Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art'

[bill schwab]

Well I am just going deeper inside myself like you do to try and create my style.

I learned from the master!

Hmm.... I don't know. Maybe you're not doing it right? You'd think it would show.

 

[blaze-on]

Kevin Kevin Kevin....

Where were you 25 years ago when I was suffering through Lithography, Intaglio, Sculpture and Photography courses to obtain my degree? I could have saved so much sweat and pain...

This was at the Center for Visual Arts, Illinois State University.
Should I write them and let them know to remove all mediums from the Art Curriculum that have a duplication process, as they are apparently not ART mediums?

You're becoming warped on this concept, and it's really getting boring, not to mention sad...I mean no offense but know it will come off that way.

An artist is an artist, regardless of medium. He or She creates, conceives, implements. There are good artists and bad artists and everything in between.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what defines one as an artist.

Not all photographers are artists, nor all painters artists, nor all sculpters, etc.

Medium is a choice, a tool...a means to implement that concept. Having the means to duplicate (and each is an original, just not one of a kind) does not remove it from being considered a valid piece of art.

Would you not consider a lithograph, hand pulled from a stone, in an edition of 30 from an artist such as Jasper Johns not to be art? Since's he's an artist who sometimes paints, sometimes prints, etcetera...does not that validate his lithograph as art?

What about Jim Dine? Is his only consideration as an artist his paintings and drawings? Are his lithographs and photographs less so? Does monetary worth dicate validation?

You may believe this for yourself, but it seems you are more about monetary consideration than anything with this philosophy.

I hope you find the fun photography was to you once and relish that.
Let all else fall as it may..

 

[kjsphoto]

Maybe your right, maybe I need to go from inside out. That should do the trick...

And just to think I was going to pay for your workshop to learn what I just learned here for free.

Thank Bills!

 

[kjsphoto]

Kevin Kevin Kevin....

Where were you 25 years ago when I was suffering through Lithography, Intaglio, Sculpture and Photography courses to obtain my degree? I could have saved so much sweat and pain...

This was at the Center for Visual Arts, Illinois State University.
Should I write them and let them know to remove all mediums from the Art Curriculum that have a duplication process, as they are apparently not ART mediums?

You're becoming warped on this concept, and it's really getting boring, not to mention sad...I mean no offense but know it will come off that way.

An artist is an artist, regardless of medium. He or She creates, conceives, implements. There are good artists and bad artists and everything in between.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what defines one as an artist.

Not all photographers are artists, nor all painters artists, nor all sculpters, etc.

Medium is a choice, a tool...a means to implement that concept. Having the means to duplicate (and each is an original, just not one of a kind) does not remove it from being considered a valid piece of art.

Would you not consider a lithograph, hand pulled from a stone, in an edition of 30 from an artist such as Jasper Johns not to be art? Since's he's an artist who sometimes paints, sometimes prints, etcetera...does not that validate his lithograph as art?

What about Jim Dine? Is his only consideration as an artist his paintings and drawings? Are his lithographs and photographs less so? Does monetary worth dicate validation?

You may believe this for yourself, but it seems you are more about monetary consideration than anything with this philosophy.

I hope you find the fun photography was to you once and relish that.
Let all else fall as it may..

Yeah, Matt you are right whatever you say...

 

[MattKing]

I think about a story I once read (and hope that I recall correctly) about Pablo Picasso. Someone who encountered him at the sea shore, drawing images in the sand. He moved across the sand, drawing curves and shapes and images near the water. They fascinated the observer, but also broke his heart, because they were drawn at the edge of the water, and the tide came in....

My gut feeling is that those drawings in sand were Art. They would meet Kevin's criteria of being one of a kind, but they were also about as ephemeral as any artistic statement could be.

On the weekend, I took some photographs of my home Christmas tree. I expect that I won't be printing more than one of each, but I also expect that I won't be holding any of them out as Art.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that Art isn't a specific kind of thing, or included in one kind of presentation, or type of material, but excluded in another type of presentation or kind of material.

I think Kevin is right that the integrity and gravitas of a piece of Art can be diluted by reproduction. But I don't think lack of reproduction makes something Art.

Matt

 

[JBrunner]

wow.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Kevin, maybe you'd better come back to this when you're in a more eloquent state of mind. Your statements are without weight and your rebuttals are thin. Me-thinks you've spent quite some time formulating these thoughts as they change almost every aspect of the way you present your photography, but presenting them in this manner isn't helping your cause.

