Jim: Did you remember to grab me a copy of Burtinsky's China while you were a the bookstore getting yours?
Jim: Did you remember to grab me a copy of Burtinsky's China while you were a the bookstore getting yours?
"I've listed earlier many books I own of famous artists showing different styles of art (Batemen, Rockwell, Rembrandt, Muench, Adams, etc) and you call this exclusive? What about your industrial and kitsch images? "
I think you miss the point - Bateman, Rockwell, Romance and friends are the embodiment of Kitsch.
That you can put "art" Rockwell, Bateman and Rembrandt in the same sentence and appear in other posts to see them as virtually equivalent displays a frightening lack of discernment, artistic or otherwise. (If you had included "trisha romance" it would be downright obscene)
Oh, we're discussing 'normal'. I thought we were discussing art. Hey ho.
"problem is, your list of 'art' is a bit too exclusive for the majority. I'd say there's a very small percentage of U.S that's ever heard of Bateman or Trisha.. .even smaller in the rest of the world."
"I've listed earlier many books I own of famous artists showing different styles of art (Batemen, Rockwell, Rembrandt, Muench, Adams, etc) and you call this exclusive? What about your industrial and kitsch images? You think industrial images in homes is normal? Wildlife, children story telling, landscapes, etc, are far more popular for living room walls then industrial images of dams/tire recycling yards, etc. There is no debating it."
The popularity isn't my point or arguement, it was yours. you brought up the fact that the popularity of your artists defined them as artists. I'm arguing that your list isn't all that popular, that for the majority of the people in the US, and in the world, your artists are unknown. My point is if popularity is the deciding factor in art, then my link beats yours as fine art
pdf of Butynsky's CV . I don't know... at least the 'art' world considers him an artist, and $25,000 is a lot to be selling copies of documentary photographs.
so i'm assuming that Shore, Misrach, Meyerowitz, Kenna don't qualify as artists either.
Nice to see this discussion at least partly resolved, as it started straying a bit. I'd like to add my two cents, though, as I know there are a lot more people lurking than the two that have written lately.
"Art" is not subjective. Art is defined by the Art World. Art World is a term introduced by Arthur C. Danto and familiar to anyone who has ever taken freshman courses in any arts or aesthetics -related subjects. Art world consists of professionals and opinion makers on the field of art - critics, curators, gallerists, journalists etc.
Jorge states that most people do not want to keep images of trash and rubbish on their walls. I believe he is right on the money. In fact there is a beautiful pair of Russian conceptual artistists who study this very thing: what do people want to have on their walls? You can check it from here: http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html
The fact that people want to keep this on their walls does not exactly make it good.
Most people may not want to keep Burtynsky on their walls - but that might be a temporary thing. The defenders of classic artists - say for instance Leonardo Da Vinci or Vincent Van Gogh - tend to forget that most old masters were the young rascals and iconoclasts of their time. They were seldom approved by the majority, if they were in fact ever appreciated during their lifetime. We all must know the story of Van Gogh never selling a single painting in his lifetime.
Burtynsky as an artist is not exactly the most threatening or cutting edge one, but I still like his works, and an artist he is, nothing to do with technical photography. I must say however, that I find more art elsewhere.
At the same time I must admit that I believe in the staying power of the deadpan aesthetic far more than any stylistical gimmick or say Trisha Romance, of whom I had never heard before.
Well, since I happen to be lurking here tonight, I took a look at:
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424134772/andreas-gursky-gran-canaria.html
Just on a first semester art foundations aspect, the composition is on the Golden Section division. Doesn't mean I like it, but then again some of the Gursky images remind me a bit of Mondrian. Interesting that Norman Rockwell came up, and I should add in Andrew Wyeth; both of whom have been considered illustrators by some art historians.
Granted the art historians, big galleries, museums, and auction houses seemingly define art more than formal considerations, though those ideas and opinions are ever changing. We might see future art history texts featuring Gursky, Burtysky, or even Richard Prince . . . perhaps even countless other individuals we could either agree or disagree on whether or not they qualify as artists. I see nothing wrong with not liking the artwork of any artist, even past masters, those who are famous, or those who get large sums for their works. However, we are not the ones writing the next art history texts.
