What Makes it art, when it simply could be a snapshot?

tkamiya · Apr 22, 2011

I have an honest and simple question. As a non-art connoisseur, I see them as snap shots and bad ones at that. You said "they are earnestly done at a high technical level." Can you elaborate on this point?

I saw the photographs. To me, they are badly composed of uninteresting subjects, and not technically sophisticated. It didn't entail difficult lighting situations or anything. What's done at high technical level??

Thanks.

keithwms · Apr 22, 2011

Whether these constitute art is a debate not worth having, for two reasons: (1) nobody can really define art to the general satisfaction; and (2) just about any photograph can be considered art by someone... so what? What does that achieve? It's a label for the sake of labeling (and marketing?) and has no place in real critique. It's just about the lowest-common-denominator statement one can make about creative output.

A more appropriate question, with respect to these images, is: are they effective photographs? Do they make you think?

To me the images show a developing and wandering eye, searching for geometry and subject matter in an environment obviously devoid of the usual 'pretty pictures' that we'd expect. The outdated colour just further emphasizes that these were done many decades ago and lends some nostalgia.

Technical level? Nah, that's clearly not what is being demonstrated here; in fact I'd say it's just the opposite- rather a very casual and non-technical approach. Which is totally fine, in my book.

To my eye, these images look like auto-everything instamatic snapshots from the 70s. No built-in sense of timing nor aperture selection nor considered perspective.

I'm not saying that these things have to be present to constitute a good photograph, mind you. If somebody believes these are worth having on their wall then by all means they should pay for them and enjoy them.

hoffy · Apr 23, 2011

keithwms said:
...........................
A more appropriate question, with respect to these images, is: are they effective photographs? Do they make you think?
...........................

And that is the exact thing. Whether the Shore intended to dazzle me or not, they have become a talking point at least between my wife and myself. They have made me think. Maybe he has achieved his objective in relation to my opinion?

This has also got me thinking about the great street photographers. I have always been a fan of HCB, Freidlander, Winogrand, Myerwitz and the like (Sorry if I have spelled any of these wrong). Again, they seem to have an appeal that I cannot explain.

aluncrockford · Apr 23, 2011

If it helps put the work in context then the American photorealism artists might help, starting with Edward Hopper and working forward to Edward Ruscha and others including Chuck Close ,the use of the photograph to make artwork could be seen as a significant advance in the use of the photographic medium, the transfer of attitude from photography for reference to a modern fine art medium in its own right could be said to have been started by the work of amongst others Stephen Shore and later the Dusseldorf school, though mention must be made of the ability to produce larger prints which helped the acceptance of the media in to a gallery setting, obviously this is not to decry earlier photographic work ,but from the viewpoint of the world of fine art, photography up to that point could well be described as a niche market

markbarendt · Apr 23, 2011

keithwms said:
It's a label for the sake of labeling (and marketing?) and has no place in real critique. It's just about the lowest-common-denominator statement one can make about creative output.

I absolutely agree.

keithwms said:
A more appropriate question, with respect to these images, is: are they effective photographs? Do they make you think?

To me the images show a developing and wandering eye, searching for geometry and subject matter in an environment obviously devoid of the usual 'pretty pictures' that we'd expect.

I won't Even give him that much credit.

The area where these shots were taken is full of opportunities for great composition, geometric and beautiful, even even iconic to route 66 fans.

What's sad about these shots from Shore is that it looks to me like the only real effort he made was to take his instamatic with him when he got out of the car to stretch his legs during a gas stop.

Your following comment is spot on.

keithwms said:
Technical level? Nah, that's clearly not what is being demonstrated here; in fact I'd say it's just the opposite- rather a very casual and non-technical approach. Which is totally fine, in my book.

To my eye, these images look like auto-everything instamatic snapshots from the 70s. No built-in sense of timing nor aperture selection nor considered perspective.

