well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.I fundamentally disagree that it is the viewer who determines whether something is art.
The CIA was formed after Kandinsky was making art, right ?well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.
So yeah... you let the CIA tell you what is art.
yes, off topicNothing to do with art. Commerce and propaganda, maybe, but off-topic.
The CIA was formed after Kandinsky was making art, right ?
abstract expressionism has been around for 100 years ...
if you are talking about American Abstract expressionists
Motherwell, Klein, de Kooning, Gorkey &c. sounds strange the CIA
was pressuring gallery owners and museums to ordain the movement,
seeing its precursors were already accepted as "art" by the gatekeepers.
yes USA Abstract expressionism. It's all documented and admitted to by the CIA. The funnelled large sums of money through galleries and foundations into the promotion of 1960s US Abstract expressionsim as a tool against communism despute thinking it was all garbage themselves. From memory the CIA werent pressurising galleries, they already had CIA or people with close links to CIA on the boards of some huge US institutions.
I guess stranger things have happened.
So you take someone who has no background or education in art or art history into a gallery to view an exhibition of, say, one of the abstract expressionists, and he says it isn't art because his three year old could do better, is he, as viewer, the arbiter of whether such abstract expressionist's work is art? How about Duchamp's urinal?
Also by cultural and educational background, interests
Of course he is free to express his opinion and we are free to assign it whatever weight, if any, we deem appropriate. I do not believe that his opinion that the abstract expressionist’s work is not art because his three year old could do better has any bearing on whether the abstract expressionist’s work is or isn’t art. In that sense, I am not a proponent of philosophical relativism, and that extends to the field of aesthetics.He’s free to think and even say it isn’t art. And I am free to disagree with him. I can’t see why this guy’s opinion should matter to you and me.
Remember: the OP says “why 99% of photography isn't considered an art form” (emphasis mine).
I have not met any sculptors so I don’t know what they call themselves. I suspect their choice of appellation is context dependent. I have known a few (art) painters and they called themselves painters or artists depending on context. The photographers I know who deem their work art call themselves fine art photographers. I don’t see any reason they shouldn’t call themselves artists.Does a sculptor call himself a sculptor or an artist? Does a painter call himself a painter or an artist? It's others that call him an artist. So shouldn't we call ourselves photographers?
The CIA may have promoted abstract expressionism because it ran contrary and sort of undermined the social realism that was Soviet art at the time. Abstract expressionism just was useful to the CIA's agenda. But they did not invent it, nor did they fund it. Peggy Guggenheim wasn't on the CIA's payroll.google it. it's all documented
Photographers calls themselves artists when they don't want to be asked to shoot weddings.I have not met any sculptors so I don’t know what they call themselves. I suspect their choice of appellation is context dependent. I have known a few (art) painters and they called themselves painters or artists depending on context. The photographers I know who deem their work art call themselves fine art photographers. I don’t see any reason they shouldn’t call themselves artists.
There are cooks, pastry chefs and bartenders, hairdressers, landscapers and hot-rod makers and many more who create who call themselves artists. That said, is what they create "art?" Sure, for them and others. There is no official benchmark for what is art. The academies and organizations of the past no longer determine the standards, nor do museums, galleries or government agencies. It's a chaotic free-for-all.I have not met any sculptors so I don’t know what they call themselves. I suspect their choice of appellation is context dependent. I have known a few (art) painters and they called themselves painters or artists depending on context. The photographers I know who deem their work art call themselves fine art photographers. I don’t see any reason they shouldn’t call themselves artists.
Remember: the OP says “why 99% of photography isn't considered an art form” (emphasis mine).
But why do I think that others think that 99% (or 95%, or sci-fi's 90%) of photography is not considered an art form? Mostly because 99% (or whatever) of photographs are just pictures of things.
... in museums it's segregated as if it is not actually accepted as one of the "arts" .
And when you consider how many photographs are being made in the world today, maybe 99.99% is too small a number.That's because it isn't. 99.99% of photography isn't art and isn't meant to be. That taints the rest. With rare exceptions it hasn't been held to be a fine art for the past close-on 200 years. That's not going to change.
The CIA may have promoted abstract expressionism because it ran contrary and sort of undermined the social realism that was Soviet art at the time. Abstract expressionism just was useful to the CIA's agenda. But they did not invent it, nor did they fund it. Peggy Guggenheim wasn't on the CIA's payroll.
I am going to ruffle some feathers here, but I don't like Atget much. I find his photos (with the exception of those with people) flat and uninspiring. I think he was correct in assuming he was not an artist, but a provider of materials for artists to use as reference. Wonderful documents of an era, maybe not much else. The same goes for his greatest promoter, Berenice Abbott. Her work following his example, documenting New York City, does nothing for me.
well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.
So yeah... you let the CIA tell you what is 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?