... does the series lose it's value as Art if a single image is removed?
I know what I mean (I think:?)
I see no real difference between a photo as 'art' and one as a 'snapshot'. It's a false dichotomy.
Every time I trip the shutter of a film camera I am intending to make art, but still most of what I produce I reject as no better than a snapshot.
Hey I reckon his pictures are great.
Curious if anyone here ever read Susan Sontag's "On Photography."
It's not art until some dickhead who has been anointed by those who make money reselling says it is.
As I wrote, the idea that photographs could be considered to be "Art"as opposed to craft has only become prevalent since WW11 promoted by photographers and galleries trying to sell their work.In a way (possibly not the way that you mean) - you'd be exactly right. As unfair as it may seem it's the way of the world - well, the way of the market... there is no meritocracy. If your work as an artist is 'useful' to an individual or organization with money and influence... then it's 'art' and will be promoted as such - people will start salivating over how beautiful and remarkable and clever it is - but this is only because the PR has made you receptive to it... i know that sounds kind of cynical but that's exactly how it works. Probably more 'now' than 'back then'...
As I wrote, the idea that photographs could be considered to be "Art"as opposed to craft has only become prevalent since WW11 promoted by photographers and galleries trying to sell their work.
In a way (possibly not the way that you mean) - you'd be exactly right. As unfair as it may seem it's the way of the world - well, the way of the market... there is no meritocracy. If your work as an artist is 'useful' to an individual or organization with money and influence... then it's 'art' and will be promoted as such - people will start salivating over how beautiful and remarkable and clever it is - but this is only because the PR has made you receptive to it... i know that sounds kind of cynical but that's exactly how it works. Probably more 'now' than 'back then'...
Well. That's pretty good. I understand the cynicism and it's a very real aspect of the art MARKET. However, within the art world, there is also serious exchange in the work and in the criticism about real issues around aesthetics, truth, beauty, etc., and, for me, that's what art is about. For me that's also what Stephen Shore is about. How and why is his work true and beautiful? Those are serious questions that deserve serious engagement regardless of what side you come out on because those are the questions his work was intended to raise.
The issue of how much his photos sell for is, for me, a separate issue that, indeed, can have the stench of capitalism, trenoidism, etc., about it.
That's exactly what I was getting at. The "dickhead" I was referring to is not the artist, but rather the limp wristed, black suited, designer glasses art pundit that prances around with their magic wand tapping those few lucky artists that will now become "acceptable" to the uneducated art buyer just looking to make a good investment.
...., but rather the limp wristed, black suited, designer glasses art pundit that prances around with their magic wand .
The key to becoming a financially successful artist, and by that I mean well known and collected, is network connections. Shore hung out with Andy Warhol as a teenager in the Factory. Through Warhol he met John Szarkowski, the director of photography at the MOMA in NYC. He showed Szarkowski his photographs and discussed his project in the early stages and developed a relationship with him, so when the project was done, Szarkowski felt it was developed enough and artistically important enough in the times for exhibition.
A lot of artists meet the last two points in their work, but they do not know the right people. I am trying to correct that in my own career. I make good work that gets shown a lot in smaller venues like juried shows and universities, but for major exhibitions and museum, I don't know anyone. They mostly work off of recommendations by curators they know. If other curators don't know you, then they aren't going to recommend you to the larger places.
Do I agree with this system? No, but I have to learn to play the game by the rules if I want the career. Bitching about it on a hobby forum doesn't change the system.
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?