I'm not saying that these things have to be present to constitute a good photograph, mind you. If somebody believes these are worth having on their wall then by all means they should pay for them and enjoy them.

This brings up a great point.

I was visiting my Dad years back and he had just moved into a place, he was nearing the end of the process of filling the walls.

Basically there was one spot left, the requirements; "x by y size and yellow".

He wasn't looking for something good, he just was buying a filler. Neither the quality of the content, nor the specific subject, were important.

Joe Lipka · Apr 23, 2011

Boy. What a slog to get to the end of this thread. My thoughts on this are very simple.

Do you have an MFA?

If you answer "yes,' then whatever you do is Art. (That's with a capital "A.")

If you answer "no," then it's a snapshot.

Kind of like what Maris said, only less eloquently.

Steve Smith · Apr 23, 2011

Joe Lipka said:
Do you have an MFA?

If you answer "yes,' then whatever you do is Art. (That's with a capital "A.")

If you answer "no," then it's a snapshot.

Unfortunately, some people think that's true.

Steve.

benjiboy · Apr 23, 2011

Many of the current self styled Photographic Artists may fool the uninitiated but they are in reality bunko artists.

CGW · Apr 23, 2011

benjiboy said:
Many of the current self styled Photographic Artists may fool the uninitiated but they are in reality bunko artists.

Examples, please? The art market doesn't run on sour grapes.

benjiboy · Apr 23, 2011

CGW said:
Examples, please? The art market doesn't run on sour grapes.

This one for a start http://www.jacksonfineart.com/private_artist.php?id=53&imageid=154 and Dead Link Removed my remarks aren't "sour grapes" on my part but a feeling of sorrow for these illusory artists.

CGW · Apr 23, 2011

benjiboy said:
This one for a start http://www.jacksonfineart.com/private_artist.php?id=53&imageid=154 and Dead Link Removed

Please...Who takes this kitsch seriously? What about the OP's examples?

artonpaper · Apr 23, 2011

CGW said:
Does it sell? Does it appreciate?

Art without commerce is just a hobby.

Or in this case, just a snapshot.

That's the awful truth.

I have to disagree with this statement. I understand where the writer is coming from, but it is overly cynical. Throughout history art has been created without it being commercial. Yes, if people are willing to pay for something it shows a level of appreciation in our culture at the present time. But the oldest art on walls of caves was not commercial art. It was most likely ceremonial. And Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting in his life. If you read his letters and his biography, painting was no hobby for that guy. It was his passion.

artonpaper · Apr 23, 2011

nhemann said:
"art in the eye of the beholder" - I think I'd rather say that its in the eye of the creator and up to the viewer to decide if he/she agrees.

This is a valid point, so perhaps art is a dialogue, between the person who created it, and each viewer (reader, listener, etc. ). And of course that makes sense since art is about communication.

markbarendt · Apr 23, 2011

CGW said:
Does it sell? Does it appreciate?

Art without commerce is just a hobby.

Or in this case, just a snapshot.

That's the awful truth.

That's just one perspective.

Kind of a narrow view though from my perspective.

Art for me is defined by it's emotional value, expressed or enjoyed. It is personal, not global, in definition.

Commerce in art exploits the enjoyment by wrapping it in the "Emperors New Clothes". It's monetary value is simply defined by how deep the myth permeates the community.

CGW · Apr 23, 2011

markbarendt said:
That's just one perspective.

Kind of a narrow view though from my perspective.

Art for me is defined by it's emotional value, expressed or enjoyed. It is personal, not global, in definition.

Commerce in art exploits the enjoyment by wrapping it in the "Emperors New Clothes". It's monetary value is simply defined by how deep the myth permeates the community.

It's the only view that matters and it's certainly not mine alone.

Following your logic, the term "art dealer" is an oxymoron.

Sour grapes, resentment, misunderstanding? That's what I'm seeing here.

markbarendt · Apr 23, 2011

CGW said:
It's the only view that matters and it's certainly not mine alone.

