Really?

So where is the line to be drawn between Geddes and oh say Rolf Horne? Bearing in mind he has ridden the success of another photographer who has found a pretty good formula for success.

I'm not familiar with Rolf Horne's work. I'll have to look him up and see. In the meantime, does his work meet the "art" standard I described? Success in itself is not a standard of measurement of someone's artistic integrity or lack thereof. What we're debating here is ultimately a thoroughly subjective standard of evaluation. Some individuals' work will readily fall into one category or the other, to general consensus. Other work may cross lines from time to time. This is the nature of art, after all. Many artists who make a living from their artwork have done work to pay the bills that is not necessarily their best or most representative work. Few manage to keep both feet on the same side of the line - but then, a Caravaggio or a Reubens or a Mapplethorpe only comes along once a generation. Everyone else, has to walk that line.

I'm not sure that something that is decorative, or entertaining, isn't authentic.

I will agree, however, that it needs to be more to be ART.

(note capitals)

To look to a musical analogy, I would suggest that much of Fats Waller's music is art (note lack of capitals) even if it was absolutely entertaining, and quite decorative too.

Anne Geddes and William Wegman only bother me, if they are held up as being more than they are. They take good pictures, which bring rise to a smile. I'm not going to put them on my wall, but I'm more than happy to receive a greeting card with one of their pictures.

If their pictures are on a calendar behind the counter while I wait in line to buy my car insurance, I'll enjoy them.

They have value, just a different sort of value than "a Carpaggio, or a Reubens or a Mapplethorpe".

I expect that if I had a greater compulsion to be the next Mapplethorpe, I'd be more irritated by Geddes' or Wegman's work. Flying Camera (Scott?) has more of a legitimate claim to that sort of aspiration (given what I have seen of his work) so I understand the strength of his reaction. It is just not my reaction.

My $0.02 (CDN) worth.

Matt

Is there anyone finer in the state of Carolina? If you know her, show her to me!

<To look to a musical analogy, I would suggest that much of Fats Waller's music is art (note lack of capitals) even if it was absolutely entertaining, and quite decorative too.

Anne Geddes and William Wegman only bother me, if they are held up as being more than they are. <

A lot of sense has been made here I think. I don't know the work of Geddes and Wegman, never heard of them -- one can become quite isolated up here in the rarefied Small White North of Finland. I think Flying Camera's dislike of their pictures is legitimate, if unfair. One must appreciate that the vast majority of people have no real interest in art -- they just enjoy looking at nice pictures every once in a while. This doesn't make them less intelligent than people who are interested in art. As to what art is, Lord, it's an endlessly fascinating subject but it's different for every interested person.
As to sell-outs, well, there are some famous examples worth remembering and celebrating. Let's remember Dali. He was a late-comer to the Surrealist group led by Andre Breton in Paris, but he took it by storm with his madcap panache and enormous talent. For a while in my teens, I was enamoured of many of his most famous paintings -- the elephants on stilted legs, the drooping pocket-watches, the nightmarish landscapes with beans. Dali turned Surrealism into a smash-hit, but he was a chancer and user. There was a famous falling-out with Breton, who took to calling Dali "Mr. Moneybags" because he used the movement (which it really was) to get rich. Dali was excommunicated, but by then he couldn't care less. He was already "out-sourcing" printing of his work and signing stacks of paper that were brought to him without even looking at them. His painting, ever technically proficient, became the very definition of soul-less flash. He retreated to his castle to live under the lash of his hideous wife. Dali is one of the greatest examples of wasted talent. I suppose he knew this, but didn't care.

copake_ham said:

Huh?

I thought we were talking about jordanstarr? :confused:

Click to expand...

I thought we were addressing the topic. I see no point talking about posters as that is the weakest form of argument: attacking the messenger.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I'm not familiar with Rolf Horne's work. I'll have to look him up and see. In the meantime, does his work meet the "art" standard I described? Success in itself is not a standard of measurement of someone's artistic integrity or lack thereof. ..

Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at. I think. So it must have depth of intellectual engagement to be 'authentic'? Can you actually explain the superiority of intellectual engagement of say this



over this



?

It's not a leading question.




I don't think you need to convince many that the degree of commercial success does not define the art. Also - a failure for photography to succeed commercially does not make it art, incidentally.

Personally I've never given a lot of thought to Geddes work. But a few months ago the hands in the above image assisted with my own two children. Knowing through my experience the work that those hands achieve on a daily basis, and the access Geddes has been given to her subjects changed my opinion of where Geddes came from in her photography. If we take commercial success out of the equation, what is the difference between the two photographers here, really?

Although Brassai was not an absolute authority on the subject of art, I do like one of his comments about it - [that] the purpose of art is to raise people to a higher level of awareness than they would otherwise attain on their own. Geddes certainly achieves that, no? This perhaps lends itself to (my assumption of) your assertion of art requiring some degree of intellectual engagement.

Perhaps aesthetics and all our personal conditioning that go with our appreciation of it has more influence than we care to admit. I must say I'd pick any Mapplethorpe flower over almost any Geddes anything to look at on a daily basis. But I'd take over any Mapplethorpe homoerotica.

