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 :rolleyes:

Well, thats what you get when I stay up past my bedtime:D 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

[Daniel_Buck]

I've got no problem with looking at photographs on a wall :-) Admitably, I'm not as 'artsy' as some folks though :-D

[John Kasaian]

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.

One of the hallmarks of visual art is that it not only captures memories, but also preserves them (with some exceptions) whether it is the nightmare of a strung-out painter or the alpenglow on glacial talus seen by a photographer or the 'come hither' eyes of a young lady sitting for a portrait.

Whose story it is may be an element of defining what art is and isn't--I've gave up trying to do that long ago though. Perhaps Art is symbiotic---like any story there has to be a transmitter and a receiver. The Artist is the transmitter, the Viewer the receiver. Just may be the difference between "good" and "poor" is whether or not the message is transmitted clearly enough to be appreciated? Monet's hay stacks tell Monet's story, but someone who hangs a print of Monet's Haystacks on the wall must appreciate them enough to do so in which case Monet's Haystacks become the person who bought the print's haystacks too. Transmission received!
If you sell a print, dosen't the person who buys the print "adopt" that print and give it a home?

Of course if someone hangs an expensive print up purely to show off status and wealth, the analogy crumbles!

I do see your point though!

[John Kasaian]

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.

Kirk,
I can't argue with that, though beauty and form tell stories too. In such a scenario I often feel uneasy because if I can't "connect" then I get the nagging feeling that what is being exhibited as Art may be nothing more than the egoism of abstraction.

As for isolation, I agree--- distractions are, well, distracting. There is the often very desireable sensation of looking at a picture as though looking through a window but when it comes to art that is "lived" with as opposed to an exhibition in a museum or gallery I think the reason for isolation fades. It would be sort of like having a beautiful teenager that spends all it's time playing with the wii. Yeah, there is a kid in the house but how do you have meaningful interaction with 'em? All there is to do is watch them bounce around in front of the tv! Watch as muscles flex, sweat and hair fly, feet and hands poise and move. Thats beautiful but if the kid opens up to tell you his or her hopes and dreams and fears, well...that's beautifuller! Hey I just invented a new word! ;)

[John Kasaian]

I've got no problem with looking at photographs on a wall :-) Admitably, I'm not as 'artsy' as some folks though :-D

Walls are fine places for photographs, especially if the photographs speak to your soul :)

[John Kasaian]

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.

Jim, I'm not allowed east of that big thermometer in Baker :D

[Nick K]

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.

Have you ever been to an art show, art walk, or a museum that offers high quality reproductions? I can get on the internet and learn all about art, or get on an airplane and go to Paris and see original artwork made by masters for a fraction of the amount of money I make in a year. Not that I'm uncle moneybags but if I wanted to, it's possible.

I can go to bookstores and buy volumes about different kinds of art. I can go to an art store and learn how to make my own. I can, and do, work a full time job and dedicate a significant part of my free time to the creative process. If anything, art is much more accessible in this day and age than it was 100 years ago, certainly 500 years ago.

What I cannot fathom myself is why someone will pay $7000 for a flatscreen and not pay a fraction of that for incredible handmate art pieces to use as focal points for a room.

Just gonna edit to add a bit more,

The idea of putting art in context is not a new one. We saw it in the past with postmodernism and we see it every day in the forms of stenciling, wheatpasting, 'grafitti' and other kinds of street art. I have been to numerous exhibits where the exhibit itself was the room, and/or the space inside was designed specifically to highlight the kind of art we're experiencing. This is not some earth-shattering perspective you're providing here, but a statement about your artistic preference which is, you know, absolutely great.

But the real challenge, as I see it, is presenting your idea through your medium of choice (photo, what have you) to the audience you want to. How are you going to do that? Maybe it's not even a priority? For me it never really was. Not until recently anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

Originally Posted by domenico Foschi View Post
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.

