Kill a Photo Myth for 2008

[Ray Heath]

g'day Michel

i don't know for sure about artists in other fields but it seems from my experience that photographers are too obsessed with technique, materials and equipment

on this site there is very little, if any, talk on art and aesthetics but lots of chats on stand developing, Leica is the best, what is the greatest lens lens ever made, blah, blah, infinite blah

Ray

 

[Alden]

Ole;

IDK, but most older paintings are of generally good quality. Today's paintings and art are speckled with lots of trash, so my generalization was just that.

PE

Not at all. There's an abundance of people who practice careful old glazing techniques, just like there are pl/pt photographers. Its just that most of the attention goes to innovators of content. As it should be.

 

[Alden]

g'day Michel

i don't know for sure about artists in other fields but it seems from my experience that photographers are too obsessed with technique, materials and equipment

on this site there is very little, if any, talk on art and aesthetics but lots of chats on stand developing, Leica is the best, what is the greatest lens lens ever made, blah, blah, infinite blah

Ray

Not alot of photographers put their thoughts or feelings into words very well. That's one reason why they're...
Even the comments in the gallery are pretty limited, and I'd guess a majority find art talk to be kinda b.s. as well.

But anyway, there is an aesthetic forum here, and I like to jabber about such stuff. Start it up. Meanwhile I think I'll go fondle my Rollei.

 

[bdial]

Ray, Alden; Well said!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not at all. There's an abundance of people who practice careful old glazing techniques, just like there are pl/pt photographers. Its just that most of the attention goes to innovators of content. As it should be.

I guess it was because I grew up in the same town with Andy Warhol and went to the same High School. Maybe that ugly mill town influenced us both in different ways. I certainly don't care for Warhol's art. I've been reading and looking at art exhibits and am distressed by what some consider art such as a chair and light in an empty room with one lightbulb and a switch. Or things that are too disgusting to mention used to 'paint' on canvas. And, these people are given grants by governments. These people, btw, are called innovators of content.

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree with that. It's a bit out necessity for me not to discuss the artful aspect of things because I don't know much about it. I never studied art, neither did I read much about it. I just completely feel my way with photography, so if I was to discuss anything but technique, film, developers, etc it would have to get emotional. And I don't think anybody is going to appreciate that... and I wouldn't be prepared to share it either.
I have, like Alden, been using a Rolleiflex for most of my photography years as my main camera. I love it to death, it's like an extension of my arm. It does what I tell it to do and seems to love it. I received, as a gift, a Hasselblad SLR last November, and I appreciate working with it too, but I can't say that my photographs are any better.

- Thomas

Ray, Alden; Well said!

 

[Alden]

I guess it was because I grew up in the same town with Andy Warhol and went to the same High School. Maybe that ugly mill town influenced us both in different ways. I certainly don't care for Warhol's art. I've been reading and looking at art exhibits and am distressed by what some consider art such as a chair and light in an empty room with one lightbulb and a switch. Or things that are too disgusting to mention used to 'paint' on canvas. And, these people are given grants by governments. These people, btw, are called innovators of content.

PE

Exactly, and it's a gruesome job plumbing the depths of the human mind. If we instilled a beauty only clause art would have ceased to exist hundreds of years ago. But look, I don't like Andy's or Duchamps's influence or 90% of the whole lot of it myself. You focus on what you dig. There's room. Don't get pissed at what gets the big bucks. It'll just wear you down. Read Charlotte Cotton's Photography As Contemporary Art, if you really want to freak on what passes for "innovative" .

 

[Photo Engineer]

Go here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) to see a very nice photograph. It has mood and works for me, but then look at the 'art' on the walls. The three artworks are what I mean. The question is what do they mean.

PE

 

[Chuck_P]

g'day Michel

i don't know for sure about artists in other fields but it seems from my experience that photographers are too obsessed with technique, materials and equipment

on this site there is very little, if any, talk on art and aesthetics but lots of chats on stand developing, Leica is the best, what is the greatest lens lens ever made, blah, blah, infinite blah

Ray

I have no myths to break down, but my thoughts on the art part of this discussion:

IMO, there is a degree of "craft" in photography that requires a level of competancy to produce good aesthetic works. So, talk of technique, equipment, and materials speaks more to the "craft" side of things and is a necessity, perhaps an annoying one at times, but nonetheless, part of it. Coinciding with that is the skills of the photographer and his own sense how art can be produced with his knowledge of the craft.

I don't concern myself with art history or anything like that so forgive my ignorance, but IMHO, I don't believe there is as much a dependecy on "craft" in painting or drawing. It is, I believe, a innate talent possessed by the individual that is present regardless of all other considerations.

An individual like that can take what is in his mind and put it straight onto the canvas. Whereas a photographer must route what is in the mind through many other considerations of equipment and through knowledge of his materials "before" it can be a successful print (to him or her that is).

