Thanks... I was kind of trying to distill the real 'issue' as best I could - though I'm sure it will fall on many deaf ears... as that's sort of part of the problem...
This is the post in this thread that nails it specifically. It is what I tried to say, but much better stated.
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:
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.
Could you get anymore closed minded and cliquish than this? If this is the criteria set to determine who is or is not an artist then we need to get rid of Weston, Adams, Stieglitz, Steichen and about 90% of the photographers through out history.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.
Could you get anymore closed minded and cliquish than this?
Sparky's argument is one of history and politics in the for profit "art" world.
I like this quotation a lot:
"A serious photograph not only sets itself apart from all other moments but also captures the particularity of its subjecta face, landscape, tree, store front, tool, cigarette butt, pattern of ice crystalswhile at the same time revealing its universality. Again, that is what art doeswhat art demands and requires. Without particularity a photograph is but a meaningless generality. A photograph of a non-descript parking lot that could be anywhere in urban America, whether that photograph is eight feet by eight feet and hanging at MOMA or four inches by four inches in an automotive magazine, is exactly the same thinga trite generality. The photograph that captures the particularity of its subject stops us because it lies outside the daily barrage of trite and general images we are bombarded with. It holds us because it is like no other moment. It holds us because it has seized its subject as it has never before been seized. " John Wood, 21st Editions
What is obviously significant about the new topographics photographers and those they've influenced is that they actually create images that ordinary folk wouldn't because they're so bland, non specific and forgettable. That makes them "art" for the same reason that Jean-Michel Basquiat is regarded as an artist although he demonstrated absolutely no evidence of painting skill or discipline. They've made something not seen before, and thus engaging to those who find no stimulation in derivative work.
And one thing more that I also like to quote from the painter and ASL teacher of painting, James L. McElhennie:
"Art has gotten a bad name as the realm of unctuous charlatans, greedy dealers and their glamortrash clientele--the hang of smartypants fish-wrapper scribblers and toot-brained mummies who dress like Johnny Cash. As cartoon-like as it seems..., the fashionable art world constitutes a tiny fraction of the comprehensive art world, but it has plenty of money behind it."
...the for profit "art" world.
Is there any other kind of "art" world?!
Why "quote and run"? What sense do you make of these comments? I'd like to know who qualifies(and how)to render a "trite generality" verdict on an image?
John Wood, as publisher of 21st Editions is, like Brooks Jensen of LensWork, a person who views a lot more photographs than most people do, and at a high enough resolution, or as actual prints to publish his considered opinion. Here's a link to the complete essay: http://21steditions.wordpress.com/2...y-so-much-contemporary-photography-is-boring/
As for my own opinion, I'm really in flux about this topic having started out with a decidedly negative view, to feeling much more inclined to be open to this kind of work. The point of what I wrote between quotations is that I'm beginning to get bored sick of endless reiterations of Adams/Weston/Kenna et al. (which pretty much summarizes what my own work derives from) and am willing to give a very different approach a good long look. I've read and reread Robert Adams' book "On Beauty in Photography", and am earnestly trying to understand if not yet embrace a very different aesthetic.
Curious if anyone here ever read Susan Sontag's "On Photography."
I think part of issue here is the shelf life.
Sparky's argument is one of history and politics in the for profit "art" world.
The shelf life of most political arguments and ad campaigns are short, as is the shelf life of the posters and banners made to support them, Shore's work in Sparky's context qualifies as a poster in this historical context.
Society moves on and those posters/ads for the cause lose there context and become irrelevant.
They and their context are worth study as history of how the business of art and/or politics works, if those subjects affect your life.
Are they worth study or attention to put on my wall or influence my style as "art"????
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?