A formal education in art can give some idea of interpretting so-called works of art. Those interpretations can lead to favourable or unfavourable conclusions. When I saw the Burtysky exhibit at MOPA, I was quite impressed by the images, and I can honestly state his work was one of the pushes for me to return to large format imaging. While my return to large format was mostly for commercial imaging reasons, I can forsee working large format images in my fine art photography. I don't expect to get the recognition, nor the large sums of money, nor even the criticism of a Burtysky or Gursky, but I can learn from what they have accomplished.
I recall being in the Houston Museum of Art with my mom, and commenting about an Impressionist exhibit there. While I liked some of the images, I was actually critical of others, mainly on a formal level. I overheard some comments from other people viewing the exhibit questioning how I could possibly be critical of such recognized masters of fine art (painting in this exhibit). I think anyone who creates works of fine art (I have done oil paintings, mixed media, and photography) or has exhibited their fine art, has at least a little qualification to pass judgement on works of art. While I don't agree with many of the comments in this thread, I do respect the opinions and views of other artists.
Hello Van Camper,
I don't see anything wrong with being selective. No reason to revue an era or genre just to make a point, or state an opinion. I have found that the "majority" has not been constant, nor consistant. Of course, I only achieved my art degree in 1998, so my time in the world of art has not been long. I think you made some good points, but I don't hold the same views. In a way, I think even finding something that might be considered a bad example of art could be something that can teach us more, even if it is only a desire to do better.
Anyway, I will have to return to this discussion later, since it is getting late here. Thanks for the response, and have a good night.
Gordon, I was commenting about the diversity of artbooks I have collected, due to the following comment by someone else.... "problem is, your list of 'art' is a bit too exclusive for the majority
i don't think you've gotten my point. you've been aruging that burtynsky and that genre aren't art because they are not 'popular', the majority of people wouldn't hang them on their walls. my point is, if you stand outside a KMart in a small town in Nebraska, and poll the people coming out, then your list (exceptions are Adams, Rembrandt) is not popular either. i'd wager than few, if any, of the people walking out have heard of Muench, Bateman, Trisha (i'd never heard of her before this thread). Given your criterea of the majority of people consider it art to be art, then few of your choices will qualify. You, me, and the people who read this forum, are *not* the majority. The people who read the National Enquirer and watch Jerry Springer are (at least in the U.S). And if it's the majority who decide on what's art, then velvet Elvis and poker playing dogs are right up there.
just so you don't misinterpret... i *don't* consider popularit as a criteria for art
Good morning Jim Collum,
Actually, the works of Burtynsky and Gursky qualify as "art" in my opinion because I find them to express a creative vision. The reason I have such an opinion comes from having a degree in fine art, the fact that I still exhibit and create works of art, and I can see some of the formal aspects of their works; rather than using some formal checklist of criteria. That does not mean I like everything they have done, in fact I think some of their images are cr&p. I also have no interest in having others agree with me on my opinion, because I know from experience that there is rarely concensus opinion in the world of art.
The popularity notion is one I have heard previously. If popularity were a criteria, then Thomas Kinkaid might be considered an "artist". I think the "majority" should only be the majority of artists and art historians . . . which is actually a very small percentage of the general population, certainly not a "majority" as many might expect . . . . maybe minority would be a better term. So in a way I agree with you that the general public should not be deciding what is art, nor what is not art.
I would prefer an even stricter criteria for those at lofty heights, or with great claims of being artists. That criteria would be that their works become a part of art history texts, and art history education. So far, I don't think that has happened for many photographers. Of course, if we went that strict on a definition, then even I could not claim to be an artist.
;-)
A few months ago, I went to an exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, which featured Basquiat, Jasper Johns and Thornton Dial. My mom went with me to the exhibits. While I thought the Basquiat works were quite interesting, my mom nearly thought they had no place being in a museum of fine art. I didn't think that much of the works of Thornton Dial, though I did find some of them interesting. We both like the Jasper Johns works on display. Quite often the more controversial works are the ones that get the most negative attention, though art historians already recognize all three of those individuals as artists. Compared to Basquiat or Thornton Dial, neither Gursky nor Burtysky are controversial. Of course there are still some people who feel photography does not qualify as art at all, but they don't write the art history books.
There have been formal boards (often museums in the past) that decided what was art. There have also been movements in art done as a form of protest against those formal boards opinions. At the times of those past movements, many of those works were not considered art. Yet the interesting aspect is that later art historians recognized those individuals as artists, and saw the artistic merit of their works. We don't know if future art historians will recognize Burtynsky, Gursky, et al as artists, and even if that happens there will remain many other artists that will not agree with the art historians.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks