Will there ever be another photographic movement?

[Arthurwg]

Did Duchamp's "fountain" stir anyone's soul or just stir up the art world and critics at the time?

Not sure about the soul, but it certainly stirred up one's intellect.

 

[VinceInMT]

Art is something that is made by a creator but its existence as art thereafter is no longer under the control of the artist. So, if no one else else sees that something as art, it stops being art once the creator finishes it. Ain't that a shame? Art can be most ephemeral.

Can the artist also be the viewer?

 

[Pieter12]

AEK has got that right.

But the creator is also a viewer. So, if the creator considers it art, then it is art--at least for him or her.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Source? Link?

My opinion.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Can the artist also be the viewer?

But the creator is also a viewer. So, if the creator considers it art, then it is art--at least for him or her.

That's true to a certain extent. But it is also very self-serving. It's like an actor calling himself a star. Isn't that for the public to decide?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Where is this going? There are many threads dealing with what is or is not art that lead no where other than showing that people have different opinions and none of them will change one iota at the end of the discussion. This thread is about photographic trends not about trees falling in a forest. How about getting back on topic rather than just arguing for argument sake?

Art is related to new trends because people want to stand out and be noticed. That's why many try to develop their own style. So then it becomes a new type of art like minimalism, or cubism, or banal photography, or whatever.

 

[VinceInMT]

That's true to a certain extent. But it is also very self-serving. It's like an actor calling himself a star. Isn't that for the public to decide?

How would the public decide? By how much money is channeled to it? The public’s taste an be very, well, questionable. If you doubt that, look at what they consume, on average 4 hours a day, on television. I’d also suggest that Thomas Kincaid probably sells more calendars that Jackson Pollack.

Art, like some music, jazz comes to mind, is better understood and appreciated when the viewer/listener does some background study. For example, the work of Piet Mondrian would leave many viewers stumped, bored, or downright confused as to why it is considered art. Yet, when it is viewed within the context of where art was at the time it was created, the educated viewer can get an “ah-ha” moment. As an analogy, many people will discount bebop, not understanding the role of complex chord progressions or the use of diminished scales over major ones. That music, like some art, lacks “accessibility“ without some prior knowledge.

The curators and gallerisits you dissed have studied the world of art, most of them having an MFA, a degree that does more than letting the “in on the game.”

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Where is this going? There are many threads dealing with what is or is not art that lead no where other than showing that people have different opinions and none of them will change one iota at the end of the discussion. This thread is about photographic trends not about trees falling in a forest. How about getting back on topic rather than just arguing for argument sake?

Agree +1000 with Sirius. This thread asked a really interesting and precise question, touching on both history and esthetics. Regretful it morphed into another "intent of the artist vs intent of the viewer vs intent of the artwork" thread, which is totally besides the intent (see what I did there?) of the OP.

T'would be fun if we could go back to it and leave the other matter either to another thread or to a special collective book-reading of Umberto Eco's work where all these questions of intent have been settled a while back now.

 

[Nicholas W]

Not to sound cynical but I feel like we’re firmly in an era of William Eggleston imitators which will have a name bestowed upon it somewhere down the line.

 

[Pieter12]

Not to sound cynical but I feel like we’re firmly in an era of William Eggleston imitators which will have a name bestowed upon it somewhere down the line.

You give them too much credit.

 

[Don_ih]

Can the artist also be the viewer?

Sure. But it hardly matters if no one else is viewing it. (By "hardly matters", I mean with respect to everyone who is not that artist.)

 

[Pieter12]

Sure. But it hardly matters if no one else is viewing it. (By "hardly matters", I mean with respect to everyone who is not that artist.)

Where would that put artists like Vivian Maier or authors like John Kennedy Toole (A Confederacy of Dunces)?

 

[VinceInMT]

Sure. But it hardly matters if no one else is viewing it. (By "hardly matters", I mean with respect to everyone who is not that artist.)

Thanks. You’ve given something to think about. I know that in creating art there is the strategy of “viewer completion,“ one that I’ve employed myself.

 

[Don_ih]

Where would that put artists like Vivian Maier or authors like John Kennedy Toole (A Confederacy of Dunces)?

The fact is, anything that has the appearance of being art will be seen (at least can be seen) as art. That's whether it was something naively made (say by a child), made as art but never shared (Maier), or made by machine from a random selection of elements and a guiding heuristic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The name for the present photographic movement may well be "The GWC Movement" or to be more politically named "The PWC Movement" which is an outgrown the democratization of photography with the development of the cell phone camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How would the public decide? By how much money is channeled to it? The public’s taste an be very, well, questionable. If you doubt that, look at what they consume, on average 4 hours a day, on television. I’d also suggest that Thomas Kincaid probably sells more calendars that Jackson Pollack.

Art, like some music, jazz comes to mind, is better understood and appreciated when the viewer/listener does some background study. For example, the work of Piet Mondrian would leave many viewers stumped, bored, or downright confused as to why it is considered art. Yet, when it is viewed within the context of where art was at the time it was created, the educated viewer can get an “ah-ha” moment. As an analogy, many people will discount bebop, not understanding the role of complex chord progressions or the use of diminished scales over major ones. That music, like some art, lacks “accessibility“ without some prior knowledge.

The curators and gallerisits you dissed have studied the world of art, most of them having an MFA, a degree that does more than letting the “in on the game.”

Agree +1000 with Sirius. This thread asked a really interesting and precise question, touching on both history and esthetics. Regretful it morphed into another "intent of the artist vs intent of the viewer vs intent of the artwork" thread, which is totally besides the intent (see what I did there?) of the OP.

