Looking at Photographs---Looking at Art...

[John Kasaian]

...makes me a sad. Really.
It is sort of like looking at a Ferrarri GTO when gas is $5 a gallon.
Or a red setter that dosen't get exercise.
Or a fancy watch that sits in a jeweler's case and never gets worn.

Museums and galleries are designed to showcase stuff like Art, that's fair enough, they are in business to do so, but so much Art, and photographs in particular strike me as being in poverty because the spaces they occupy seldom have the honesty which truly compliment the "reason" for the piece.

Galleries are different in that any visual element other than the Artwork can be a distraction from the Art itself, but in real life a barren background strikes me as being an arrogant contrivance. Good Art dosen't need to call attention to it's self. Art in the home and business I think should be more like a member of the family. Uncle Ernie belongs in his favorite chair smoking a cigar. Sis wouldn't be Sis if she weren't at her drum set pounding the skins. Too much Art is like having Uncle Ernie or Sis crushed behind a pane of non glare glass on a barren wall instead of being in a favorite chair and making music.

For example, an 8x10 Ektalure print of a PFC, in a frame that is resting on a doilie sitting on a piano makes a far more interesting story than "just" a picture of a soldier in an aluminium frame on a blank wall.

A 5x7 glossy of a girl in a cheerleader's outfit scotch taped to the inside of a gym locker door tells a much more interesting story than a picture of a cheerleader on a sterile wite wall.

These photographs serve a purpose. They represent something.

An abstract photo of the grille on a '47 Chevy Coupe tells more of a story (and a better story IMHO) when it is tacked up over a work bench in an old garage instead of being mounted in a too large mat and hung on a blank wall in a salon.

Even public art looks pretentious when it is unavoidable.

In Venice I think (this was years ago) there are some tremendous statues that are "parked" along on corner of a rather drab piazza. Rather than being drawn to them I was repelled---better keep out of the way of the movers--those things must be very heavy! Only the movers never came to put them wherever they belong. The situation was not the fault of the artist, whom the masterpieces were n doubt a source of joy, but rather their location which made the statue's meaning and purpose banal.
By contrast I went to Tivoli outside of Rome one balmy summer night. Stumbling in the dark through the trees and bushes accompanied by the sound of running water I'd be startled at every other turn by glorious floodlite statues and fountains. The fauns and niades belonged here, in that magical (and touristy) forest! Surely if they had been transplanted into a shopping mall the story told would suffer.

I was looking at pictures of some of the 9/11 memorials and I was overcome by how very bad they were. I mean, they could have just as easily been located at the entrance to a horse race track or parking structure. What did they "say?" What did they represent? Nothing. Absolutely nothing that a casual passer bye could apprehend.

It is as if Art is merely looked on as something to fill up a space rather than to illustrate what surrounds us through the photographer's eye, or to preserve that most human of security blankets---memory and fidelity. It is as if Art dosen't have a real job anymore

Well, thats what you get when I stay up past my bedtime What say You?

[Bruce Watson]

Taking this to the logical extreme... Frank Lloyd Wright not only designed his buildings, but also the furniture within. He even went so far as to design the clothes the owners were to wear so they matched his building. So it all matched his vision and it all worked perfectly within the context of his building. And I have to admit that he was correct about that.

In practice of course the owners didn't obey very well. They thought they should have chairs that were actually comfortable, and they had this bizarre idea that they could pick out their own clothes and dress themselves. It's so hard to get good clients these days...

[arkady n.]

...I was looking at pictures of some of the 9/11 memorials and I was overcome by how very bad they were. I mean, they could have just as easily been located at the entrance to a horse race track or parking structure. What did they "say?" What did they represent? Nothing. Absolutely nothing that a casual passer bye could apprehend.

I do not disagree with you. Some of the public art and public monuments are pretty bad. As in any other professional field, there are very few truly talented artists out there. The rest are of varying degree of competence and skill. Unfortunately, all of those cities and counties that had a good intention of putting up monuments, simply cannot hire only the best sculptors there are.

[John Kasaian]

Taking this to the logical extreme... Frank Lloyd Wright not only designed his buildings, but also the furniture within. He even went so far as to design the clothes the owners were to wear so they matched his building. So it all matched his vision and it all worked perfectly within the context of his building. And I have to admit that he was correct about that.

In practice of course the owners didn't obey very well. They thought they should have chairs that were actually comfortable, and they had this bizarre idea that they could pick out their own clothes and dress themselves. It's so hard to get good clients these days...

What I find interesting is that so much Art---photographs anyway---does find it's way into settings which complete a "story" (if that is the correct definition) but in such cases the Artwork is usually employed as a remembrance of some sort...a portrait of a family on a bank teller's station, a postcard from a friend's vacation in Hawaii on the refrigerator door, a religious statue on a book shelf next to a Bible. This is Art which tells a much better story when it is part of a greater "picture" IMHO than Art which is forced to stand on it's own theme. If such lonely Art could actually speak it might be shouting:
"Hey look at me, I'm Joy! Looky looky! I will make you Happy!"
or
"Watch me! I define dispair! I'm gettin' in your face, buddy!"
If I've had a glass of wine I'd be tempted to shout back:
"Oh yeah? You and whose army?"
When Art is displayed, no-no! When a piece of Art lives in a greater context it is, to me anyway, more complete When it is isolated Art becomes merely an object with a price tag---an incomplete (or perhaps unappreciated is a better term) expression by the artist, much like a poem that goes unread.