Following your logic, the term "art dealer" is an oxymoron.

Sour grapes, resentment, misunderstanding? That's what I'm seeing here.

No sour grapes, resentment, or misunderstanding involved.

Profit and hobby are not the only motives or reasons to create art.

Politics, religion, and love come to mind as basic and well documented reasons to create art.

Can't measure everything's value by the coin of the realm.

Heck the coin of the realm only has a value because we have collectively bought into the myth of it's value.

CGW · Apr 23, 2011

hoffy said:
I have been looking at a few images from Stephen Shore over the last few days. My wife was peaking over my shoulder this morning and comment "What makes these special? Aren't they just snapshots?" She was commenting on his shot US93, Kingman AZ - http://www.jacksonfineart.com/private_artist.php?id=53&imageid=154

I have to admit, that his did start my own questioning on what is art and what is a snapshot? While I actually enjoy Shore's work (I like images that you must explore and not simply just look at), I do see my wifes point.

So, who decides that imagery like this is art? Does it come down to the effort put in? Does it come down to the strength of previous work? Or are we like sheep - I.E., if someone says it's good we all then think it must be good? (I believe he had connections with Warhol)

Just some random thoughts

Cheers

Do Shore's photographs sell? He seems to be represented by a gallery whose owner believes someone will buy them. It's assumed he wouldn't have taken them on if he didn't think they'd sell. Is Eggleston's iconic trike shot just a snapshot? If not, how did it become "art?" It's the process behind that mediation that's interesting, not what you or I think about a particular piece.

aluncrockford · Apr 23, 2011

reading the comments of Benji boy make me realise what a broad church the world of photography is, this is in so many ways a good thing but it does sadden me when through lack of ,dare I say it education ,there is a refusal to look beyond the particular world an individual inhabits . Jeff Curto posts a very fine photo history course available through Itunes ,it might be of interest for some of us just to run through the course in order to obtain some foundation to the development and advancement of photography as a creative medium. This might well help develop an appreciation to work that is not within the comfort zone of the individual. To simply condemn work through lack of understanding is to close your mind to the endless options available to improve your own outlook and work ,and if it is of interest I am just completing an MA, and no this does not mean I am an artist

eclarke · Apr 23, 2011

"Art" is as definitive as "Bullshit"..Evan Clarke

CGW · Apr 23, 2011

Geoff Dyer's "The Ongoing Moment" in a good place to start if you're tired of mindless aphorisms.

jglass · Apr 23, 2011

markbarendt said:
The area where these shots were taken is full of opportunities for great composition, geometric and beautiful, even even iconic to route 66 fans.

What's sad about these shots from Shore is that it looks to me like the only real effort he made was to take his instamatic with him when he got out of the car to stretch his legs during a gas stop.

Y

This is exactly the problem with 1) looking at these images on the web, particularly at the OP's link and 2) looking at them out of context.

As for 1), You might get the book, Uncommon Places, and you'll realize that the link of the OP has some horrible scans that make perfectly toned, exquisitely detailed photos, taken with an 8x10 camera, look like they were taken with an Instamatic. Shore worked long and hard on putting these photos together in a landscape that was normal, real and uninviting.

Now these are perfect/exquisite photos of some pretty quotidian scenes. And that's point 2: Your observation that Route 66 "fans" would be able to find geometric, beautiful compositions in the same place misses the point that this is exactly the kind of cliche'd "pleasing picture" Shore was out to destroy, as others have noted. The geometry he did discover and that you will discover also if you will look at these photos IN A BOOK with an OPEN MIND, is the geometry of the real, as opposed to the pleasing, unreal geometry of an Ansel Adams.

Which you prefer is up to you, but you don't get to call something bad art out of ignorance and takin a quick look on the web.

And I totally agree with the recommendations of Jeff Curto's photo history course and Jeff Dyers' Ongoing Moment. You might also look at some of the artists mentioned in other posts in this very interesting thread and decide to give yourself a chance to learn.