Having originally intended to be an archaeologist and having spent many years in the study of ancient cultures, it is abundantly clear that since the beginning of large complex cultures (2-3,000BC, all over the world), that the finest art has always been the province of those that could afford it, the ruling elite. Our current museum systems are perhaps the most democratically accessible venues for fine art that history has ever seen.

[domenico Foschi]

True, and when I was writing my contribution to this thread I was aware of that.
I made the mistake of not citing museums,...my fault.
On the other hand, I find it sad that there are many masterpieces out there that have never seen the light of day and have never been shared.
Just because this is phenomenon that has been happening since the dawn of man,.. doesn't mean it should be void of criticism.

[George Kara]

Interesting that most comments so far are not are not from the viewers perspective.

Galleries simply reflect the current taste in fashion or interior design and look far different from those in prior periods.

Art is often a matter of focus in the eyes of the viewer, creator or participant. Art certainly does not need to tell a story, reflect the world, or even a particular point of view - of course it often does, but it isn't a prerequisite.

The definition of art rests squarely on the viewer/participant. As people, we love things bundled into tidy packages - with the meaning clear and definable. Heck, the frame is often the finishing touch prior to exhibition. It gives the boundaries of what you are to look at. For me, I love to watch the shadows move across art as people walk by. It radically changes the feel and mood of the piece.

How often are our opinions the simple reflection of other peoples judgments. There are so many works of art that have monetary value based upon the original opinions of literally one or two people. Afterwords it is a foregone conclusion that the work has value for the whole world.

H Matisse was made literally by two collectors- Dr. Barnes of Philadelphia and the industrialist S. Shchukin in Russia. Everyone made fun of the russian as he had no formal training in art, nor had ever had a previous interest in art. (Matisse has always been one of my personal favorites).

I respect my audience and their personal opinions. But I refuse to make all the decisions for them. Actually Im looking for answers from them.

[John Kasaian]

I'm not knocking museums, far be it though I think a work of art often looses something when it is put in a museum---this is when a piece of art was designed for an intended use. Consider a streamlined locomotive from the 1930's, a Baptismal Font from the 1300's or an Auburn Roadster. In museums they are preserved and admired as works of "art" but they never get to be observed as being functional---fulfilling the orignial intent of the designer.

A cave painting ideally belongs in a cave. Climbing over under and between boulders (especially if you have a fear of snakes with big sharp teeth such as I do) and bashing your noggin is the admission the viewer pays simply because it is a cave painting.
This difference is art in a pure (purest? Pure-er??) form as opposed to when it is in a more contrived venue.
I have a print I really like and it is scotch taped to the wall above my 'puter monitor. I could have matted it and framed it and hung it in the living room, but it wouldn't "speak" to me in the same profound way. Nope, scotch tape on the ol' sheetrock suits "It" and me :)
I think most Art wants to be like that print. Alive, fragile, consumed by those who appreciate it. Art then has a meaning and purpose, rather than as merely being an aloof shrine to some abstraction--which is what I feel it is when someone points to a famous print by a famous photographer expertly framed, lighted, and hung on it's own wall and the owner winks while saying "this one set me back $___,___.00---isn't it just stunning?
An old snap shot of a kid on a pony gleaned from a thrift store says far more to me.

[Gerry]

...makes me a sad. Really.
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.



I have to disagree with you on this, photographs should be looked at alone without distraction, on their own merit. A simple frame a white mat and the photograph on the wall by itself is the way to go. No embelishments to enhance or hide the image. Show the photograph simply and directly and let it speak or not speak to you.

[George Kara]

Gerry whoa

Are you with the secret photography police? :) Your words express the standard conventions for many. I prefer to not enshrine a simple captured image.

Many photographs and shutter operater's are stuck within the mores of the 19th century. Your advice is spot on for the craft-person living within these conventions.

Some however, like photographs to be an essential part of their daily lives. Kids laughing, dogs barking, making love, cooking - Art everywhere. Photography is a part of my life experience not separated or above it.

The Greek and Roman ways of living with art are far closer to my ideal than the limitations of 19th century Europe.