Some time ago I was at a shop that sold scavenged architectural elements from old buildings---teller's cages from old banks, stained glass windows from torn down churches, gingerbread woodwork from long gone Victorians--pretty cool stuff but "only" stuff. I could appreciate the craftsmanship of these but not the artistry because these elements where outside thier intended "home." They were abstractions held prisoner. OK I can appreciate the abstract but even abstractions can tell a story (often very interesting stories when they are well done) but these sad items were incomplete parts of something that could have been--should have been a "whole"--if it were literature, it would be like randomly lifting a dozen words out of context from Shakespeare and calling it an abridged edition of Romeo and Juliet.

[Bruce Watson]

What I find interesting is that so much Art---photographs anyway---does find it's way into settings which complete a "story" (if that is the correct definition) but in such cases the Artwork is usually employed as a remembrance of some sort...a portrait of a family on a bank teller's station, a postcard from a friend's vacation in Hawaii on the refrigerator door, a religious statue on a book shelf next to a Bible. This is Art which tells a much better story when it is part of a greater "picture" IMHO than Art which is forced to stand on it's own theme.

But most documentary photographs are more keepsakes and captured memories rather than art. So they do help tell or complete a story. But it's the story of the owner of the refrigerator or the bookshelf, not necessarily the story of the photographer.

Monet's haystacks on the other hand don't tell our stories -- they tell his. And this perhaps is an element of defining what is art and what is not. Maybe the test for art is whether or not it can tell it's own story and overcome the context in which it has to operate.

Just something to ponder.

[Jim Galli]

John, the cure to your problem is 8 hours in Las Vegas. You'll never complain again about how anyone else on earth places their art.

Oh and real mechanics would never hang a picture of a '47 chevy grille over the workbench. They hang a '47 chevy grille on the back fence. I have both a Model A and Model T grilles on my back fence, but I'm exceptional.

[Brian Ellis]

You've just posted a nice summary of post-modernism theory with respect to the display of art. Nowadays it's kind of old hat but in its time the post-modern idea that art should be displayed in ways and places other than by hanging on the walls of elite museums and galleries was pretty radical.

[Kirk Gittings]

Art can tell a story, but it is not necessary. Art can simply be about beauty or form or color or light. Isolated presentation can help to eliminate distractions so work can truly be meditated upon. The National Gallery in Washington (I think, I go to allot of museums) has this exquisite little room with nothing but a bench and 4 Mark Rothkos, one on each wall or take the Taado Ando room at the Art Institute of Chicago, these are two great examples of how isolation deepens the experience of art.

[domenico Foschi]

John, that is what happens when the Human race has misinterpreted the true value of Art.
Art should be the most democratic commodity because, when it is good, stimulates the Human Spirit, in its betterment.
We have made of Art a luxury for the few.
There are masterpieces out there, hidden by the eyes of everybody, that nobody will ever know about.
This is the reason why what you see, for the most part in our outside world, is bad taste.
We have Cities officials whose untrained eyes fund the construction of innumerable ghastly sculptures that silently rape our aestethics. For God sake look at 99 % of the modern buildings around you.
Yes, Art is an Elitist commodity, not something that the kid hired by my mechanic, will ever feel entitled to.
We put Artwork on these bright white walls, and keep them isolated and far away from the crowd they are intended for.
Bravo, John, once again.

[alanps]

Well for the sake of a good argument let me disagree with you ;-)

Firstly, of course there are many examples of bad art, and many poorly organized and constructed gallery settings.

However, I think a good gallery setting can truly bring out the best in good work. Before earning a real living (IT writing) I tried to make it as an 'Art Photographer' (very different stuff to the pictures I sometimes make today. I had a degree of success and exhibited fairly widely in Europe at the time. My work was created with the end setting in mind - it was meditative work - and demanded I guess that you spend some time looking rather than glancing at it.

A good gallery frees you from outside distractions - the lighting, framing and simplicity of the space and wall's all allow you to shed off the noise of the outside world and simply spend time looking.

I have a small and very modest collection of photographs now, and I spend more time figuring out where they would best hang and be lit (most of course sit in boxes) - as placement and setting provide the structure to truly appreciate the work.

I am aware that galleries and settings mean little if the work is of little value. Again harking back to my 'arty' days I remember leafing through over a thousand prints in Russia as a judge of a national competition. I leafed through them in under an hour and selected 5 outstanding prints - my friend and colleague at the time Eric Judlin later went through the same 1000 plus prints, and selected 4 of the same in his 5 selections. Good work jumps out at you regardless of the setting - but that does not in itself render the setting useless.

Anyway as usual I have probably missed the point entirely and taken the discussion down a blind alley - but hopefully give a somewhat different perspective!

Best
Alan