Taking a stand...

[CGW]

Do the images sell? Art without commerce is just a hobby, right?

 

[Q.G.]

Do the images sell? Art without commerce is just a hobby, right?

Nah... Despite the huge commerce surrounding art (as it does anything of value, right? ), art does not need commerce to be art.

 

[Vaughn]

Nah... Despite the huge commerce surrounding art (as it does anything of value, right? ), art does not need commerce to be art.

True, as far as I can tell.

 

[2F/2F]

I know Per's feeling of being in a group show in which you have put 40 hours into something, and some of your group members have put in 8, yet the stuff is tagged with similar prices. It is frustrating.

However, this is still focusing on process and not on the value of the stuff as conceptual and/or visual art. You need to get out of your own ego and just enjoy the show...or not participate in it.

If this frustration is truly unbearable, and not worth it, I would find yourself a better show, and/or elevate the value of your work and your prestige as an artist to a level at which you do not need to participate in a group show – in which the stage is all yours.

I stated it before, but I want to say it again; bad art and good art are made with any media. It is artists' work itself that should be judged as either good or bad – not the media used. If you want to make divisions based solely on media, you are shortchanging yourself and others, and stating that you really don't have anything to say with your art anyhow; it is just a technical display – nothing but the artifact resulting from a specific craft having been practiced; you have nothing to discuss or explore with it but the techniques used.

How about challenging yourself to truly explore the work of your fellow artists, finding people with whom you blend conceptually, then trying to arrange shows with only these people? The problem with this is that it is harder and more intellectual than saying, "I won't participate in group shows that feature digital work." It requires actual thought, judgment, and artistry, unlike the current technique employed to determine ones participation or lack thereof in a group show. What is being done is akin to racism, as opposed to individual judgment of a person.

 

[polyglot]

Like QG and 2F say - what matters is content and not process; digital is popular because it is easier on the time taken and it has a shorter learning curve than darkroom work, allowing people to make great art with much less time invested both in learning and in creating each print. Just because they didn't have to suffer for their art as much as you did does not diminish the quality of their final results, it just means that they chose a different medium, a different craft.

Digital photography is a craft in the same way that analogue photography is a craft. They're different ways of achieving the same thing, an item of visual art. It doesn't matter which craft you choose, the quality of the art depends only on the composition, emotion and other symbolic aspects that go into the final product - the art. The art doesn't get bonus points for being more difficult to execute physically, just as writing a novel with a pen instead of a typewriter doesn't make the novel any better - your readers care not that you slaved over parchment and used a gallon of ink, they care about plot and character.

Painters unversed in photography (as the OP seems to be in the output of good digital photographers) could equally assert that there are no masterpieces produced on film and that they will only associate with people who produce images with a brush and who spent days on a single image. That is their choice, but it is just as ill-informed.

While it's great that APUG exists and contains mountains of useful information for analogue photographers (that is why I am here), the continuous "I hate digital" bashing is seriously, seriously tiresome. Digital is a different craft and therefore should not be discussed on APUG at all - not in terms of technique and not in terms of "I hates it". I don't care if you don't get it, if you think it's inferior, if you think it's too easy, whatever. APUG is APUG not anti-DPUG. The "I hate digital" threads smell entirely too strongly to me of that politician's favourite trick of "othering", i.e. demarcating a specific group as being different from "us" and therefore bad; it works because someone tells the "us" that they are superior for some nebulous reason and, well, people do love to feel superior. Xenophobia is one of the most effective ways of uniting people for a common cause, but it has a cost - you end up with a bunch of xenophobes. Just because you didn't like digital photography, didn't get it, didn't understand it, felt that it failed you, whatever - we don't care; please don't try to take over APUG with a neo-luddite crowd who are united only by affirmation of their distaste for some other craft rather than their love for the craft that they actually practise.

