Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

[Darin Boville]

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/nov/13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries


--Darin

[Bill L.]

The same could be said of the author (well, not sure about the flat part).

[mdm]

I agree with the author. Flat soulless and stupid.its the Stieglitz disease, and those idiotic clouds of his. To me that is where the beauty in an Atget comes from, soul, life, something you can hold onto. strand, Weston and the best of the modernists, they had a point.

[Peter Lewin]

I will have to think about this in more depth, but one phrase that got an immediate emotional response was: "Putting up massive prints is a waste of space." There is a trend in current art gallery photography to use inkjet printers to make very large prints. There is a gallery nearby in NJ part of whose business model goes along the lines of "tell us how large an area of wall you want to cover, and we will make a custom print to match." So in this regard (and perhaps only in this regard) I tend to agree with the author, photography and paintings shouldn't compete head-to-head on the basis of scale. I absolutely love any number of "classic photographer's" prints in 8x10, 11x14, perhaps 16x20, but not so much a lot of current color work in 30x40. Although even there it depends on the work. I've seen some of Steven Wilkes' "Night to Day" series which is so full of details that it works in very large sizes. I guess this is where all generalizations fail, it always depends on the individual cases. But ... I admit I would rather own a Rembrandt to a Strand ...

[Kirk Gittings]

Don't feed the trolls. This is what passes for art criticism in the age of the blog.

[Jerry Bodine]

The author states: "Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and 'mindfulness' ".

As if none of these are a part of photographic art (in which I doubt this person has EVER been involved). But, of course, he/she is free to spout off - which I suspect is the sole objective here.

[Jody_S]

Here's my only response: tl;dr

[jp]

Trolling, written to sell papers and advertising.

I agree with his opinion about the massive prints. But he's putting too much effort and opinion into stacking up two very different mediums, and sounds off a hundred year old argument doing so. Ear tickler for painters. Actually if he weren't complaining about the big inkjet prints, I'd wonder if it was one of those from the archives things being recycled for filler.

[Bill Burk]

My first thought was that he hasn't been to your studio Darin...

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Drivel. He makes no points to back up his assertion other than rembrant is better. If he has a valid opinion, or even a opinion worth entertaining the author could at least supported it.

As far as large prints go, I love large prints when combine with a proper subject. Not every print looks good large, nor does every print look good small. Context is key. Also, yes inkjet printers are capable of producing massive prints, but so are enlargers.

[arca andy]

Trolling, written to sell papers and advertising.

I agree with his opinion about the massive prints. But he's putting too much effort and opinion into stacking up two very different mediums, and sounds off a hundred year old argument doing so. Ear tickler for painters. Actually if he weren't complaining about the big inkjet prints, I'd wonder if it was one of those from the archives things being recycled for filler.
I agree....and I have always thought its much easier to be a painter than photographer! That's if you can paint!

[Arne Croell]

He must have stolen H.G. Wells time machine and jumped straight to 2014 - that kind of argument sounds an awful lot like it comes from the late 19th century (Wells' novel was published 1895)...

[Jac@stafford.net]

The author states: "Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and 'mindfulness' ".

He has never been to an Ad Reinhardt exhibition.
.

[Robert Bowring]

Really? Wasn't this pretty much resolved about 100 years ago. What a useless argument. I have seen many paintings that are "flat, stupid and soulless". It is not important what materials you use or how long it takes or the process you use, it is what you produce. I too have noticed the trend toward really big prints. Some work as large prints and some don't. It seems that they make large prints just because they can. I don't think quality should be based on sq. ft. of print area.

[MIke Sherck]

We've been through this. The author or the article should learn to read, then they wouldn't have to recapitulate dead old people.

[Robert Bowring]

You are correct Mr. Sherck. But it is so difficult today to get anyone to read or think past 140 characters.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

There have always been flat, soulless and boring photographs just as there have always been flat, soulless and boring paintings, dance, sculpture, etc.

I think this is a good article in that it's a look at what we do by someone who doesn't do what we do, which is never a bad thing. As photographers, we have a different take on the art than others who are not so absorbed by it. Instead of writing this off so quickly, it might be good to take some time and think about it.