JMO
Chuck

 

[Alden]

Go here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) to see a very nice photograph. It has mood and works for me, but then look at the 'art' on the walls. The three artworks are what I mean. The question is what do they mean.

PE

If you really want to know you have study the field like anything other field. For some strange reason people assume that art is just a matter of like, dislike. Maybe it's the vast availability of it, I don't know, but you won't enjoy or understand, or be capable of criticism until you learn a few ropes. It has a history that establishes it's reasoning, but art is tricky territory, because it doesn't have set rules, or laws of nature to fall back on for objective proofs. It is subjectivity incarnate. And as for what something "means", it's meaning has a context, even a time limit. Hell sometimes things don't have to mean anything, other than, do they enliven. Are they illuminating in a non-literal way. What did Monet's Haystack "mean"? Anyway, take the dismissal route if you prefer. Or do some research and get on to another level.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Alden;

I have studied the masterpieces of art of Japan, Russia, Egypt and even the art of the Maya. In fact, I have texts and photo essays on much of this work including the masterful book on the art treasures of Tutankhamen. I have studied the photographic art of many of the masters. I was a "George Eastman House Associate" for many years and got their yearly photo essay books which I avidly read and appreciated. I have also viewed many masterpieces by the artists of the 1500s forward. I know what I like, and I don't like wasting time either reading about or viewing something that is visually distasteful. I have done research and I am on another level. It is just not the one you are on apparently. You are welcome to your level and I'm happy with mine. I mean no offence, but merely remind you that one can have studied art and still not be appreciative of something that another person likes.

In the words of a famous person "I know what I like and that ain't it!"

PE

 

[John Koehrer]

PE, this must be this article:
http://photo.net/learn/color_myths.html

You are dispensed from the assignment if you wish, and can spend the year drawing in your corner of the class...

About the only thing I can draw is flies.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Go here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) to see a very nice photograph. It has mood and works for me, but then look at the 'art' on the walls. The three artworks are what I mean. The question is what do they mean.

PE

Ron, with all due respect, I think there is quite a difference between the sort of épater-le-bourgeois type of 60's schtick (feces on a canvas, menstrual performances, and other bodily excesses) that you criticized earlier and the works you are showing here.

The center piece is interesting, the two on the side a bit less, but overall they are pretty pedestrian. So what? Lots of people make average, so-so art that sells once or twice and then gets crated with the Lost Ark in a Brooklyn warehouse.

Few people anymore make a lot of money selling canned shit. The buyers have become a little more educated and while I keep seeing all sorts of roll-my-eyes stuff, I am not depressed at modern art at all. Time will weed out the bad, and what we may remember from the 20th century may not even be what was most impressive or successful then.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michel;

I agree with you to an extent. At one time, pedestrian did not get full wall display in a room in a gallery as those two got. I guess I'm just getting a bit of ennui over pedestrian art. I feel it is getting too prevalent and still too much hype. The other stuff that is dying out, as you point out, should never had a life to start with. That is another part of the point I am trying to make.

PE

 

[Alden]

Alden;

I have studied the masterpieces of art of Japan, Russia, Egypt and even the art of the Maya. In fact, I have texts and photo essays on much of this work including the masterful book on the art treasures of Tutankhamen. I have studied the photographic art of many of the masters. I was a "George Eastman House Associate" for many years and got their yearly photo essay books which I avidly read and appreciated. I have also viewed many masterpieces by the artists of the 1500s forward. I know what I like, and I don't like wasting time either reading about or viewing something that is visually distasteful. I have done research and I am on another level. It is just not the one you are on apparently. You are welcome to your level and I'm happy with mine. I mean no offence, but merely remind you that one can have studied art and still not be appreciative of something that another person likes.

In the words of a famous person "I know what I like and that ain't it!"

PE

Fine. Historical art is your taste. It is the best that has survived. Contemporary works have yet to pan out. I don't encourage liking anything. Especially things that offend you. And I don't mean to imply that what you like determines a level. You seem to shut out modern works. So be it. I think there's great things to be found. It just takes some sifting, and shifting to open the mind. And for pete's sake don't take "open the mind" personal. That's merely the process of making room for the new. It ain't always easy.
And pleasure is not the only reward. I don't enjoy reading Faulkner or Joyce, but it's worth it. I don't "like" alot of art, but I like understanding what motivates people. Anyway, sorry to drag this out.

 

[removed account4]

not sure what myth i can bust, but this thread is kind of interesting all the same ...

i studied art, and architecture and photography, and art history and all that "stuff"
and all i have to say on the subject of is it art or not, is "whatever" ....

as alden says "You focus on what you dig. There's room. Don't get pissed at what gets the big bucks. It'll just wear you down. "

amen to that !

thanks alden

john

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel;

I agree with you to an extent. At one time, pedestrian did not get full wall display in a room in a gallery as those two got.

