Hi John, just to make clear: this wasn't meant to be a debate over your personal opinion of a body of work in an exhibition. Sorry if it sounded as such. Your opinions are as valid as any, whether it's from a professional critic or a layperson. And I mean that sincerely. I am interested (and invested) in the perennial dialogue of what constitutes value in art, and how that value is established (esp by those 'in charge,' i.e., the professional art critics.) And how it is established over time and the paradigm shifts that occur in all mediums, particularly photography.
I mentioned a collection of photography (in published form) that represents my work primarily because I hoped those familiar with that exhibition and book would realize it's about 'conventional' photography, and not necessarily 'new photography' (at least in the sense that MOMA has represented these annual 'new photography' exhibitions.) That hopefully roots me in the arena of 'conventional' photographic production and with a vested interest in the 'quality' of the final print, etc.. Which therefore means that these issues of 'technical expertise' are of concern to me, yet on the other hand I'm also receptive to alternative approaches. And I assumed you posted a link to a body of your own work that was meant to imply the same. And so I responded in kind.
Dismissing a body of work because it doesn't conform to my personal agenda, my aesthetic sensibilities, or my current philosophies of my own work, I feel is non-productive. At least for me personally. And when I see comments about the 'atrociousness' of the execution of a body of work, it sparks the dialogue for me (and despite it being 'long in the tooth' it is still a dialogue that continues.) I doubt that either the artist or the curator does not know the difference between a 'conventionally well executed print' and one that has 'jpeg artifacts' and 'jagged edges.' And that promotes investigating the execution of said prints. Which in turn promotes inquiry about this whole notion of what constitutes 'value' in art production and its role as commodity (whether in public display or in private collection.) And who establishes that 'value.' And yes, I posted the links to reviews of the exhibit. I was curious if the technical issues you pointed out were being discussed elsewhere in respect to the exhibit's reception (and I was sincerely curious.)
But again, I'm belaboring a dialogue that has been going on for centuries. And so I'll stop now
I still would prefer not to identify myself. I gave a reference to my work and I'll leave it at that for now. My work is in the 'vernacular pictorial' or 'critical realist' camp (as defined by Benjamin Buchloh) You may find this essay of his interesting (
The Politics of Representation, pg 17):
http://books.google.com/books?id=JfM...page&q&f=false
And perhaps this article by Hilde Van Gelder:
http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inar.../Vangelder.htm
Needless to say, technical 'quality' is paramount in this genre of realism, as it's important not to distract from content although any work will always be read within its particular venue, its physical representation (print size, print type, framing choices, etc.), and titling and captioning, etc.. As you well know, the connotations from all these factors are deeply imbedded. Which clearly had an affect on your own personal interpretation and response to the current New Photography exhibit.
Bookmarks