There are more photographers than ever before and what we love is so commonplace now that perhaps it is getting a little more flat and soulless than in the past (or the not so great work has an easier time finding it's way to the market than in the past). Perhaps people walk more quickly past photographs, even very good ones, and don't take the time to really look at them because it is so common. Perhaps, the average person doesn't see the value in large images any more, they are not as "cool" as they were a few years ago. Could it be the average person who may go to a museum or gallery will have a deeper appreciation for a good painting than a good photograph? As I say, people value that which they cannot do themselves (or think they can do).

Now, I don't agree that all photography is this way. I see plenty of excellent work done by talented photographers that has depth, meaning and soul in it (many on this forum). But, as a photographer, I search this out. We are serious collectors and workers in the art form, so it is natural that we dig more deeply than the average person. The same can be said for serious collectors of any art. But, I do think the average person will be more "wowed" by a beautiful painting or sculpture than a photograph. In some ways this has always been the case, but I think today it may be even more so.

PS: I don't say "average" as a bad thing or mean it to be a cut in anyway, what I mean is that someone who is not so into photography or other forms of art. Sorry if it came across as rude.

[Tin Can]

Screen dead, monitor hypnotized.

His words don't belong on paper either.

I never got past his opening salvo.

[Peter Lewin]

First, I think Eric Biggerstaff's response deserves careful reading, he has expressed my own incoherent thoughts much more articulately than I can.

Let's take a look at one sentence from the original Guardian article: "That is because when you put a photograph on the wall I cannot help comparing it with the paintings whose framed grandeur it emulates, and I can’t help finding photography wanting."

The "argument" which many have posted about as having been resolved over 100 years ago was whether photography was art. What I don't think was ever resolved, and cannot be resolved, since it is purely judgmental, is whether (great) photography is necessarily the equal of (great) painting. In the original article, the author challenges us to look at an exhibit of photography, and then an exhibit of Rembrandt, and to compare the two.

I don't think in Eric's terms I am "average." I have been an avid photographer and darkroom printer (albeit at the hobbyist level) for over 40 years, I collect photographs (admittedly at a minor level), I grew up spending a lot of time at the Metropolitan and MOMA in NYC admiring paintings, and I still love museums. And given all that, I find it hard to argue that there have been any photographers "as great" at their art as Rembrandt, Monet, Goya (all I'm doing is listing the pantheon of universally referenced painters). Let's be honest, would any of you argue that Adams, Steichen, Stieglitz, Clift, Penn (again, substitute your favorite photographer) is really as wonderful as one of those painters? Or to put the question differently, whose work would give you more enjoyment hanging on your wall if you really had the choice?

I stress again that my own walls are quite covered with photographs, both my own, and those I have collected. But I can't argue that the original article is completely wrong when it prefers the great paintings over great photographs.

[paulr]

To the Guardian's credit, the comment thread is filled with articulate and literate skewerings of the article. We could learn something from the Brits.

[Darin Boville]

My first thought was that he hasn't been to your studio Darin...

Thanks, Bill.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

Here's the problem for me: The author compares the National History Museum wildlife photo winners with a work by Caravaggio. He points to another comparison of a puppy dog photo to a work by Caravaggio. He compares Taylor Wessing's portraits to Rembrandt's.

These are goofy comparisons.

However, his overall point is valid. Large photographs--very large photographs--don't seem to have the *presence* of paintings of the same size. There's some sort of imbalance there, there some sort of failure to gain increased *weight* with the increased weight.

Then again, the paintings the article refers to are not all that large. About as big as a Karsh Churchill photo (which *does*) have that presence, by the way). It's a puzzle.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

I think this is a good article in that it's a look at what we do by someone who doesn't do what we do, which is never a bad thing. As photographers, we have a different take on the art than others who are not so absorbed by it. Instead of writing this off so quickly, it might be good to take some time and think about it.


Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The author has expressed what is in some respects an honest appraisal of a current trend in photography. We are judged by what we produce. Perhaps it is time for reflection, rather than a hasty dismissal.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't think it is a good article-I think it is the typical pap taht passes in the popular web press for an "informed" POV. It is hyperbolic from the beginning title and is aimed at stimulating click throughs-not real dialogue.

[Hans Berkhout]

Many publications have contributors who's purpose seems to be the generating of letters to the editor. The Guardian is no exception.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

It is opinion after all, so it is neither right nor wrong. I agree that his comparisons are far fetched and perhaps he is not well "informed" but this makes his point no less valid. In fact, sometimes the less informed or even out right uninformed have more sincere and honest opinions.

My wife, who loves art and even appreciates photography, would not be a well informed commentator on the subject of photography despite having seen many exhibits, sat through lectures, gotten to know well regarded photographers and listened to my boring rants for years. However, I highly value her opinion for the simple reason that she knows what she likes and what she doesn't and she is honest in her opinions. She sees images not as a photographer but as an observer and there is a great deal of value in that.

My point with this is don't shun this just because we feel his viewpoint is uninformed. While I disagree with much that he wrote, his opinion is still valid and worth consideration. The problem is that he may just be stating an opinion that is shared by a larger percentage of the public then we might care to admit. This doesn't lessen my love of what we do and in many ways, only serves to inspire me to try and make images that, if shown to a person like this writer, may make them change their opinion.

[Hans Berkhout]

It's his approach, his style, that raises hackles. The topic will always be there and nothing is wrong with that.

[paulr]

While I disagree with much that he wrote, his opinion is still valid and worth consideration. The problem is that he may just be stating an opinion that is shared by a larger percentage of the public then we might care to admit.

The problem has nothing to do with who shares his opinion; it's that his opinion is poorly argued. It isn't really argued at all. It's a pile of assertions based on premises that go unquestioned (and that themselves were often widely dismissed after feuds from decades ago).

There are standards of good journalism even for opinion pieces. It's not enough to say, well, it's an opinion and all opinions are valid and worth consideration. It's up to the journalist to make the argument worth consideration.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the opinion. The opposite argument made this poorly would be just as bad. I enjoy reading opinion pieces that push against what I already believe. But they have to be smart. They have to push somewhere interesting. The Guardian should be ashamed for giving this guy a voice.

[8x10 user]

Someone should tell that guy how many of his classic paintings were really done with camera obscura.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Let's be honest, would any of you argue that Adams, Steichen, Stieglitz, Clift, Penn (again, substitute your favorite photographer) is really as wonderful as one of those painters? Or to put the question differently, whose work would give you more enjoyment hanging on your wall if you really had the choice?

We do have a choice and I have chosen to hang a cheap ansel print over any painter. Frankly I find photograhers far more interesting than paintings. I am not a snob to other art forms, but the reason I choose do do photography is I get more enjoyment from looking at photographs than I do paintings.

[pdmoylan]

Perhaps I stand alone, but painting takes an application of internal vision/perception and absorption and application of manipulative techniques onto a medium, perhaps more demanding (not necessary any more time consuming) then learning how to to use a camera and produce prints.

Art requires the artist's visual translation into a new language, with the artist's psyche and life'e experience the foundation, while the vision of photography is an application of techniques to present an instanteous experience. This can be the same for painting as in plein air painting.

I personally don't consider photography less of a form of expression, albeit very limited in its ability to express concepts and thoughts. The best photography is a well composed and presented portrait of the passing of time with a unique bias. Art, like music, is more constructive and allows allegory, implication,expression of concepts within one frame, an expression of the mind's vision, the artist's dreams. Photography rarely rises to this level other than what impositions are appllied by the photographer or the photo critic.

What most have missed and we should perhaps embrace is the suggestion that the most suitable presentation for photography has now evolved to digital screen based slide show presentations, one image supplanting the prior with the possibility of infinite choices. For the mostpart, we are living in the past while the future is upon us.