Can we please have discussions of the finer points of the art of photography instead? I'm going to make an analogy here with another forum, dyxum. They're not analogue, but they don't spend all their time hating on other processes or (even though it's a brand-centric forum) any time hating on other brands; in fact it was a group of film users on dyxum that got me onto analogue. They spend a bunch of time talking about technology, specifications (they regularly get new products to play with of course, so there's a lot of careful testing and experimentation) and techniques of their craft, as well as the art that underlies it all.

APUG has "techniques of the craft" covered nicely but needs more of the art, more positivity, more learning, and less of the negativity, bitching and xenophobia.

 

[MaximusM3]

Like QG and 2F say - what matters is content and not process; digital is popular because it is easier on the time taken and it has a shorter learning curve than darkroom work, allowing people to make great art with much less time invested both in learning and in creating each print. Just because they didn't have to suffer for their art as much as you did does not diminish the quality of their final results, it just means that they chose a different medium, a different craft.

Digital photography is a craft in the same way that analogue photography is a craft. They're different ways of achieving the same thing, an item of visual art. It doesn't matter which craft you choose, the quality of the art depends only on the composition, emotion and other symbolic aspects that go into the final product - the art. The art doesn't get bonus points for being more difficult to execute physically, just as writing a novel with a pen instead of a typewriter doesn't make the novel any better - your readers care not that you slaved over parchment and used a gallon of ink, they care about plot and character.

Painters unversed in photography (as the OP seems to be in the output of good digital photographers) could equally assert that there are no masterpieces produced on film and that they will only associate with people who produce images with a brush and who spent days on a single image. That is their choice, but it is just as ill-informed.

While it's great that APUG exists and contains mountains of useful information for analogue photographers (that is why I am here), the continuous "I hate digital" bashing is seriously, seriously tiresome. Digital is a different craft and therefore should not be discussed on APUG at all - not in terms of technique and not in terms of "I hates it". I don't care if you don't get it, if you think it's inferior, if you think it's too easy, whatever. APUG is APUG not anti-DPUG. The "I hate digital" threads smell entirely too strongly to me of that politician's favourite trick of "othering", i.e. demarcating a specific group as being different from "us" and therefore bad; it works because someone tells the "us" that they are superior for some nebulous reason and, well, people do love to feel superior. Xenophobia is one of the most effective ways of uniting people for a common cause, but it has a cost - you end up with a bunch of xenophobes. Just because you didn't like digital photography, didn't get it, didn't understand it, felt that it failed you, whatever - we don't care; please don't try to take over APUG with a neo-luddite crowd who are united only by affirmation of their distaste for some other craft rather than their love for the craft that they actually practise.

Can we please have discussions of the finer points of the art of photography instead? I'm going to make an analogy here with another forum, dyxum. They're not analogue, but they don't spend all their time hating on other processes or (even though it's a brand-centric forum) any time hating on other brands; in fact it was a group of film users on dyxum that got me onto analogue. They spend a bunch of time talking about technology, specifications (they regularly get new products to play with of course, so there's a lot of careful testing and experimentation) and techniques of their craft, as well as the art that underlies it all.

APUG has "techniques of the craft" covered nicely but needs more of the art, more positivity, more learning, and less of the negativity, bitching and xenophobia.

Actually, I don't think this thread has been about "digital versus analog" or "I hate digital" at all, but maybe I missed it. If it was a mud-slinging fest, Jason would have locked it already, as he has stated.

 

[polyglot]

Actually, I don't think this thread has been about "digital versus analog" or "I hate digital" at all, but maybe I missed it. If it was a mud-slinging fest, Jason would have locked it already, as he has stated.

In terms of discussion that is true. But it is the fundamental underlying sentiment that started it all.

 

[CGW]

Nah... Despite the huge commerce surrounding art (as it does anything of value, right? ), art does not need commerce to be art.

The good folks at Sotheby's would have a laugh over that one! If you don't sell it, it's a just hobby, kids.

