If so, who are the photogrpahers making the grade?
If so, who are the photogrpahers making the grade?
Pretty much any successful photographer seems to prominently mention their work is in the collection of certain museums. Museums do show living photographers work, but collecting and showing are two different things. I'm no expert, but naively assume most museums get the majority of their collection from dead or aging patrons and other musuems. I've got photos in museum collections and didn't have to "make the grade". One is at a transportation museum because I volunteer with my camera and made photos nobody else did, and another is a documentary image at an art museum and if they still have it, it's probably in a file drawer somewhere and not in the climate controlled secure storage for fine art. Not knocking people who have made the grade with talented fine art and publicity and are deservedly collected, it's just a confusing thing to me about what should be collected that is made in the present.
If you're talking modern in terms of art eras, I think all the straight/F64 photographer's landscapes would qualify.
Yes. I've sold a 13-image portfolio to a university museum here in Utah. All work from my extended project on Utah's Great Salt Lake. Printed in pt/pd from 4x10 negatives on Arches Platine. Portfolio is limited to an edition of 18. Portfolio comes with individual letterpress folios for each image with caption information on the front. Portfolio is contained in a hand-made raw-silk covered clamshell box.
By modern do you mean contemporary? Or with a capital M, as in modernist? Not trying to get all semantic, but this distinction has been a big issue in the museum world. MoMA, for example, has been dealing with an identity crisis for the last 50 years ... are they a contemporary art museum or a modern art museum? They seem to be answering "both." Contemporary art, but with an especially strong holding of modern work.
FWIW, I see lots of both modern and contemporary landscape work in museum shows and collections. Here's one survey of contemporary landscape. It's curated by Andy Adams of the FLAK photo network. He's not a museum curator, but has pretty contemporary views. A lot of curators follow the goings on on FLAK.
Once all the novelty of digital shchmigital trickery starts wearing thin, I think the next big thing will be an amateur renaissance of short film, due to the relatively low budget threshold of gear nowadays, namely DLSR's etc with video-like capability. The huge art museum being built by UC right up the street will largely be dedicated to that kind of thing as well as various "interactive" nonsense, which I have interest in even asking about. "Modern" art is largely a misnomer is you have "contemporaneous" in mind. Most of it, in terms of framed content, is now 75 years old and getting pretty predictable. Photography will get a foot in the door from time to time, especially if its "controversial" (a mandatory ingredient of Modernism off its leash and directionless, it seems), but I wouldn't hold your breath at some venues. Some museums - like the excellent Oakland Museum here - are largely dedicated to the preservation of key historical collections. They show newer work from time to time, but collect only token bits of it. Only so much funding and facilities out there. I'd expect regional venues to pick up a bit of the slack with things like landscape work, but many sponsors only know what they're "supposed" to collect - meaning the same ole 75-year old pop art stuff, or one or two
two deceased photographers who everybody knows about. It's a hit an miss game. Once in awhile you get lucky, if you have the right connections (which is at least half the battle).
I mean the big name museums. And modern would be last 20 years or so.Originally Posted by jp498
I know they collect the f64 guys, but was wondering how the current crop fits in.
Good for you!
I don't know all the terms. Let's say the last 20 years or so, living and who is still producing. I did have one museum tell me they don't collect anything from living artists. I was just wondering how the landscapers fit into the art scene with museums. If their work is valued or is treated more of an afterthought by the museums that may favor the artsy stuff.
It's interesting to see what curators say about their mission. Collections exist for different purposes, and curators have different visions (and job descriptions). I don't believe there's anyone curating a major photo collection who's ignorant of the history of the medium. Everyone that I've talked to or read anything from has known a whole lot more than I do.
If they're collecting stuff that isn't "good" by the same definitions you'd apply to Edward Weston, there are many possible reasons for it. One reason is that they're interested in the work people are doing today, which is exploring a very different world (and probably very different ideas about it). Another is that they have plenty of stuff already that looks like what Weston did. They probably have a lot of actual Westons. Why would they be interested in contemporary, anachronistic stuff that's trying to look like work 80 years ago? Another reason could be that they have a particular interest, or a particular slant. For example Quentin Bajac, who just took over photo at MoMA, said he's interested in looking at the way contemporary photography overlaps and interacts with other media, like painting.
I've never heard a curator say anything as obnoxious as "I'm only interested in groundbreaking work." That would be a setup for some serious pies in the face. But a lot are interested in work that feels like the product of today, rather than just a recycling of the familiar.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that, Paul. I believe you've expressed the situation much more elegantly than I, and so am deleting my post.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks