence is a betrayal of the realities of art, which by definition are an enterprise involving more than just a single person. Artists are involved in transactions between themselves, their subjects, and their audiences, small or large. To present your art is to ask the audience for their trust -- that somehow they will be enriched for their investment of time and attention. This is as true for contemporary artists like, say, Sally Mann or Martin Parr, as it was for those of the past, such as Caravaggio, Weston, or Ruskin. Lewis Hine wrote that he wanted to capture not only those things that must be stopped, but those things that ought to be seen. In his photos he recognizes the dual nature of existence, pairing brutal factory conditions with gentle portraits of the children who work there. Likewise in a modern vein we have Salgado & Bravo & Luc Delahaye's sense of splendor at the sight of a dead Taliban, laid out in tableau. In all of these works we see the idealism and values of the artist not in isolation or removed from their social context and the greater world, but in full engagement with the environment that surrounds them.

Some years ago I heard or read the comment "every great photograph is about a relationship." That relationship can occur within the frame or back and forth between the image and the viewer, the photographer and the subject.

• [list:0a9ef7f78e]
  
  (The Blessed Junipero Serra, trampling the thankful natives)

[/list:u:0a9ef7f78e]At the risk of seeming to descend to an ad hominem level, Ed, I'd say that a clear relationship is the thing most lacking in the photos by you that I've seen -- with the exception of "Reeds," which is the most appealing of the bunch currently on APUG.

bjorke said:

Ed, to what "escape" are you describing? A dream? Are you saying that IYO art (however defined) for the art-maker and/or art viewer, is best as a fantasy separate from their real existences? At which point does such indulgence on the part of the artist cross from self-entertainment to wasting the time and attention of the (potentially involuntary) audience?

Self-indulgence is a betrayal of the realities of art, which by definition are an enterprise involving more than just a single person.

At the risk of seeming to descend to an ad hominem level, Ed, I'd say that a clear relationship is the thing most lacking in the photos by you that I've seen -- with the exception of "Reeds," which is the most appealing of the bunch currently on APUG.

Click to expand...

Am I saying that (IMO) art (however defined) is ... best as a fantasy seprarate from their real existence?

Hmm ... not bad. I think I'd go along with that, at least to some degree.

"Self-indulgence is a betrayal of the realities of art, which, by definition, are an enterprise involving more than just a single person."

Whose definition is this? I think you define what *I* call "following my vision" as "self-indulgence." I'll disagree.

"To present your work is to ask the audience for their trust -- that somehow they will be enriched for their investment of time and attention ...."

I don't ask the audience for anything. I present a "chip" of my "being" - if that sits well with them - all well and good - if it doesn't, I'll move on - and so will they. So far NONE of my audiences have been captive - at any level.

"Every great photograph is about a relationship".

That is inescapable. That relationship exists whether or not we intend it to ... in the great, not-so-great, and "other" photographs as well.

"At the risk of descending to an ad hominem level..."

Well, don't risk it then.

Your comments about my work are very interesting. I "lack a clear relationship..."? Good. I WANT to leave a little mystery.

I've printed your reply out - and I'll continue to consider it.

One comment I'll make is about the definition of art: so far the best one I've found (there have been MANY that I've heard of - some more "valid' than others) is, "The art on the wall is an encrypted window into the being of the artist on the other side."

I enjoy art. I enjoy making my images - self-indulgent as they may be. If someone else enjoys them too, that is wonderful. If not ... there is always another image next to mine ... and most keyboards I've seen have working "delete" keys.

I'm glad you liked "Reeds" - although it was rather faint praise. There must be some hope for me.

bjorke said:

Ed, to what "escape" are you describing? A dream? Are you saying that IYO art (however defined) for the art-maker and/or art viewer, is best as a fantasy separate from their real existences?
...
Self-indulgence is a betrayal of the realities of art, .

Click to expand...

I've taken a few more minutes to consider this ....