T'would be fun if we could go back to it and leave the other matter either to another thread or to a special collective book-reading of Umberto Eco's work where all these questions of intent have been settled a while back now.

You cannot have a new art movement without discussing art. Why is that important? Well, while curators and gallerists may have a lot of knowledge of art, they also look for something that they can sell. They create movements and select artists for fame that they can promote and gain the most from their sales. They push new concepts before the public is often aware of it. The gallerist and curators start the movements, not the public necessarily. They create desire from the public like My Pillow.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The name for the present photographic movement may well be "The GWC Movement" or to be more politically named "The PWC Movement" which is an outgrown the democratization of photography with the development of the cell phone camera.

What do the abbreviations mean?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The name for the present photographic movement may well be "The GWC Movement" or to be more politically named "The PWC Movement" which is an outgrown the democratization of photography with the development of the cell phone camera.

What do the abbreviations mean?

GWC ==> Guy or Girl With Camera
PWC ==> Person With Camera

 

[Mike Lopez]

Where would that put artists like Vivian Maier or authors like John Kennedy Toole (A Confederacy of Dunces)?

Would not have expected to see that book show up on this site. We all owe Toole’s mother a debt of gratitude. (Solid points, by the way.)

 

[Pieter12]

You cannot have a new art movement without discussing art. Why is that important? Well, while curators and gallerists may have a lot of knowledge of art, they also look for something that they can sell. They create movements and select artists for fame that they can promote and gain the most from their sales. They push new concepts before the public is often aware of it. The gallerist and curators start the movements, not the public necessarily. They create desire from the public like My Pillow.

Curators generally have no monetary gain from sales.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You cannot have a new art movement without discussing art. Why is that important? Well, while curators and gallerists may have a lot of knowledge of art, they also look for something that they can sell. They create movements and select artists for fame that they can promote and gain the most from their sales. They push new concepts before the public is often aware of it. The gallerist and curators start the movements, not the public necessarily. They create desire from the public like My Pillow.

Sorry Alan, not a single important movement in arts—be it music, art, photography, architecture, literature, etc.—that was created by curators and gallerists, nor is there that were created by "people want to stand out and be noticed." None. Not romanticism, not minimalism, not be bop, not impressionism, not modernism, not pictorialism, not free jazz—especially not free jazz!—not prog, not Wagnerism, not Biedermeier, not classicism, not Sturm und Drang, not the beat generation, not the Renaissance, not pop art, not cubism, not the Notre Dame school (medieval music, not football, JIC), not Bauhaus, not the new topographics, not brutalism, not the Hudson River School, and on and on and on.

Not. A. Single. One.

Ever, ever, ever.

It's never been about making money, it's never been about ego.

It's not how it works, it's never been how it works.

 

[VinceInMT]

You cannot have a new art movement without discussing art. Why is that important? Well, while curators and gallerists may have a lot of knowledge of art, they also look for something that they can sell. They create movements and select artists for fame that they can promote and gain the most from their sales. They push new concepts before the public is often aware of it. The gallerist and curators start the movements, not the public necessarily. They create desire from the public like My Pillow.

Alan, I think who you are referring to are art critics, not the curators and gallerists. It is the critics who have held sway and influenced what have been considered “movements.” Have you ever read the writings of Clement Greenberg? His championing Jackson Pollack is a prime example.

 

[Pieter12]

Sorry Alan, not a single important movement in arts—be it music, art, photography, architecture, literature, etc.—that was created by curators and gallerists, nor is there that were created by "people want to stand out and be noticed." None. Not romanticism, not minimalism, not be bop, not impressionism, not modernism, not pictorialism, not free jazz—especially not free jazz!—not prog, not Wagnerism, not Biedermeier, not classicism, not Sturm und Drang, not the beat generation, not the Renaissance, not pop art, not cubism, not the Notre Dame school (medieval music, not football, JIC), not Bauhaus, not the new topographics, not brutalism, not the Hudson River School, and on and on and on.

Not. A. Single. One.

Ever, ever, ever.

It's never been about making money, it's never been about ego.

It's not how it works, it's never been how it works.

New Topographics, Snapshot Aesthetic come to mind.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

New Topographics, Snapshot Aesthetic come to mind.

Not sure I follow. When William Jenkins curated the 1975 "New Topographics" exhibition he featured photographers—Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, and Henry Wessel—who were all, in their own, personal way, trying to redefine the language of landscape photography by including man-made alterations, breaking from the traditional approach of the genre. They had all been doing it before the exhibition. That the name "New Topographics" stuck is one thing, but Jenkins did not initiate the movement. It was already there.

But it is, that said, a good example of how movements start in art—at least in part. Most often, it comes from a desire to either break from the prevalent language or tradition of the art form—minimalism in music is in great part a desire to break from the European-influenced avant-garde—, or pushing it to its limits, to its breaking point, inspired by some of its recent developments. That's how Impressionism is born, out of the 19th-Century tension between line and color.

Sometimes, what gives birth to movements has to do with more larger changes, evolutions and movements within society itself. The Renaissance, Romanticism and the beat generation are good examples.

Fact is, there is no simple answer. Which is why the OP's question is so interesting. Any new movement will either involve a change in the language of photography (or, I believe, in the way we deal with photographic genres) and/or will be influenced by changes within society itself.

 

[Nicholas W]

You give them too much credit.

Apologies - didn’t mean to bestow any credit whatsoever glad you agree