I guess I'm just getting a bit of ennui over pedestrian art. I feel it is getting too prevalent and still too much hype. The other stuff that is dying out, as you point out, should never had a life to start with. That is another part of the point I am trying to make.

Well, if you look at the absolute bores that were produced during the 17th and the 18th century in painting, it's a miracle no exasperated curator did not just burned them all on a bonfire during a bout of drinking!

As to the in-your-face stuff, should it have been never made? Yes and no. On the one hand, some of it is ridiculous, and the fact that we are forgetting who made what when is perhaps a sign. But on the other hand, this is nothing but the continuity of the 19th century rejection of the merchant class. Gérard de Nerval walked on the street of Paris with a lobster in leash because it would offend the "good sensibilities." Courbet painted "L'origine du monde" not just to make a tautological point, but also to make a scandal, and so did Manet with "Olympia."

"Olympia" is on every calendar in the world nowadays! Many of us have no idea of the furor it created, the disgust it engendered. It was an offence perhaps even worse than all the silly Fluxus performance art of the sixties! Yet it's absolutely banal now, dead in the museum, and sterilized in calendars. We are not shocked by it anymore perhaps because we are post-Manet people. The people painting feces on the canvas were just trying to reproduce the same furor. Up to a certain point they succeeded, but that stuff can only be done once.

So I agree with you against the silly art mostly insofar as it fails to make some kind of point. But I have also seen a fantastic, beautiful, meaningful sculpture made by Marc Quinn using the placenta and umbilical cord of his newborn baby.

The problem with good/bad art is that it is also an ethical decision. We cannot avoid choosing certain works as good, and other ones as bad, and we must do so. But we cannot surmise that somewhere there is a golden standard for quality that is just waiting to be discovered, and that will validate once and for all these choices. We do not have the luxury of outsourcing the responsibility of our aesthetic choices to an external standard, and must bear the price of error.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michel;

Thanks for a dose of 'reality'. BTW, My calender is all Norman Rockwell and I love it! A dose of Americana from when I was a child.

PE

 

[Alden]

Gérard de Nerval walked on the street of Paris with a lobster in leash because it would offend the "good sensibilities."


Now it would only offend PETA. I thought it was Baudelair that strutted the lobster. Probably not. You sound like you know your stuff. Thanks. Thanks to PE too. Good discussion. Sorry if I'm less than deft in my prose.

 

[Whiteymorange]

I have no myths to break down, but my thoughts on the art part of this discussion:

IMO, there is a degree of "craft" in photography that requires a level of competancy to produce good aesthetic works. So, talk of technique, equipment, and materials speaks more to the "craft" side of things and is a necessity, perhaps an annoying one at times, but nonetheless, part of it. Coinciding with that is the skills of the photographer and his own sense how art can be produced with his knowledge of the craft.

I don't concern myself with art history or anything like that so forgive my ignorance, but IMHO, I don't believe there is as much a dependecy on "craft" in painting or drawing. It is, I believe, a innate talent possessed by the individual that is present regardless of all other considerations.

An individual like that can take what is in his mind and put it straight onto the canvas. Whereas a photographer must route what is in the mind through many other considerations of equipment and through knowledge of his materials "before" it can be a successful print (to him or her that is).

JMO
Chuck

Not to put too fine a point on it but...

Perhaps you aren't aware of concerning yourself with art history. You can't, however, escape it. Mankind, I believe, leaves only two things behind itself in time: art and garbage. We choose to save the one, the other often lingers even longer. Sometimes, we confuse the two.

As for the ability of the (non-photographic) artist to "take what is in his mind and put it straight onto the canvas" ... I'm afraid I disagree here as well. I admit to being a bit biased, having taught painting for over 30 years, but the craft of painting is at least as technical and demanding as that of photography. The fact that some who call themselves artists never bother to learn it is no more telling than the fact that many "photographers," even before the days of digital images, simply pointed the camera and pushed the button. Some even got lucky and got a keeper or two!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Whitey;

BRAVO! KUDOS! Etc. Very well put.

PE

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You're most welcome, Ron, and I will mention that we've successfully demonstrated that people interested in photography can also have a discussion about art that does not involve only looking at technical details!

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Photographers? Obsessed with gear? Man, hang out with some guitarists. If they arent building their own, they're using an alternative process or fantasising over a collector's piece...Nikon F2 or a Fender Stratocaster, sir?

I think it's just a common thread with any artform, you learn to know the tools of the trade to do your job. The constant debate of what's best is a feature of the community, and helps keep us on our toes.

 

[Steve Smith]

Photographers? Obsessed with gear? Man, hang out with some guitarists.

Or be both!


Steve.

 

[Ian Tindale]

Like this?
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/iantindale/155144321/" title="Guitar synth modifications by Ian Tindale, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/155144321_ab1cc439bd_m.jpg" width="240" height="156" alt="Guitar synth modifications" /></a>