Technique. Do you really want to compare degree of difficulty to achieve the result between those to artists? The original silver gelatins of Geddes are very good.

She used cute to the extreme for her notoriety, Mapplethorpe used shock value. What's the difference?

Andy K said:

I thought we were addressing the topic. I see no point talking about posters as that is the weakest form of argument: attacking the messenger.

Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree. Wake me up when 'discussion' threads on apug remain concerned with issues and are not about throwing rotten tomatoes.

As for 'authenticity' - I do not see that as related to commercial or non-commercial work. If it's about anything, lack of authenticity must be about putting your work forward as something it is not.

I know that people are very critical of Anne Geddes' work here on APUG (in general), although she's not someone I was aware of before reading about her here (either my ignorance or she's less known in the U.K.).

People will pay for what moves them - if that's 'cute' then so be it - but from what little I've seen her work does not compare with those painted pictures of little children with huge eyes, and more often a tear rolling down a cheek I remember seeing in Woolworth's as a child - that WAS kitsch.

I can see it's annoying if you are engaged with something you see as 'deeper' which does not achieve the same - or even near similar - recognition. But hasn't this always been so?

My uncle was a commercial artist who made a living from painting landscapes and occasional graphic art commissions (some of designs were very successful, and were very well-known). His landscapes sold well, but he also felt they were the best he could do. Should I think any less of him for his fairly small scale, but lifelong success?

I have one of his paintings on my wall. It is not great 'art' (or maybe it is? What is 'great art'?). But it gives me great pleasure each time I look at it.

John McCallum said:

I see what you're getting at. I think. So it must have depth of intellectual engagement to be 'authentic'? Can you actually explain the superiority of intellectual engagement of say this

over this

?

It's not a leading question.




I don't think you need to convince many that the degree of commercial success does not define the art. Also - a failure for photography to succeed commercially does not make it art, incidentally.

Personally I've never given a lot of thought to Geddes work. But a few months ago the hands in the above image assisted with my own two children. Knowing through my experience the work that those hands achieve on a daily basis, and the access Geddes has been given to her subjects changed my opinion of where Geddes came from in her photography. If we take commercial success out of the equation, what is the difference between the two photographers here, really?

Although Brassai was not an absolute authority on the subject of art, I do like one of his comments about it - [that] the purpose of art is to raise people to a higher level of awareness than they would otherwise attain on their own. Geddes certainly achieves that, no? This perhaps lends itself to (my assumption of) your assertion of art requiring some degree of intellectual engagement.

Perhaps aesthetics and all our personal conditioning that go with our appreciation of it has more influence than we care to admit. I must say I'd pick any Mapplethorpe flower over almost any Geddes anything to look at on a daily basis. But I'd take

over any Mapplethorpe homoerotica.

Technique. Do you really want to compare degree of difficulty to achieve the result between those to artists? The original silver gelatins of Geddes are very good.

She used cute to the extreme for her notoriety, Mapplethorpe used shock value. What's the difference?

Click to expand...

Actually, the second image (a very atypical Anne Geddes) is more interesting to me, because there IS a depth of emotional engagement there that does not devolve to cutesiness. Her color work of healthy babies dressed up in peapods and flower costumes doesn't have any depth.

The difference between the Mapplethorpe image you posted and the Anne Geddes image is one of formality of construction. The Mapplethorpe image is highly intellectually engaged, but is so formally cold that it leaves me emotionally un-engaged. If I didn't know better, I would think that THAT image you chose was 80's poster art. Very "Miami Vice" Deco-revival. Very commercial, frankly. Mapplethorpe's male nudes (and female nudes...yes, he did do some female nudes) don't leave me cold, however, because they have a relatable element to them (the human figure) in addition to their formality. I know they're not your cup of tea, but there is an outstanding book on his work relating it to 17th and 18th century engravings. It is worth checking it out at your local library if they have a copy. In that sense, his nudes resonate for me on multiple levels because they have a very contemporary presence and an art-historical referent, a formality and an organic quality as well. I understand Mapplethorpe's sadomasochistic images, and I appreciate them on an intellectual level, but like yourself, I wouldn't have one hanging on my dining room wall. I like and respect them precisely because they challenge me - they make me ask questions of myself when viewing them.

catem said:

Wholeheartedly agree. Wake me up when 'discussion' threads on apug remain concerned with issues and are not about throwing rotten tomatoes.

Click to expand...

Cate, that would be classed as a coma! Strictly Ripvanwinkel territory! :rolleyes:

Re: Wegman...ever seen a "monkeyshines" calendar. That's my view of Wegman.

Andy K said:

I thought we were addressing the topic. I see no point talking about posters as that is the weakest form of argument: attacking the messenger.

Click to expand...

Andy,

The "messenger" opened the issue of "authenticity" with quite bold, if rash, opinions. One who makes such opinionated statements is not a "messenger" - and, yes, his/her opinions become a "topic".

How are you doing, BTW. I see you're posting more again - so it seems you're on the mend.

catem said:

People will pay for what moves them - if that's 'cute' then so be it - but from what little I've seen her work does not compare with those painted pictures of little children with huge eyes, and more often a tear rolling down a cheek I remember seeing in Woolworth's as a child - that WAS kitsch.