2F/2F · Apr 23, 2011

Sparky said:
Actually that's relevant to what I want to say - and I'd like to start off with a joke here:

Q: what's the difference between modernism and post-modernism?
A: with modernism you say 'my six year old can do that' and with postmodernism you'd say 'my twenty six year old can do that."

If you look a little more deeply into the joke - the idea is that people tend to be biased solely on the outward appearance of things. By the same line of reasoning appearing frequently in this thread, a rather bland 18th century portrait by a court painter would be far superior to any picasso or franz kline or what-have you.

When you bring up Shore specifically - it's impossible to judge the work (or at the very least ignorant) without understanding the context of the work. Shore (and Eggleston and many others) at the time were trying to question the primacy of the 'fine art' photograph. And yes, they were making reference specifically to the snapshot (much of this sort of exploration came, in my opinion, out of the dialogues susan sontag brought up in 'on photography' - still one of the most profound and meaty works ever written on the subject). In essence, you could say, they were trying to be enfants-terrible (bad boys) by trying to de-legitimize prior photographic masterpieces in a very tongue-in-cheek kind of way.

But I knew this discussion would come up again in the internet age... one of the main problems (and a problem germaine to the aims of this web site) is people viewing images in a web browser in low resolution. I doubt very much that Shore's detractors would feel the same way when seeing his work in person (owing mostly to much of it being shot on 8x10 in the form of large colour prints, a completely novel thing for the time). They are VERY clearly images that have been very skillfully crafted and very carefully considered.

But this is the nature of this kind of work. Like Richard Prince, those blazing new ironic territory frequently are derided, especially far in retrospect. Without having knowledge of the photography museum circuit at the time, it is quite impossible to know what you're looking at, especially when the work is making reference to that milieu specifically.

This is the post in this thread that nails it specifically. It is what I tried to say, but much better stated.

jglass · Apr 23, 2011

2F/2F said:
This is the post in this thread that nails it specifically. It is what I tried to say, but much better stated.

Agreed

markbarendt · Apr 23, 2011

jglass said:
Which you prefer is up to you, but you don't get to call something bad art out of ignorance and takin a quick look on the web.

Who put you in charge?

Do you know my background or experience in life?

Are the unwashed masses not allowed an opinion in judging art?

These may sound flippant, but they are a serious and honest questions.

Regardless of how hard Shore may have worked or the tools he used, he utterly fails to impress me with the results.

Don't get me wrong, I do not begrudge anyone the right to make their "art" and say their piece, but I have rights too and can make decisions about the importance and quality of the art I view from my perspective and express those views.

No MFA is required to decide whether something is worth my attention or not.

2F/2F · Apr 23, 2011

markbarendt said:
No MFA is required to decide whether something is worth my attention or not.

The issue is not whether something is worthy of any one individual's attention. That attention does not make something "art." As you say, anyone can decide for him or herself what interests him or her. The question in the thread is what makes the seemingly mundane or non-aesthetic "art." The very fact that these pictures seem unworthy of attention is part of the artistic concept behind why they were made and presented the way they were.

Take another look at the point in Sparky's post:

Sparky said:
Actually that's relevant to what I want to say - and I'd like to start off with a joke here:

Q: what's the difference between modernism and post-modernism?
A: with modernism you say 'my six year old can do that' and with postmodernism you'd say 'my twenty six year old can do that."

If you look a little more deeply into the joke - the idea is that people tend to be biased solely on the outward appearance of things. By the same line of reasoning appearing frequently in this thread, a rather bland 18th century portrait by a court painter would be far superior to any picasso or franz kline or what-have you.

........

But this is the nature of this kind of work. Like Richard Prince, those blazing new ironic territory frequently are derided, especially far in retrospect. Without having knowledge of the photography museum circuit at the time, it is quite impossible to know what you're looking at, especially when the work is making reference to that milieu specifically.

What Makes it art, when it simply could be a snapshot?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency