"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Brings back some very funny remembrances actually. At a 60's alcohol and drug party at Dennis Hoppers' house in Taos. I actually stumbled and stuck my elbow through the glass of a Warhol portrait of DH and he was pissed (in more ways than one!) and I quickly made an exit.
Anyway, I try to see the difference between what I like from what I believe (through study usually of art history, going to museums etc.) to be important art. This is necessary because there is allot of "important" art throughout history that I don't like. I am also not naive enough to think that I am even qualified on my own to be knowledgeable about what is important in the history of art so I read allot and visit museums frequently. To believe and defend a position that doesn't attempt to separate the two is frankly a bit provincial and narcissistic, but that is allot of what I see expressed here.
Warhol is one of those artists who I don't care much for personally, but having been an aspiring artist at a major art school during his heyday, I witnessed his impact (impact is not necessarily good or bad but his impact was great) and can see his place in the history of art.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Be annoyed then, Paul. Maybe I'm annoyed when NYC thinks it's the Vatican of taste and can pontificate on what is relevant or not. I can appreciate the selection of venues you enjoy and the fact that people are more likely to spend serious money on
wall art than they are here. Pop art might have been a healthy interlude making fun
of the status quo back in the day, but now its a Byzantine entrenched regime itself.
Warhol started that trend of man/machine hybridization between graphic art and painting. Clever. But now Photoshop has turned it into an epidemic. It will wear thin
in time. Everything does. And maybe then folks will start perceiving that the ole West
Coast School of high craftsmenship and straight photography isn't so dated or backwards after all. Maybe what this country does need at this time is a good dose
of strong regionalism to thumb its nose once again at the big city fashionistas.
Of course, Kirk, I can understand how in the bigger scheme of things of art history per
se one has to look at the significance of influences. In fact, without going into names,
I can recognize the sheer brilliance of some of the persons in the current pop art redux
and appreciate their compositional skill. I can even appreciate the wit of M&M though I detest rap music in general. At the museum level I enjoy all kinds of venues, though my
work schedule allows me limited opportunities. But war has always been part of art.
Heck, all the social realism of the 30's which folks today think of as old fogey (and I
don't particularly care for myself) was in its day thought of as radical and rebellious,
and would even get an artist on the FBI list. Things go in cycles. And at least around
here its the young techies that are beginning to regard digital technique as daily life,
but old school film and darkroom as real art. Hence the surprising connection between
the traditional West Coast school of EW,BW,AA etc and what is gaining interest once
again among the younger set. They seem to appreciate hands-on technique. I really don't care what goes on in NYC. If I can sell a print a month I'll be doing well.
I don't see how anything can be considered art without a pixie in it.
You're all a bunch of fakers...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
I don't speak for the city of New York, but I'm pretty sure it and its institutions could care less about what you think, or what I think, for that matter. Can you show me an example of someone pontificating? If this city's institutions are on any kind of pedestal, it's because they've managed to attract interest from elsewhere. If they stop doing that, the world's eyes will wander. As they do often enough already. There is no one art vatican. If anything there's more interesting stuff going on in Berlin than there is here. The Vennice biennalle seems like at least as big a deal as the Whitney's. And the internet is democratizing influence more and more every day, which I think is a good thing overall.
If you look through this thread, you'll notice that I haven't said a word about what art or what venues I enjoy. As I said previously, I don't have any expectations that my personal tastes would be of interest to anyone else, especially in a conversation that's about something as impersonal as record prices.I can appreciate the selection of venues you enjoy ...
What's impersonal about record prices? It a remarkable show-window on both demographics and the whole parasitic groupie mentality surrounding contemporary art.
If it's not a curator pontificating (which I agree, is normally not the case) it is the
surrounding school of fish who benefit from all the hype financially. Want to get rich -
pull off a big scam and not a little one. Where better to do it?
Soooooooo........ how exactly is this bad for photography?
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Well obviously only the best photographers get no recognition or sales and have to work a 9-5 to afford their "professional photography" that everyone else is too stupid to realize the greatness of.
Bookmarks