Won't we all, Lenny. Won't we all.One of these days I will probably just disappear from here...
Won't we all, Lenny. Won't we all.One of these days I will probably just disappear from here...
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/andy8x10
Flickr Site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andrew.oneill.artist/
I have great admiration for Jeff Walls approach, very unique for his time and consistent in his vision.
I really think that the former point is simply not true, and the latter ... well, if it's being handed to you on a plate, you're not left with much to chew on are you?. Sometimes you have to work a bit. Or maybe you want all your aesthetic pleasures handed to you on a plate. Fair enough I suppose. chacun a son gout and all that ...
conceptual art is far from obscure!!
Maybe more of an issue with the photo market?
The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up
Arts is subjective, photography is arts. There are a lot of arts that I do not like, including some photography.
I don't eat burgers, donuts, or a thousands other dishes, but they are still food, enjoyable by others.
Art is not subjective! Maybe some art is, but photography is known for objectivity, itīs itīs language. There are layers of understanding and simbolisms but most photographs are quite objective, Wall pictures are pretty clear... and really well made.
I must admit I do struggle to appreciate Wall's work as well as Gregory Crewdson's. I can get past the fact that for me a totally constructed photograph is essentially meaningless. I guess I'm hung up on the idea that a good photograph is evidential in nature, a document of something that existed or happened. Conceptual photos alluding to some constructed or implied meaning just don't resonate with me because I know what I'm looking at is totally fake. I like to think of photography as essentially an outward looking medium, and most of these type of images really look inwards and are an extension of the artist's own ego.
I'm not against constructed images. It's nothing new, they have been doing that since the beginning... I am not against conceptual photography in general. I like interesting, new things. I am interested in learning and growing. I will say that my reactions to Wall's work are colored by the lengthy (and boring) descriptions in Michael Fried's book.
Michael Fried also tries to suggest this whole manifesto that photographers should only photograph people that aren't looking at them, that it has to be some sort of pure image where the people or other objects in the image can't interact with the viewer. Without emotional interaction, every viewer should see the same thing. (I doubt it.)
I find the work done in this way to be sterile, and without interest. I have used the action of photographing to become hyper-aware for a moment, to make sure that everything in the frame belongs there, to notice as much as I possibly could for that moment. I don't want to photograph things, or people, that I am not engaged, or connected, with. Why not just point a camera anywhere? Let's have no design, no caring, no emotional content whatsoever.
I'll grant that it is an interesting exercise. However, an exercise does not make a genre, and I think this one is bound to fail. That's just my opinion.
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
gee, XIX century discussions...
i ran!
Bookmarks