 

[lxdude]

The good folks at Sotheby's would have a laugh over that one! If you don't sell it, it's a just hobby, kids.

That's absurd.

The folks at Sotheby's can laugh all they want; they're not artists, they're merchants.

I've seen some amazing art done on concrete with spray cans. It's done by artists with something to say who have no way to sell it.

 

[keithwms]

Well anywaaay....

I see nothing with expressing pride in the analogue process and thinking aloud about how to promote it. Offhand, I don't see any anti-digital hatred in here, and if you go back... waaay back... you will note that I mentioned that some of Per's work is hybrid. Per's not a digital hater. I am certain that he didn't intend for it to come across that way.

As for me, my [novice] thoughts are quite different from Per's, although I respect his right to say what he wants, heaven knows he's earned that. As for me, I think we should embrace every possible opportunity to place an analogue print next to an inkjet print. Better yet: leave the glass off, leave the mats off, and let people feel the paper and sense the craftsmanship. if you want to keep analogue alive, you have to show people ... to teach people... what the value is. And as someone who's taught young people about the analogue process, I can tell you that it's still as cool and magical to them as it was to our great grandparents.

 

[clayne]

I can live with that analogy, yes.
So a great novel can only be written by a calligrapher. Turns into worthless drivel the moment the same words are recorded using MS Word...

Neither calligraphy nor Word will produce a great novel. And we want to read, produce even, a great novel.

Ah but you're missing something here that's quite intrinsic to the method, QG. Think hard on it. I'll give you a hint - it's related to committing to what one has already created - rather than relying on the ability to undo or instantly change ala digital.

The method *does* influence the results - and not necessarily in a minor way.

 

[CGW]

That's absurd.

The folks at Sotheby's can laugh all they want; they're not artists, they're merchants.

I've seen some amazing art done on concrete with spray cans. It's done by artists with something to say who have no way to sell it.

The good folks at Sotheby's, as well as collectors, curators and academics, all make that call, dude, not you. Banksy does OK for himself with spray cans, thanks to recognition from those "merchants." Even "outsider art" got to be "art" because someone whose taste matters deemed it so. It's worth what the art market says it's worth--now or later doesn't really matter. Kitsch is, however much you admire it, still kitsch.

 

[markbarendt]

Even "outsider art" got to be "art" because someone whose taste matters deemed it so. It's worth what the art market says it's worth--now or later doesn't really matter. Kitsch is, however much you admire it, still kitsch.

Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.

 

[sun of sand]

i just wanted to be the one who says 9 pages

 

[CGW]

Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.[/QUOTE

That's nice but you can't separate the Art from the Market. I'm guessing anyone who regularly sells work gets this. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgence, a hobby.

 

[sun of sand]

ok

 

[markbarendt]

Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.

That's nice but you can't separate the Art from the Market. I'm guessing anyone who regularly sells work gets this. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgence, a hobby.

Sure you can, people do it all the time.

Seems that you are inferring "amateurs can't make real art?"

That's a pretty arrogant assertion.

 

[sun of sand]

i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later

 

[Curt]

As an expert I don't know that much about art or business but early on I put a lot of work into a series of photographs that were going to be displayed in an exhibition of 50 outstanding photographs from 50 outstanding photographers. It was a submit photographs to be evaluated for exhibition and a write up event held at a gallery that was showing Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and others at the time, their work was very inexpensive at the time also. I was very happy to be chosen to be one of the exhibitors.

When I arrived for the Champaign opening the 50 had grown to 75 and the added prints were awful, poorly mounted and poorly framed. I needed a lot of drink to make it through the event. People would ask were mine were and I hardly had the enthusiasm to point them out. I know what it's like to be setup in such a situation that's gets out of control by the gallery owner. Since then I've been very selective about the exhibit process, I'd sooner pass than be screwed like the first time.