I for one love LF prints viewed in a gallery and find them perhaps more powerful then most painting. I also cherish the improvisors and experimentors in photography who stand above the throngs of those who are equally capable of producing quality images. However, I genuflect to those who have the ability to show us a new way of seeing and thinking about the world and the mind. Art does this far better than photography IMHO. And perhaps the greatest of music raises the bar higher then the greatest art for me (JSBach, Miles Davis etc). The greatest of literature is clearly more capable than music to express ideas, but music has prowess for emotion and aestetics.

PDM

[jnantz]

just because a photograph or painting is in a gallery or on museum wall, and large, doesnt mean it is good.
i have seen my share of images that were on walls that i didnt like.
plenty of "bad art" to go around. and i am sure what i consider trite, mundane and a bore is
vastly different than what most of the people who post here think is the same.
the critic did his job, sold papers, got hits and preople reposting and tweeting and talking ...
im looking forward to the " grandiose photgraohy is wonderful" articles next week ....

[tgtaylor]

That is because when you put a photograph on the wall I cannot help comparing it with the paintings whose framed grandeur it emulates, and I can’t help finding photography wanting.

Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”. A good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. You see it, you’ve got it. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by Caravaggio – to take a painter so many photographers emulate.


I both understand and appreciate this criticism which I consider valid with respect to most contemporary photography. Do you?

Thomas

[paulr]

Perhaps I stand alone, but painting takes an application of internal vision/perception and absorption and application of manipulative techniques onto a medium, perhaps more demanding (not necessary any more time consuming) then learning how to to use a camera and produce prints.

I think this is to say that painting is "harder" than photography, in the same way that playing the violin is harder than singing. To make something that passes for a painting takes more labor and more skill than making something that passes for a photograph. The divide wouldn't have been so obvious in 1850, but today the mere making of a photograph is trivial.

But it's got nothing to do with how easy it is to make great work. There seem to be about as many great photographers as there are great painters (or great singers or great violinists): very few. Because being a great artist, is, apparently, hard. Issues of medium, technical difficulty, etc.. just don't matter much in the end. None of it has much to do with how we experience a work.

[Bill Burk]

I imagine it is easy to be overwhelmed by all the photography that is being shown as art today.

Because when I try to look for new, interesting work... I find there is a lot to wade through and I come up empty.

But when I carry out conversations here and on another site... Or when I see the work or talk with local photographers in my town...

I find so much good that I don't know what to do with it all... It's all right here.

I feel very fortunate to be living in a world rich with people who make images worthy of recognition.

[jp]

That is because when you put a photograph on the wall I cannot help comparing it with the paintings whose framed grandeur it emulates, and I can’t help finding photography wanting.

Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”. A good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. You see it, you’ve got it. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by Caravaggio – to take a painter so many photographers emulate.


I both understand and appreciate this criticism which I consider valid with respect to most contemporary photography. Do you?

Thomas

I'd rather think I don't properly understand contemporary photography and can't talk/dissect it well, than jump on the bandwagon of saying contemporary photography is what the linked conjurer of hits/shares/advertising typed.

The talk of a photo only having one layer of content is complete bs. It's got much of what a painting has as described in the previous sentence and if it's more subtle in the craft, all the more room for the imagination and mindfulness. Perhaps not textural depth on most photo printing mediums, but that's a byproduct, not a necessity. I can say this with confidence about pictorial, photo-secession, and modern photography. Ask me in 20 years what I understand about contemporary photography.

Claiming photographers widely emulate painters is hipboot bs. Compositions/tones/colors are emulated by photographers sometimes quite closely, but they are not copying a painting like painters so often work from photographs.

[Darin Boville]

Someone should tell that guy how many of his classic paintings were really done with camera obscura.

That's an amusing irony here, for sure. Good observation.

--Darin

[jbenedict]

The author states: "Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and 'mindfulness' ".

Haven't we already had this argument. Maybe in about 1910? Or earlier?

[Jody_S]

I suppose there's another way of looking at this. If I wished to read a short piece, I could read Joyce's The Dead, or some repetitive drivel written for $12.50 to be filler under a clickbait title. Technically, they are similar, in that they contain English words and they're short. However, one of the two is the product of skill, craftsmanship, and is true artistry. The other is flat, soulless and stupid. One belongs in the great libraries and collections of the world, the other is a waste of pixels.

