Too bad Jackson Pollack is no longer with us. He could repaint his pictures, made with cheap house paint, with Winsor & Newton.
It is not all that unusual to encounter artists who, when they were starting, used inexpensive materials and relatively poor techniques, and as a result created work that deteriorates quickly.
It is a common enough story: the starving artist who labours for years, scraping together whatever they could afford to make their art, and making compromises along the way that result in art that is less permanent than it might be.
I'm of the larger world, I've done my time and learned my craft. I never heard of Cindy Sherman until yesterday. Might it be I'm younger than many members here and her work is unknown to my generation? It's most definitely irrelevant to me, I mean I can learn lessons in it, not in photography but in marketing.
I had friends who studied in Yale or London so I know. When they want to show work they always ask them before "What you want to say or accomplish with your work?"
Absurd.
Maybe because the larger world hasn't been told what's good and the classics are classics for a reason.
To be clear, my remark about 'classic' referred to technique, in which I meant analog photography, mostly. I associated a preference for techniques in that domain with a more conservative taste in photography. That's a tricky generalization, I admit, so criticism along these lines would be fair.
However, the background of my remark is that I see that at least some people, also on this forum, voice their preference for more classic works (now I do refer to the actual photography) in such a way as to dismiss work they don't like. I find it painful whenever that happens, because I don't see any reason to dismiss things you don't like just because you don't like (or don't understand) them. In this case, it's Sherman's work - which, for the record, I'm familiar with in general terms, but have no very strong opinion on.
I think all of us are totally fine with the fact that we all prefer different things. Wouldn't it be nice if we then just kept our opinions limited to just that - our opinions? What's the need to discredit someone's work by arguing it's only about marketing, it's meaningless, it's bad photography etc? To me, such things say nothing about the work or its maker, but a lot about the person voicing the criticism.
That is an entirely appropriate question to ask a student of photography.I had friends who studied in Yale or London so I know. When they want to show work they always ask them before "What you want to say or accomplish with your work?"
That is an entirely appropriate question to ask a student of photography.
And... Yale? Their MFA admits ten students a year. Ten. A small, boutique program. (And a good one, for what they teach, but hardly indicative of the educational experiences of photographic students beyond, or the photo world in general.)
Thanks, much appreciated. Passion is one of those things that makes us human. That's gotta be worth something!
To be clear, my remark about 'classic' referred to technique, in which I meant analog photography, mostly. I associated a preference for techniques in that domain with a more conservative taste in photography. That's a tricky generalization, I admit, so criticism along these lines would be fair.
However, the background of my remark is that I see that at least some people, also on this forum, voice their preference for more classic works (now I do refer to the actual photography) in such a way as to dismiss work they don't like. I find it painful whenever that happens, because I don't see any reason to dismiss things you don't like just because you don't like (or don't understand) them. In this case, it's Sherman's work - which, for the record, I'm familiar with in general terms, but have no very strong opinion on.
I think all of us are totally fine with the fact that we all prefer different things. Wouldn't it be nice if we then just kept our opinions limited to just that - our opinions? What's the need to discredit someone's work by arguing it's only about marketing, it's meaningless, it's bad photography etc? To me, such things say nothing about the work or its maker, but a lot about the person voicing the criticism.
Having said that, I don't try to hide my disdain for "performance" photography, whether Sherman or Crewdsen. It's not the genre that bothers me, but how the magicians hand just shows too much, especially in the latter example.
Oxoo ... nice try twisting my words completely beyond recognition. That's why I earlier implied, why even bother answering a simple-minded question. It's all about perceptual nuances, skilled or otherwise, not about what this or that groupie school one belongs too.
Having said that, I don't try to hide my disdain for "performance" photography, whether Sherman or Crewdsen. It's not the genre that bothers me, but how the magicians hand just shows too much, especially in the latter example.
These posts are just little intermittent breaks between various involved chores and projects. What's your justification? I really don't care all that much about it. It's just the topic of the day, perhaps worth stirring the pot, perhaps not. One person's sacred cow is potentially another person's hamburger. That's just the way it works.
Moderator note: I agree with @Don_ih here.You people need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb....
Moderator note: I agree with @Don_ih here.
Guys - some more peace, love and understanding, please. Thanks, and please carry on - in the friendly spirit that stems from the knowledge we're all playing on the same team here.
@koraks since you are Dutch I have to mention to you a Dutch photographer I discovered who I find really good: Kees Scherer
He encompasses all I admire in photography
P.S. Sorry for the off topic but it helps also to understand my personal preferences
P.S. Also Dutch-Hungarian Éva Besnyő and Ata Kando (former wife of Van Der Elsken) same
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?