Does it have to say anything?

[jcoldslabs]

Speaking of art being "good" or not, I've always found this piece refreshing: http://members.tripod.com/karl_p_hen...d/itsgood.html

From the essay:

"The question is not whether a thing is abstract or representational, whether it is 'modern' or conventional. The question, inexorably, is whether it is good. And this is a decision which only you, on the basis of instinct, experience, and association, can make for yourself. It takes independence and courage. It involves, moreover, the risk of wrong decision and humility, after the passage of time, of recognizing it as such. As we grow and change and learn, our attitudes can change too, and what we once thought obscure or 'difficult' can later emerge as coherent and illuminating. Entrenched prejudices, obdurate opinions are as sterile as no opinions at all."

Jonathan

[Tin Can]

Yes

[koh303]

koh - I don't know where you get impressions like that. Where are those alleged art history teachers getting their own version of the story, in the back of some
1970's Sears Roebuck catalog? Cause that "New Topographics" thing was already starting to get monotonous half a century ago. Hardly new, and hardly dominant
ever. There was some interesting stuff. I saw a lot of it when some of the major players were nearly eating out of a dumspter doing that starving artist career.
A few did make it; some I can't even remember. I could care less. I photograph with my eyes and not according to some pigeonholed stereotype about what I'm "supposed" to be doing.

I think google (and hopefully you will find wikipedia as the very first link) has your answer. Something groundbreaking does not really mean it isent boring or that it has any surplus meaning. The few who made it are ALL those who were in the show, and became massively successful (in various careers, mostly, in photography), though i know the bechers were never really famous or did anything of consequence...

All i can tell you here, is that you might benefit from an art history class, perhaps a con-ed college offer sit ins near you. You will be surprised at what they have to say about the world i am sure, though doubt it will change your mind or convince you that you were wrong all this time.

[koh303]

Anyone who lumps Rbt Adams into that alleged school looks at only the subject matter superficially and not his printing style (a predictable error when one analyzes web images or book reproductions). One more flaw in the pigeonholing mentality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Topographics just in case google does not work in your area.
"For "New Topographics" William Jenkins selected eight then-young American photographers: Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Joe Deal,[5] Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott,[6] Stephen Shore, and Henry Wessel, Jr. He also invited the German couple, Bernd and Hilla Becher,"

First on the list.

[koh303]

Is the general consensus that new topographic is not "in" anymore? Is that a bad thing?

Why was it considered boring as some have mentioned? I ask because Robert Adams is often mentioned in this "school" or movement and he is very influential to me. So I guess it's surprising to hear.

Henry Wessel is mentioned too.

Its boring because eggelston and wingorand are funny and exciting.
Heavy, serious thinking is never fun, light, laughing matter is much more fun hence the presence of this vs that, and lack of some very specific and serious things in US art education. Is anything in? Only self congratulatory behavior, as i am sure you have already learned, and which can include ignoring something that is difficult in favor of looking at something that is just simple and pleasing.

Reminds me of a joke about Italian Carbinieri who find a dead body lying on Monfalcone St. but they did know how to spell that, so they moved the body to Rome st. Art students/educators/schools are just like that.

[koh303]

To be clear these questions are asked upon viewing a piece of art as part of the audience-not its creator. I'm not concerned with whether its new because nothing is really new. I'm more interested in whether it's any good. Of course it matters to me whether the art I am viewing is any good. This is the opposite of what most of my academic friends do.

are they concerned with weather its really bad? I am not sure i understand the opposite of you (as mentioned above), please explain? (might be syntax error understanding on my part)

[appletree]

To be clear these questions are asked upon viewing a piece of art as part of the audience-not its creator. I'm not concerned with whether its new because nothing is really new. I'm more interested in whether it's any good. Of course it matters to me whether the art I am viewing is any good. This is the opposite of what most of my academic friends do.

Ah, very well. My misunderstanding. Of course we all hope to view something and see it as "good". Then again, for young naive people like me (without a ton of years of photography experience...especially no formal training) nearly 90% of what I see is "good" and "amazing". A lot of what I seem to stumble across makes me feel like my work is child's play. I am in that group of occasional instagram use, of which some people I follow that do portraiture work always leaves me stunned. The lighting, the shadows, etc. always make me ooo and aaa. Although to me, it is all very inspiring. Likewise a few people that partake in landscape and film, I always enjoy. Although, perhaps after 30+ years of see stuff (one day) then I will have a better acquired filter and taste for what stands out.

[appletree]

Speaking of art being "good" or not, I've always found this piece refreshing: http://members.tripod.com/karl_p_hen...d/itsgood.html

From the essay:

"The question is not whether a thing is abstract or representational, whether it is 'modern' or conventional. The question, inexorably, is whether it is good. And this is a decision which only you, on the basis of instinct, experience, and association, can make for yourself. It takes independence and courage. It involves, moreover, the risk of wrong decision and humility, after the passage of time, of recognizing it as such. As we grow and change and learn, our attitudes can change too, and what we once thought obscure or 'difficult' can later emerge as coherent and illuminating. Entrenched prejudices, obdurate opinions are as sterile as no opinions at all."

Jonathan

Ahhh, so good. In a nutshell, I think this is what I was trying to convey yesterday in my post.

[lecarp]

,
.
!

[Colin Graham]

This thread brings to mind a great Lydia Davis short story-

We know only four boring people. The rest of our friends we find very interesting. However, most of the friends we find interesting find us boring: the most interesting find us the most boring. The few who are somewhat in the middle, with whom there is reciprocal interest, we distrust: at any moment, we feel, they may become too interesting for us, or we too interesting for them.