Murray

 

[kjsphoto]

Yes Murray your right.

 

[bill schwab]

Thank Bills!

Not a problem Kevin. Anytime...



Uh... we are still having fun, right?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Kevin, can we marry? I've never been right so many times in one night!

Murray

 

[kjsphoto]

Not a problem Kevin. Anytime...



Uh... we are still having fun, right?

Since you are still in a happy and generous mood and it is Christmas after all can I have some of your prints?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Back to the original topic of the thread...

What can we do to help push photography beyond the act of tripping a shutter, loading film, etc and becoming a reflection of our inner voice.

1) You have to find what means the most to you, or that which you just have to communicate.

2) You need to try a gazillion combinations of equipment and processes until they combine to clearly represent #1.

3) #2 will drag down your search for #1.

4) When #1 and #2 have achieved balance, you're home free

5) When you're completely happy with #4, you're dead in the water as an artist.

6) I wouldn't have it any other way!!!!!!!

Murray

 

[bill schwab]

Since you are still in a happy and generous mood and it is Christmas after all can I have some of your prints?

We can work on that one.

Thanks Kevin,

Bill

 

[kjsphoto]

Back to the original topic of the thread...



1) You have to find what means the most to you, or that which you just have to communicate.

2) You need to try a gazillion combinations of equipment and processes until they combine to clearly represent #1.

3) #2 will drag down your search for #1.

4) When #1 and #2 have achieved balance, you're home free

5) When you're completely happy with #4, you're dead in the water as an artist.

6) I wouldn't have it any other way!!!!!!!

Murray

7) Skip 1-6 and only make 1/1 to be a real artist and produce real artwork. Then you can be a real artist like me!

 

[kjsphoto]

PS Murray see you are not always right. Still want to marry me?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

PS Murray see you are not always right. Still want to marry me?

No. Your skipping #2 to #6 tells me you're stuck in your ways and not willing to grow. It does lift my heart to know you would consider marrying another man, even if I am taken by a lovely woman.

Murray

 

[kjsphoto]

No. Your skipping #2 to #6 tells me you're stuck in your ways and not willing to grow. It does lift my heart to know you would consider marrying another man, even if I am taken by a lovely woman.

Murray

It must be a council thing..

 

[jovo]

It is a shame that photographer are unable to think outside the box and move away from the old models. Luckily for me being an artist, I can see differently.

Ironically, it's painters who have begun to 'think outside the box' (or the rectangle), and move away from the old models. Many are now having their 'original' work scanned and making giclee reproductions on traditional substrate....i.e. canvas. And I'm not talking about Kincaid here, although he does exactly that on a huge scale. I'm talking about working, everyday artist/painters who sell their work in galleries that target buyers looking for decor. You may hate that they do that, but they are, in fact, doing it!

And, btw, how many painters are selling their work for $5000 and up? Offering it at those prices, maybe, but getting folks to buy it? Not so many, and only in galleries who's imprimatur may persuade a buyer to part with such a sum. And how much of that $5000 does the artist get to take home? Perhaps half? Ya better be selling a ton of work to make a good living. Hence, the motivation to sell more with giclees of, as well as the original. That, Kevin, is how artist/painters are moving away from the old models.

 

[kjsphoto]

Many are now having their 'original' work scanned and making giclee reproductions on traditional substrate....i.e. canvas.

I know and I have no problem with that because they are selling them as reproduction and not originals. If someone wants to buy their original they pay a premium. That is what I am saying with photography, make one original and then if you want to make editions, or whatever make them reproduction via a digital process just like the painters or if you have the money make lithographs of the originals, just like painters also do.

This is what I have been saying all along!

And, btw, how many painters are selling their work for $5000 and up?

I personally know many, more than I can count on my hand and toes. $5K a painting is not that much in the art world.

Ya better be selling a ton of work to make a good living.

Define good living? To me $50-60K a year is a GOOD living and it is very ascertainable. If you sell 5 photographs a week for $200 each on your own, not a gallery, that is $1000 a week, times that by 52 weeks in a year and you are at $52K. You just have to market your work and get it in front of people. You have the world at your finger tips and there are so many ways to sell online and I am not talking eBay either, but that is another viable option if one wishes to use it.