[Drew Wiley]

I think "flat, soulless, and stupid" is a perfectly appropriate title for a flat, soulless, and stupid article.

[Jim Jones]

To some outsiders, anything that appears as easy as photography done with contemporary equipment and material can not possibly be great art. However, photographic artists can work as hard as painters and almost as hard as musicians in perfecting their art, and the result will be obvious only to a perceptive person willing to expend a lot of time and energy in learning to appreciate it.

Photography also has the advantage of implied veracity. Joe Rosenthal's iconic Iwo Jima flag raising might be considered a fortunate shapshot or well-timed photojournalism, but it touched the hearts of Americans in a way that no painting of that time could. That is a major function of art in any medium.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't agree that the best photographs are flat and soulless but I never considered what I did as art. I considered it a technical medium with the need for artistic vision. I don't think it's quite the same thing. As another poster pointed out, painting requires more interpretation/translation of one visual language to another visual language. I don't want to step on any toes but, IMHO, it really isn't the same.

[Peter Lewin]

And now for something slightly different! Here is an article from today's NY Times about two shows, one of photography, and one of Old Master's Paintings, running concurrently in Paris. Unlike the article that started this thread, it comments about the two mediums without placing a value judgment on one versus the other: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/arts/international/in-paris-photography-and-old-masters-meet.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0

If you click on the links in the 3rd paragraph of the article (to the two exhibitions) both have fascinating websites. The one on photography not only allows a virtual tour (which I found kind of amazing) but also a gallery of exhibitors, showing one work by each. The Old Master's site doesn't have the 2014 catalog posted yet,but you can page through last year's to get a sense of what they are showing.

[Bill Burk]

There seem to be about as many great photographers as there are great painters (or great singers or great violinists): very few. Because being a great artist, is, apparently, hard.

Good point paulr.

[Tin Can]

Now that the today's NY Times is mentioned, the business section mentioned the largest LED video and photographic display in the world opens tomorrow in Times Square. One block long, 8 stories tall, 24 million 3 color LEDs if my memory is correct.

It will display tests for a couple more days and then Google has bought it until year end.

It may take imaging to new heights? (pun intended)

Obviously flat and soulless, but stupid, I doubt. I hope they show Google Earth for us all to wonder at.

[Zndrson]

"It just looks stupid when a photograph is framed or backlit and displayed vertically in an exhibition..."

This unprofessionally dismissive tone is enough to tell me that this article isn't worth much. Really, any properly written article meant as a critique shouldn't contain the words "It just looks stupid...".

Yes, its 1000x easier to start taking photographs vs painting a picture. Joe Schmoe that just picked up a Sony at BestBuy and isn't blind will have a much easier time convincing himself that the nude photos he took of his girlfriend are "art" than if he attempted to paint a picture of his nude girlfriend for the first time. One will resemble her, regardless of angle, light, and general composition, and one would better fit into the abstract expressionist genre. I'd say its easier to pick out a crappy painter than a crappy photographer, all things being equal.

However, its total asinine to say that all photographs look stupid in a gallery. Blanket statements like that are made by amateurs.

Paintings were made nearly photo-realistic far before the first photograph was taken. It took quite a bit of skill to be able to render a painting with that level of realism, but once people figured it out (several hundred years ago), it became blase. At that point, the struggle switched from being about simple rendering and became about light, shape, context and subject matter. What symbolism could you include? What kind of political statement could be made? Obviously I'm paraphrasing history quite a bit here.

Should a realistic painting of nothing in particular be given high praise when so many painters can paint in this way? Does a painting in this genre not then require a level of depth and meaning or at least aesthetic aptitude to be given praise?

Why should photography be any different? Give 10 people two lights and a camera and tell them to take a photograph of a pear on a table. 2 will be terrible 5 will be ok 2 will be interesting, and 1 might be really impressive.

Realistic painting is a difficult skill to learn, but it is a skill that can be taught. This is the same as how the technical skills of photography can be taught. What can't be taught is how to make a piece of art that someone deems worthy to be hung on the walls of a gallery.

