Critic thinks photography shouldn't be hung in art galleries.

[StoneNYC]

Wow... Just wow....

My first thought is that this guy is really young and has never actually spent the time developing his own film or spent hours and hours printing reiteration of the same image perfecting it to be a perfect print, i'll he does is talk about digital and it sounds like he's very young and doesn't really have much experience with fine art photography but that could be a poor assumption I don't know.

Either way have fun reading this idiots ramblings...

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...s-dont-work-in-art-galleries?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

[Jim Noel]

I think you nailed it - young, unknowledgeable, and foolish.

 

[winger]

I think you nailed it - young, unknowledgeable, and foolish.

His picture (click on his name) looks like he's in his 50s. But his writing is juvenile.

 

[pdeeh]

I disagree ... to me, it seems he's resurrecting "arguments" that are as old as photography.

So Jurassic, rather than Juvenile ...

 

[snapguy]

waste

If I want to waste my time I would go out and buy a digital "camera."

 

[removed account4]

I disagree ... to me, it seems he's resurrecting "arguments" that are as old as photography.

So Jurassic, rather than Juvenile ...

exactly

 

[DWThomas]

"Flat and soulless and stupid" eh, mayhaps he hasn't looked at enough photographs -- or enough paintings! Good grief, I regularly see paintings in museums that leave me scratching my head. Anyway, stirring up a ruckus seems almost required to market and promote oneself and one's media employer these days. (Click 'Ignore'!!!)

 

[analoguey]

"Flat and soulless and stupid" eh, mayhaps he hasn't looked at enough photographs -- or enough paintings! Good grief, I regularly see paintings in museums that leave me scratching my head. Anyway, stirring up a ruckus seems almost required to market and promote oneself and one's media employer these days. (Click 'Ignore'!!!)

Indeed.
I felt it was someone who wasn't able to express himself well. 'The problem was the lighting,' the person said then decided that 'photos should not be displayed cos they looked insipid' - and not that lighting should be improved!

 

[lecarp]

Critic thinks????

It appears to me that this article has a shared problem with much of digital capture, a total lack of editing (should have hit the bin).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's just an editorial opinion. Don't let it bother you. The next article you read about photography will probably be a very positive one.

 

[Bill Burk]

It's just an editorial opinion. Don't let it bother you. The next article you read about photography will probably be a very positive one.

Haaa yes! Just replace "photography" with "digital photography" in that article, and any one of us might have written the same.

I think the author isn't familiar with our movement.

 

[pdeeh]

Not me, I have no axe to grind about digital photography at all, and it's quite absurd that so many threads turn into this bizarre denigration of everything digital.

Plus the only movement I am ever involved in is a bowel movement.

 

[AgX]

My first thought is that this guy is really young and has never actually spent the time developing his own film or spent hours and hours printing reiteration of the same image perfecting it to be a perfect print,...

I do not see how the way a photograph was made is related to photography being an art form.


By the way, most contemporary work exhibited in photo-museums over here is digital photography.


EDIT: I just read that article and now I understand why you hinted at darkroom work.

 

[trythis]

Critics are trying to make a name for themselves just like artists and architects. They say anything to stand out and get noticed.

 

[removed account4]

a critic job is to be critical and make people think
and there ARE plenty of bad photographs
the trick is to make good ones

 

[railwayman3]

Well, the article was published in "The Grauniard" newspaper, so that says it all !

 

[BrianShaw]

Some people will say almost anything for a little bit of attention... And it worked.

 

[Bill Burk]

Not me, I have no axe to grind about digital photography at all, and it's quite absurd that so many threads turn into this bizarre denigration of everything digital.

If you've seen my writing on the membership card for Group f.64 that I'm always in jeopardy of losing... I'll say using digital is just another corner cut-off the f.64 card... digital, pictorial, hybrid... not sure yet what it would take to have all four corners cut off.

 

[TooManyShots]

His picture (click on his name) looks like he's in his 50s. But his writing is juvenile.

50s..makes here born during the 60s. Probably a failed photographer of who couldn't tell the difference between F stops to DOF, from fixer to bleach, until he begins to shoot digital....

 

[removed account4]

50s..makes here born during the 60s. Probably a failed photographer of who couldn't tell the difference between F stops to DOF, from fixer to bleach, until he begins to shoot digital....

maybe he is just tired of the same-old-same-old in ever gallery or museum he goes to?

i don't think his critique deserves
derogatory comments about his background do you know who he is? to be an art historian or an art critique you don't need
physical experience making art, it requires knowledge about art, its history, and opinion and being able to discuss them.

maybe instead of ultra large vivid overly saturated overly manipulated photographs and trying to emulate
the giants of photography of days gone by ( be they atget, adams, clive b,, the westons, or that guy who burned the arch years ago or ... )
people should concentrate on being creative and not making boring photographs?
the originals weren't boring, but 10,000 replicants are.

 

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps critic Jonathan Jones [no relative!] didn't realize he was in the Natural History Museum and not in a branch of the Tate. Of course there should be a difference between exhibits in such disparate venues. The Natural History Museum enriches the lives of its visitors with realistic views of the real World that they might never experience first hand. Fine art galleries display images filtered through the vision and technical abilities of artists who often imprint their artwork with a personal and distinctive style rather than be faithful to their subjects. Many commercial galleries prefer to hang whatever is most profitable rather than select art for its aesthetics or excellence.

 

[ME Super]

The author of that article has obviously not seen an Ansel Adams print in person. No, I'm not just talking about his B&W work - he did some work in color as well. His B&W stuff just sings!

Or it could be said that he simply hasn't seen GOOD photographs, that spoke to him, in a gallery.

 

[Truzi]

I really don't agree with his comment that an iPad is how to look at digital images - or any images. At least not if you want to appreciate them.

 

[jjphoto]

I think this explains the article quite well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Jones_(journalist)

I'm not familiar with the Gaurdian but we have papers here (in Australia) where outrageous commentary is the norm and aimed at the lowest common denominator. I think people like this should be ignored rather than encouraged with attention, which to me appears clearly to be the goal of the article.

Similarly, do you reward a childs bad behaviour with attention or do you ignore it and only reward good behaviour? It seems we are encouraging this kind of thing by spreading it all over the internet.

 

[GRHazelton]

Poor fellow needs to see some great photography. W Eugene Smith's Minimata essay might change his mind; Tomoko in her bath is truly heartbreaking. And yes, original prints by Adams, or Weston, or.... The list goes on. I recall a party conversation with an "artist" who maintained that photography was a craft, not an art. I could never get him to explain the difference. My photos with few exceptions aren't art, but they give me pleasure. An artist in any field must first learn the craft. There are dues to be paid. Mastery is not inborn.