Jackson Pollock once wrote that whenever he visited an art gallery, he always paid particular attention to the work he DID NOT like - the work that he do NOT identify with. He stated that this was deserving of more interest - Although he did not like it the work, someone else did. Someone else was moved by passion to place the work on the walls. If he could try to "get into that person's head", he might gain a better understanding of that "foreign" vision. Doing so would expand his horizons and, possibly, present him with another place to work from.

I try to keep that in mind. From the conversation here, I've done a little research into an area I knew little about. I can't say I know a great deal more about Dadaism now... but I am closer to a coherent rejection of it as a "working philosophy". It just does not fit with MY choices of vision.

You speak of "fantasy" as some dark sin in art - PLEASE correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly - and I will disagree with that. Fantasy, imagination, vision, preconditioned assumptions - are NECESSARY to what we know as art. The REALITY is that all photographs are arrays of converted silver or dyes on paper or plastic; oil paintings are collections of pigments on canvas reflecting various colors; music is vibrations of sound energy in air... With the introduction of - I think the best term might be vision - they stand a fair chance of being art.

Another way to look art art is that it is "A non-standard (and complicated) Rorschach Ink Blot Test". Each will react to the test according to our beliefs, predispositions, conditioning ... and a myriad of other factors - and the last
I looked, even the most astute psychologists will not come close to claiming that they understand it "ALL".

In the Rorschach Tests, there is no "right" or "wrong". I seriously doubt that we can "teach" the proper? - favored? responses.

So, I'll respect those who wish to use and "see" art as some sort of weapon - I do not.

Go ahead with - "ad hominem" ..? I will be forced to look at comments like this as sharp judgement of my Rorschach Test results.

Take away the quote marks and, as far as I am concerned, you have the perfect definition:

Art is dangerous.

That's certainly the quality I'm looking for!

mark said:

I cannot look at a piece of pueblo pottery without feeling instantly exhausted.

Click to expand...

That describes it so very well, thank you for this sentence ... feeling instantly exhausted ... I had that for a while with my philosophy books, took me 10 years to open a Heidegger without starting to mentally hyperventilate.

I've been on both sides of the fence; growing up in a population of largely uneducated oilfield workers, going to college as an on-again, off-again art major finally settling on Photojournalism as a degree, winding up in a only tangential field of work!

While a lot of modern art set my teeth on edge, a desired effect of the artist in most cases, I found enough to cause me pleasure at the sheer other-worldliness of the execution. It helps me make subtle, almost imperceptible associations in my head that spin me off in new directions...

I'll bet a few of you would get all up in arms if anyone came on and said; "wine is s**t and the fine wine experts are full of s**t because it's freaking rotten grape juice". Or, better yet, all 8x10 large format freaks are just snobs 'cause 4x5 is good enough for anyone and, besides, digital is better. (ducking behind the bunker wall)

Everyone seems to be objecting to the idea that you have to study or educate yourself to enjoy some forms of art; that they do not come native to the eye or ear. So what? You take the time to study wine and learn, or how to forge a knife, or how to make a fine paper... etc.

Everyone who thinks all art should be instantly and immediately gratifying and transparent should look honestly into their own background for something that took patience and learning to appreciate.

You can always decide you STILL don't like it later, but then can honestly say you gave it a reasonable chance and found it wanting...

As for art being "dangerous", that's a bunch of post-modernist, shock-jocky, bulls**t! The best cure for that is to yawn, it drives them crazy when they are not controversial! ;-)

Kino said:

As for art being "dangerous", that's a bunch of post-modernist, shock-jocky, bulls**t! The best cure for that is to yawn, it drives them crazy when they are not controversial! ;-)

Click to expand...

Being a little old fashioned in my artistic tastes, I'd have to say "right on". I'm so sick of "art" having to be some kind of ridiculous socio-political-aesthetic contortionism in order to have "relevance" or to be the kitsch of the minute. Nothing wrong with good old hard work, patience and craftsmanship.

Fugazi Dave said:

What makes art dangerous

Click to expand...

Lampoon me in a cartoon and you'll see what it means to be dangerous!

It bothers me to the point that in my serigraphy class last spring I made a few t-shirts emblazened with the words "FUCK ART" in 4" capitals on the front. I wear them proudly to this day.

