Will there ever be another photographic movement?

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree. Art is in the eye of the beholder. But most art is intentional and a lot of what the creator may consider art is not appreciated by many beholders.

That's my point. No one cares what the creator thinks. If his work doesn't stir the soul of at least some of the viewers, it isn't art. It's just the creator's ego.

 

[Pieter12]

That's my point. No one cares what the creator thinks. If his work doesn't stir the soul of at least some of the viewers, it isn't art. It's just the creator's ego.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

As Larry David said, "A toilet? We're people. We do it outside. Only animals do it inside."

 

[VinceInMT]

I don't know if it qualifies as a movement, but there seem to be a lot of staged self-portraits being done by women. Alienation and the plight of women in society tend to be the motifs, many times the figure itself is turned away from the camera to represent "every woman" or to grant anonymity. To me, it looks like it may come from the work of Francesca Woodman and grown from there.

I would add the work of Jo Spence to that as well.

 

[VinceInMT]

A movement I see is a style of non-importance. Created by an abundance of social platforms and cellphones, people take pictures as part of their social functioning and let it end in the phone. No editing, cropping, printing or showing otherwise.

When I asked my cousin if I could see her vacation trip to Europe, she said they were all in her cell phone to be thumbed through. Photography has become for many just another ordinary activity unrelated to art, like brushing your teeth every day.

This is why I share my travel photos in blogs where a narrative and the photos work together.

 

[VinceInMT]

Shooting family is art if you define art as something that stirs the inner self and our emotions. When you look at a picture of someone you love, you fall in love all over again.

Or when you look at a photo of someone you used to think you loved and you regret the poor decisions you made in the past.

A friend has a commercial studio and he is frequently asked to remove someone (Photoshop). from a previous family portrait.

 

[VinceInMT]

You're defining art from the perspective of the creator. I define art from the perspective of the viewer. If it stirs the viewer, it's art. It doesn't matter what the creator thinks. In fact, he might not even think of it at all. From the standpoint of art, it doesn't matter what the creator thinks or doesn't think? It has no effect on whether it's art.

Art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator? I guess all those people who bought those Elvis on black velvet images should be curators in museums.

 

[VinceInMT]

You now see a lot of trends but not necessarily "movements". I think a movement requires ideological guidance, and that is missing from photographic trends.

Yes, a manifesto is a common launching point.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator? I guess all those people who bought those Elvis on black velvet images should be curators in museums.

In years past, people called themselves singers, musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, etc. Now they have to justify some of their high earnings so they call themselves artists. Curators and gallerists are in on the game too. They have to justify their high prices for salary and work. So they call the people who they represent artists.

Of course, they laugh at their customers and just consider them ignorant riff-raff. What do they know what's to like or what's real art?

 

[Sirius Glass]

As Larry David said, "A toilet? We're people. We do it outside. Only animals do it inside."

Be my guest. Take my place and invest in crypto, please.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or when you look at a photo of someone you used to think you loved and you regret the poor decisions you made in the past.

A friend has a commercial studio and he is frequently asked to remove someone (Photoshop). from a previous family portrait.

Shades of 1984.

 

[Don_ih]

Art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator?

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Don, I always think about that poor, ignorant Neanderthal who traced his hand in red dye on the walls of a French cave a few hundred thousand years ago. He basically was doing the same thing as we do today when we carve our initials into the bark of a tree:- trying to memorialize himself for posterity.

Of course, now his handprint is considered art because it stirs the souls of today's homo sapiens.

I wonder what people are going to think about our photos in 100 thousand years?

 

[Pieter12]

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.

As long as the artist considers it art it will remain so.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As long as the artist considers it art it will remain so.

What happens when he dies like the Neanderthal? It's like the question about the tree falling in a forest when there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound? Is it still art? Maybe like the Neanderthal, who didn't know he was making art, it became art later because the viewers considered it art.

Did photographer Vivien Maier know she was creating art?

 

[bags27]

Art history has had many movements, i.e. expressionism, dadaism, cubism, etc, while photography has had relatively few, which makes sense considering the relatively short existence of photography. It's hard for me to list many photographic movements actually, but off the top of my head there's the ƒ/64 group, the photo secessionists, the new topographics, and what I'd broadly call street photography. I suppose those are all "movements" but I'd like to read your thoughts.

Anyway, it seems to me that while our modern hyper-connected world has made it easy for a digital meme to be viewed by eighty million people instantly, it's also made it difficult for a goal oriented photography based art movement to gain traction.

Are there any photo movements today? What are they? Is it possible to make a new photographic movement today?

Sorry, didn't read through the entire thread so this might have been said already.
Two essential movements in photography have been pictorialism and modernism. Here:

Ansel Adams- Modernism and Pictorialism

From my research into Ansel Adams, two main themes came up, Modernism and Pictorialism, so I decided to research them to further add to my understanding of Adams’ work. Pictorialism is the na…

jessicalouisebell.wordpress.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

What happens when he dies like the Neanderthal? It's like the question about the tree falling in a forest when there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound? Is it still art? Maybe like the Neanderthal, who didn't know he was making art, it became art later because the viewers considered it art.

Did photographer Vivien Maier know she was creating art?

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?

 

[VinceInMT]

In years past, people called themselves singers, musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, etc. Now they have to justify some of their high earnings so they call themselves artists. Curators and gallerists are in on the game too. They have to justify their high prices for salary and work. So they call the people who they represent artists.

Of course, they laugh at their customers and just consider them ignorant riff-raff. What do they know what's to like or what's real art?

Wow, that’s not what I have encountered. I volunteer at a museum and a gallery and have encountered none of that.

 

[VinceInMT]

I wonder what people are going to think about our photos in 100 thousand years?

They wonder why we took so many pictures of our food. Maybe they think our food was our deity. Based on today’s waistlines there might be something in that.

 

[VinceInMT]

Did photographer Vivien Maier know she was creating art?

I think the answered was covered earlier (I think it was on this thread) that with photography in particular, a single image may not be that much but as a piece is a larger body of work that builds a narrative, it can be something else. I don’t know if Maier was don’t that intentionally or not but the result was the same.

 

[Mike Lopez]

In years past, people called themselves singers, musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, etc. Now they have to justify some of their high earnings so they call themselves artists. Curators and gallerists are in on the game too. They have to justify their high prices for salary and work. So they call the people who they represent artists.

Of course, they laugh at their customers and just consider them ignorant riff-raff. What do they know what's to like or what's real art?

Source? Link?

 

[Don_ih]

As long as the artist considers it art it will remain so.

True, but in a trivial way.

 

[Pieter12]

 

[Mike Lopez]

They wonder why we took so many pictures of our food. Maybe they think our food was our deity. Based on today’s waistlines there might be something in that.

 

[Arthurwg]

You're defining art from the perspective of the creator. I define art from the perspective of the viewer. If it stirs the viewer, it's art. It doesn't matter what the creator thinks. In fact, he might not even think of it at all. From the standpoint of art, it doesn't matter what the creator thinks or doesn't think? It has no effect on whether it's art.

AEK has got that right.