[tgtaylor]

Yes, its 1000x easier to start taking photographs vs painting a picture.

Taking a photograph and printing that photograph are two separate beasts. The former is quite straight forwarded and simple while the latter requires a skill set that is on the same level as that of the talented painter. Your fluency in your craft is the determining factor in how successful the image is.

Thomas

[Jim Jones]

I don't agree that the best photographs are flat and soulless but I never considered what I did as art. I considered it a technical medium with the need for artistic vision. . . .

Oil painting at its best is quite technical. Ralph Mayer's The Artist's Handbook was my bible when I dabbled in painting decades ago. The interaction between pigments, mediums, grounds, and picture varnish is quite complex. Too many who had a master's vision without the technical background have left otherwise commendable art that is either crumbling or fading away, or is a conservator's nightmare. Perhaps the most famous example is da Vinci's Last Supper.

[Darin Boville]

Taking a photograph and printing that photograph are two separate beasts. The former is quite straight forwarded and simple while the latter requires a skill set that is on the same level as that of the talented painter. Your fluency in your craft is the determining factor in how successful the image is.

Thomas

But your view sort of wipes out the part of photography that makes it photography. The part involving the camera!

Darin

[Peter York]

My take is that someone who makes a statement like this is one with no curiosity, or willingness to learn. Sad, really. I recently started studying Chinese painting, and at first glance every work appears to be largely the same, on the surface. The same goes for my initial encounter with most painting pre-Impressionism, with the exception of a few artists. Or with most expressionism, or post-modernism, whatever. When you engage material that appears immediate, however, layers of meaning often emerge. All art is like this in my experience. The best continues to grow on you as you engage and reflect.

It is true that we live on a world where most images get only a glance onscreen, and the author seems to think that this is the only way to experience a photograph. In other words he has been herded by technology into a position of ignorance. You would think that someone choosing to display work at such a large size is at a minimum trying to convey more. Some succeed and some don't in my opinion, but I at least try to understand. I wonder what he would say of Warhol, or Duchamp, or even Robert Frank if he saw their work for the first time with his mindset.

As others point out this critique is nothing new. Seichen had to combat it. Heck, Hal Gould had to combat it here in Denver. He purposefully situated his is gallery, the Camera Obscura, across the street from the art museum because at the time photography was not considered art. Guess who won those arguments.

[richardman]

It's true, some photographers are not artists. It also shows in the person's output. Non-artist photographers images are non-art at best XD.

That doesn't mean photography is not art.

What are we still talking talking this in 2014? Just because a "writer" wants to earn some eyeballs for his opinions?

[ImSoNegative]

there is a small gallery in my town, all the photographers that are represented there shoot dlsr's and the prints are 20x30, every print in there is soft, some are over worked, they have oof areas where there shouldn't be oof areas, yet 3 or 4 of the photographers I know are in there are very proud of there creations and call them fine art. most if not all the images i saw should have been printed down to about 11x14 and they would have been ok. the owner of the gallery has a clyde butcher 8x10 contact print hanging in the office with a light shining on it, its the best looking image in the gallery

[Drew Wiley]

Writers make their living writing. Whether they are actually saying anything is another matter.

[DrTang]

Hell..I agree with him..mostly

painting = art, photography = documentation


I don't mind them big nor on the walls though

[Tin Can]

Oil painting at its best is quite technical. Ralph Mayer's The Artist's Handbook was my bible when I dabbled in painting decades ago. The interaction between pigments, mediums, grounds, and picture varnish is quite complex. Too many who had a master's vision without the technical background have left otherwise commendable art that is either crumbling or fading away, or is a conservator's nightmare. Perhaps the most famous example is da Vinci's Last Supper.