Click to expand...

Ok them's fighting words dude. We'll see you out in the parking lot...

SteveGangi said:

Art, whatever the heck it is, is not in any danger.

Click to expand...

I may be paranoid at times though.

Art (whatver it is) changes (a bit), and stays the same (a bit).

Click to expand...

I'm a chameleon that way.

Ed Sukach said:

Do your own thing - and save art

Click to expand...

Please send all money to my Aston Martin Foundation Fund.

Cheryl Jacobs said:

Damn, I'm glad I never went to art school.

Click to expand...

Cheryl, once you've been schooled in Art, you won't go back!

David H. Bebbington said:

Art is dangerous.

Click to expand...

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

rhphoto said:

I'm so sick of "art" having to be some kind of ridiculous socio-political-aesthetic contortionism in order to have "relevance" or to be the kitsch of the minute.

Click to expand...

Look, I exist. Deal with it buddy.

Art.

a correction. (L.A. Gang War?)

haha! Sorry - but I had to bust you! Acconci...?? No way, man... that was Manzoni - Piero Manzoni. "Merda de l'Artista". But I love Acconci too! Have you seen his "following piece" (he would videotape himself following someone within a range of one meter until there was a 'confrontation' - then quickly turn around and start following someone else!). Kinda brilliant in my books. The "come inside" piece is pretty hilarious too (though you'd have to have seen it I think, to know what I'm talking about!). Those italians. Can't keep 'em down.

voila... ! the masterpiece.

http://www.ubcfumetti.com/interview/0306a4_Manzoni_Merda_artista.jpg

Kino said:

As for art being "dangerous", that's a bunch of post-modernist, shock-jocky, bulls**t! The best cure for that is to yawn, it drives them crazy when they are not controversial! ;-)

Click to expand...

A curious conclusion to a posting which I would otherwise agree with!

The quality I am looking for in art, as I have mentioned elsewhere, is the attitude of challenging preconceptions, trying to achieve new vision, asking questions, leaving the viewer to find answers. I personally find this stimulating, people of a conservative turn of mind find it dangerous (which is why, in response to someone else's question. there are people who are vehement in their condemnation of contemporary art and their dismissal of contemporary artists as shysters - you're hearing the sound of someone way out of their comfort zone and not liking it).

Just to be clear - I personally have no illusions as to how "dangerous" I am as a 57-year-old white male middle-class freelance professional working with large industrial corporations. I am not (never was) a lunatic-fringe performance artist flinging buckets of bloody entrails at my audience, my inclination even as a young man was to initiate dialog rather than confrontation. However, I am just as committed now as I was 40 years ago to art which does something different, something new, and generates fresh perspectives. This is something I need for my personal sanity, as my main professional work (industrial journalism and copywriting) consists for the most part of delivering slick products and performing tasks which I can do exceedingly well because I have done them so many times before. I sure don't object to the money I'm paid for this, but if I did ONLY this I'd die of boredom.

Someone else said that there's nothing wrong with excellence in craft skills - no, there isn't, and as a trained professional photographer I enjoy this. However, exercise of craft skills ALONE without something new to say is absolutely not for me - it can be fun and fulfilling for the practitioner concerned, for me it's just sterility (but I would never criticize anyone for invoking their inalienable right to do what the hell they want!).

Regards to all,

David

Ed Sukach said:

He was hauled in court for obscenity and producing pornography.

Click to expand...

so was Schiel

"Love" is a dangerous

Equally abused and as hard to define as art, it is still an important concept.

David H. Bebbington said:

A curious conclusion to a posting which I would otherwise agree with!

Click to expand...

Sorry, that was an abrupt about-face there, but I was recalling a particular mindset of some University student artists I met in my decade of University service who tended to feel less than successful if you are not shocked and outraged by their work. In the end, I wound-up being annoyed by their work because of the association with childish behavior and an inability to take praise!

Nothing like a sore winner, eh?

To balance that, I do know and have met many artists who are comfortable in their work and are interested in just about any reaction they cause; even boredom.