I don't have anything against the digital processes except when people insist that it's the only way to go, ignoring the past history of photography and art in general. I appreciate an image regardless of how it came to be, including some graffiti, wall art, sidewalk art, cave paintings, and recently the art I saw on the interior of a Pueblo in Mesa Verde National Park.

When the two merge, digital and hand made "traditional", "analog", "regular", "historical", "alternate", you name it photographs, there is a rub that is like a rope that strangles me. I'm a rigid purest when viewing photographic art, I don't mix drinks and I don't mix art, that's me, it's my opinion. That said I have traveled to Europe to see the master painters work and paintings and I appreciate art forms from easel paintings to the sculptors of Rodin and Henry Moore et al.

If a high quality series of art was on one wall with an information label stating what it was and a photographic series of what I call traditional photography was on another wall within view with a label I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as I was made aware ahead of time and actually saw the other art that was going to be displayed if I were the person showing traditional images.

 

[CGW]

i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later

Dunno. Seem to recall that what's usually regarded as art was bought and paid for by someone sometime. Why take offense at that?

 

[Curt]

i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later

I'mmmm not sure that it's true.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

Read the write up, she was more interested in her preserves than her art. Now days she is an artist and it didn't take 300 years. She had many hobbies but she is know for her art.

 

[jglass]

This has probably gone on long enough but it can't be complete without some oddball yap from me: to wit: both the image content and the process used to form it MATTER, to most artists. Andy Warhol and Jeff Kuntz made/make art in factories without touching it. Don't think for a moment that those automated or remote processes are not an integral part of what they are "saying" as artists, certainly in those cases, it's just as important as the look of the red steel balloon dog.

To a painter it matters that the paint was oil not watercolor or that it's paint not woodcut, etc etc. To most artists the process of creation channels the work in such an important way that it is inseparable from the work itself. For me this is certainly true.

That may be one of the problems with mass produced digital art: the severance of the link between process and form. In digital, in my experience and that of many others, the presence of unlimited possibilities is actually a bit of a problem, it may even be a limitation. See this from Brian Eno on working with "what is perhaps the most advanced recording console in the world." For Brian Eno, the chunk o' gear he uses makes a difference in what he makes. Period. For me too.

That said, I think Mr. Volquartz's original statement had more to do with preservation of film and analog processes, differentiation of markets and personal satisfaction, than with the nature of art itself. That quote from Gibson about no digital masterpieces threw a wrench in the works for sure and got the whole anti-digital stream going.

It is necessary to talk about the effect of digital on photography and on the process of making art. One prominent photographer I know said digital is like strip mining. Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for sure (whether Per Volquartz meant to open the can of worms or not), how art is made is integral to the work itself and affects (and effects) the outcome.

Peace, ya'll.

 

[CGW]

I'mmmm not sure that it's true.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

Read the write up, she was more interested in her preserves than her art. Now days she is an artist and it didn't take 300 years. She had many hobbies but she is know for her art.

She was the archetype of the outsider artist in N. America. The art sold better than the jams and jellies and that's what we know her for.

 

[JBrunner]

Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.[/QUOTE

That's nice but you can't separate the Art from the Market. I'm guessing anyone who regularly sells work gets this. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgence, a hobby.

I completely disagree, but only because you are trying to speak for others. Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that something has to have commercial value to be art then that is absolutely valid. When an original finite pattern with no utility gets sold, to you it's art. I happen to think my eight year old son's magic marker drawing of us sailing together is art, and guess what? Because I think so, to me it is. Here in Utah we have many magnificent petroglyphs and pictograms. Some of them are almost surreal. When they were pecked out about 2000 years ago, they were pecked out by artists making art because there are folks who regard them as such. Were the Iliad and Odyssey something less when Homer wrote them because they didn't go on sale for a couple of millennia? Poppycock.

Your perceptions about art are valid, just not universal or absolute. Art is personal.

It is a complete fantasy to define art beyond personal perceptions.

 

[markbarendt]

It is a complete fantasy to define art beyond personal perceptions.

Exactly.