My last wife studied at Cleveland Institute of Art (CIA). She choose to work as a traditional fine art oil painter depicting lesser music gods. The school deemed her work worthless and a waste of time. Definitely NOT ART. Nonetheless she carried on. She painted many modern masterful oil paintings as faithful to the old ways as possible. It took her years to complete a canvas. Letting the paint dry between layers and applying each layer very carefully. Her work is now owned by the Rock & Roll Museum in Cleveland, given as gift after her benefactor in the band Ministry purchased a Stiv Bators (Lost Boys} old master oil, which used to hang in our living room. We bought a house with the money. She used camera obscura and 11x14 B&W prints to work from, after an initial sitting. Getting drug addicts to sit is tough. Our marriage was done when she completed a Rembrandt style painting of me. She still lives in that house. I couldn't afford to buy the painting of me after the lawyers were done. I do have a few 11x14's of the sitters.

[Peter Lewin]

I keep drifting back to this thread because I think that behind it lies an interesting question. I do not believe the author of the original article ever argued that photography is not art. We all know that that argument was settled at least a century ago. What I believe he asks is whether any form of art is "greater" (whatever that means) than another. So rather than being trivial, I think the question posed is along the lines of "which is the greater work of art: Beethoven's 9th Symphony, a Rembrandt portrait, a Michelangelo sculpture, or a Stieglitz photograph?"

That question can be approached in a variety of ways. The easiest is to throw out the question as not worthy of discussion, since it compares apples to oranges. Many of the posts in this thread simply throw the question away by interpreting it as the "is photography art?" question, which I stated earlier is not the way I read it. A second approach is to answer it in terms of the labor put into the final product (which several posts have done, coming out in favor of painting). Whichever work of art took more artist-hours to create wins. A third approach is to ask which art form requires more thought on the part of the artist (which would have different responses for Ansel Adams, "stumbling" over Moonrise, versus Sandy Skogland plotting out her image over the course of months). I'm sure there are a bunch of other approaches to the question as well. But viewed this way, it seems to me to be anything but a trivial question. The author of the original piece, however he defined "greater," felt that a great painting surpassed a great photograph (and I put in the word "great" because again, arguing that a wonderful photograph is "better" art than a poor painting simply trivializes the question.)

[richardman]

Do you know that a piece of calligraphy takes only seconds to do? Yet how many can do this? (yes, this is me)

Art is not defined by the viewers, art is defined by the person doing the arts. If you do not think you are making art, then you will never make art, despite what viewers say.

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20130428-L1018128.jpg

[Tin Can]

Art is what an artist makes.

[Andrew O'Neill]

This guy's views on photography are very narrow as were mine once upon a time. I once thought all photographers were hacks. Then I picked up a camera about 25 years ago and now that's all I do (I still draw/paint/printmake as it's in my blood). He has obviously never seen or heard of for that matter, photogravures or carbon transfer prints. No depth? Give me a break!!

[mdm]

That's the point see, how many worthy photos become an expressive print?

[richardman]

How many people do paintings worthy to hang in museums and galleries?

[Drew Wiley]

The word "art" should be divested from the conversation. That would get rid of the even more insipid category of taxonomy termed "art critics". They should get
real jobs more appropriate to their skill level, behind a Starbucks counter. ... Or maybe that is what they are in fact doing most of the time now, when not posting
online nonsense.

[neil poulsen]

Don't feed the trolls. This is what passes for art criticism in the age of the blog.

Yeah, I almost did. :)

[ghostcount]

The word "art" should be divested from the conversation. That would get rid of the even more insipid category of taxonomy termed "art critics". They should get
real jobs more appropriate to their skill level, behind a Starbucks counter. ... Or maybe that is what they are in fact doing most of the time now, when not posting
online nonsense.

From the same author...

"Art criticism is not a democracy" (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/jun/25/art-criticism-jonathan-jones)

"... I do think my opinion is true – and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in acuity." - Jonathan Jones.

He certainly strokes himself a lot. :rolleyes:

[Peter Lewin]

From the same author...

"Art criticism is not a democracy" (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/jun/25/art-criticism-jonathan-jones)

"... I do think my opinion is true – and that anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in acuity." - Jonathan Jones.

He certainly strokes himself a lot. :rolleyes:

Having read the article you linked to, afraid I rather agree with him. It also explains why we don't make our living as critics ... we're too humble.

[Tin Can]

Copying Mona Lisa. (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-assignment-lighting-like-leo.html#more)