I know painters on eBay who are not all that well known that are making $50K a year. It is not that far out of reach for people buying art.

 

[Ian Leake]

Whether a photo is produced in an edition of 1, 100, or 100,000 is irrelevant to the question of whether it's art or not. Whether someone pays $10,000, $100 or nothing for a print is also irrelevant to whether it's art. And likewise, whether the photo is bought through a gallery, or at a craft fair, or on ebay is irrelevant too. Editioning, pricing, sales channels, etcetera are just business strategies. Obviously if you want your photography to sustain you financially then it's important to have a successful business strategy, but let's not confuse the business of art with the art itself.

 

[jovo]

$5K a painting is not that much in the art world.

Define good living? To me $50-60K a year is a GOOD living and it is very ascertainable. .

.

Depending on where you live, I agree, $50-$60K a year would be a tolerable good living. How attainable it is....from sales of artwork alone....is still an open question, though if you know folks who do so, then I believe you. (I, of course, have no way of knowing just how many fingers and toes you actually have. )

I've just been printing the most recent piece in my gallery here. Each is ever so slightly different despite my best efforts to attain machine-like reproducibility. So, for me at least, each is an original. Besides, each is a photograph and conforms to the traditional norms that define such work, i.e. a process indeed designed to be reproducible. So, by definition of the process, they are original photographs. I think most people understand what that means. However, the definition gets yet more diluted when a digital printer is producing copies that ARE identical. Then the ethical artist/photographer should be labeling them as such (injet, giclee or whatever), and let the buyer sort out where the 'art' lies, ....or doesn't.

 

[removed account4]

kevin

i can understand selling 1/1 images, ( some of mine are like that )
but why on your blog/website/gallery
are also selling "reproductions"
(d** c-41 prints from a file) ...
i thought reproductions and editions are the deathnail ?

i have read several different threads ( like this one ) and
on your website ... where you swear against multiple
images of the same print, suggesting people who do this are not artists,
and they are doing a dis- service to photography cheapening it
and keeping it a bastard art form ...

but on your site you are doing just that. ...
is it because you don't claim they are photographs,
but reproductions ?? i don't really see a difference ...

just wondering ...

 

[dim]

I agree with Ian. Self-expression, art, and buying-selling of them are totally different things.

Everyone that creates i.e. a photo, or a painting express himself (even by imitating, or thinking what a viewer would like). He/She maybe is a pro or not. But actually both of them do the same thing. Express them selfs.

So:
Can Self-expression be art?
Everything that is sold as art is really art?


The above questions in my opinion have to do with the fundamental questions: "What is art?" and "Who decides what is art?"

These questions have different answers from an artist, a gallerist, a critic, a viewer. (What they currently do, What it sells, What they have studied to recognize, What they understand)

What is Art for me is decided by only one, but crucial, factor. Time. If a self expression stands on time then i believe you can call it "Art". And then we can call the creator "Artist".

Nowadays everyone that makes a living from selling a photo, a paint, is self called artist. Bresson and many others worth the title, never accepted the tag "artist". He thought himself a "Surrealist". But Capa told him that like that he couldn't survive, just by shelling surrealism. "Just say you are a photojournalist".

But now things are different. Photojournalists are common, artists are not (and payed better).

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Define good living? To me $50-60K a year is a GOOD living and it is very ascertainable. If you sell 5 photographs a week for $200 each on your own, not a gallery, that is $1000 a week, times that by 52 weeks in a year and you are at $52K.

5x52=260

260 quality photographs a year? Are you sure you're taking the best photographs you can do, or are you just taking photographs of things that you know will look nice as photographs? Are you being the best you can be, or are you producing negatives to keep the numbers up? How many other artists do you know who produce 260 sellable works of art a year?

Murray

 

[Chuck_P]

"Art is what the artist creates". I put that in quotes because I know it has been said by somebody but I don't know who.

All this talk of single editions for photographers, I think, is relative. I mean I consider the single edition in photographic art to be the creation of the negative. When the shutter is snapped and the film developed that is a singular artful thing in photograohy and most likely not ever to be re-created in the same artful way, IMHO. But its not finished so now it has to be interpreted and that may never be a singular artful thing. That can be a multitude of things even for the photographer who created the negative. Just another 2 cents in an already overflowing collection bucket.

Chuck