I can see it's annoying if you are engaged with something you see as 'deeper' which does not achieve the same - or even near similar - recognition. But hasn't this always been so?

....

Click to expand...

Perhaps the Depth is in the eye of the beholder. At least it is heavily influenced by the interests of the viewer.

When starting out Mapplethorpe photographed his friends, other struggling artists and pornographic film stars to get the subjects he wanted. Through that exercise he found an interest in pursuing what he perceived as beautiful subjects, and started formalising his images further. Then he added tension and emotionally charged messages. This isn't an uncommon path for a seriously maturing artist. The reason he is famous is his ability to influence his contemporaries, and invoke reaction in his audiences and critics (positive and negative - it's all publicity).

Geddes started out photographing in the neonatal intensive care unit of a local hospital to get the subjects she wanted. Pretty tough stuff actually. Since then she has used other methods of gaining attention, esp the publishing facilities. But it only sells because it invokes emotional response in its' viewer, just as Mapplethorpe could do. And it is has endured.

But since the commercial success or otherwise doesn't have a bearing on the artistic integrity, it doesn't matter, does it(?)

My question is; what makes the former more 'authentic' or I guess pure than the kitsch comparible - if it is. And is one artist more important than the other, really?

Maybe there is less difference actually in the works and more between the audiences viewing it.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Actually, the second image (a very atypical Anne Geddes) is more interesting to me, because there IS a depth of emotional engagement there that does not devolve to cutesiness. Her color work of healthy babies dressed up in peapods and flower costumes doesn't have any depth...

Click to expand...

Actually around here where she lived and worked it is quite typical, along with this, Dead Link Removed, or Dead Link Removed.

John McCallum said:

The reason he is famous is his ability to influence his contemporaries, and invoke reaction in his audiences and critics (positive and negative - it's all publicity).

Click to expand...

His relationship with Sam Wagstaff was apparently no small factor as well. What Wagstaff collected lent an imprimatur of significance and 'worth' to the work of the chosen photograhers. Without taking anything away from Mapplethorpe, that kind of support gave an enormous boost to what might have been a lesser career. Luck, it seems, also favors the prepared artist!

jovo said:

Luck, it seems, also favors the prepared artist!

Click to expand...

That, and not keeping your work 'in a drawer'! - which was in fact the point of the OP as I take it, rather than commercial considerations specifically, though the discussion went on to that (But we had a thread recently on why people do or don't choose to share work).

I don't like kitsch. But I do rather like those pictures of babies posted by John McCallum, (though the one with the three 'heads' is a bit odd, apart from anything else) - so maybe I'm a sentimentalist too, or in certain respects (that are therefore O.K.?, because they're 'my' responses?). I think I agree that the act of manipulating an emotional response that may border on sentimentality is not fundamentally different to manipulating another sort of response. But we value the responses differently, and there are sometimes - can be - good reasons for that.

There's something about judging the responses of the 'sentimentalists' that I find sympathy with, but I also fear there is an amount of artistic snobbery involved aswell - on my own part as much as anyone else's.

this discussion has drifted quite a distance from the original post ...

just the same i find it to be interesting that
if you find a "niche" in photography, art, business or .. and you
are successful enough that they want to commission you
to make something for them, or buy something you have already done,
or they want you to work for them &C

you are now considered a "sell out" ( or"sellout" or "sell-out" )

does this mean if you have some success at anything,
you no longer have a soul and are just a poser...

just wonderin'

catem said:

...I think I agree that the act of manipulating an emotional response that may border on sentimentality is not fundamentally different to manipulating another sort of response. But we value the responses differently, and there are sometimes - can be - good reasons for that.

There's something about judging the responses of the 'sentimentalists' that I find sympathy with, but I also fear there is an amount of artistic snobbery involved aswell - on my own part as much as anyone else's.

Click to expand...

What are the reasons? Could they be shaped by your cultural environment.
If the value we place on such art has in fact nothing to do with tangible aspects of the work itself, it might be useful to be aware of what.

John McCallum said:

What are the reasons? Could they be shaped by your cultural environment.
If the value we place on such art has in fact nothing to do with tangible aspects of the work itself, it might be useful to be aware of what.

Click to expand...

Our values and responses are, most definitely, shaped by our cultural environment.

I wouldn't say the value we place on such art has nothing to do with tangible aspects of the work itself - how can that be separated?

I think, speaking personally, what I am most wary of, or judgmental of, in Geddes' work above, is a sense of cliché. For example, I'm unsure about the contrast of the white skin and the black - I think the message is a little obvious. And yet is it any different from what Mapplethorpe did? Maybe they both courted cliché and just managed to escape it. Anyway I like pictures of skin, I like pictures of very new babies. I like these pictures, even though there is something that stops me rating them as highly as some others. But they are pleasant enough, and even beautiful, and evoke quite basic feelings of wonder at new life and the relationship of vulnerability and strength (if you're not too much of an old cynic like I am also, and I don't listen too much to that little voice talking in my ear!).

Either way, I've nothing against her for doing what she does, and for being so successful.