6 traits characterize renaissances...

[John Kasaian]

An editor turned me on to a really interesting blog:

http://josephduggan.wordpress.com/

Take a look at:
Life after Liquidation of the Fourth Estate from Sunday, April 5, 2009

6 Traits, he writes, characterizes renaissances. What might interest you is the 3rd trait:

"A renaissance is always announced in and by the arts; artists function as "the antennae of the race."

My question is---where does photography fit in here? Or perhaps more to the point: where does your photography fit in here?

[james3563]

Thanks John. Interesting article. I'm going to have to read it again, but my first reaction is Renaissance:no! Regarding the demise of the Fourth estate, we might be better informed by Joseph Schumpater than by Joyce or McLuhan. Ezra Pound's old saw that artists are the antennae of the race is bunk. Which artists? Today? Do artists in the West perform the same functions today that they did previously? I would have a hard time saying that they do.
There is even a bit of an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophesy here. The "Renaissance" was artistic by definition, right? Well, maybe not. Some historians would argue that the Renaissance was effected by the export of new ideas in philosophy and theology FROM northern Europe TO Italy, where they then found their first artistic expression. To the extent this is true, artists were the last to get the massage, not the first.
Besides, how many renaissances are we using as our control group?
But the topic is interesting because the visual arts are being very much changed by changes in mass media. So I hope to talk more about this. Jim.

[cobalt]

Artists have often been the harbingers of new insights relative to culture in the past. Most photographers, however, are not artists, but technicians. Many who claim to be artists today are not even artists; they wear black, speak in riddles, don't eat meat, and "create" ridiculous, inflammatory "works" in order to garner attention, and subsequently, fame. These people are not possessed of the same perceptual and conceptual talents as true artists. What you have, in effect, is a "watering down", if you will, of the artist's function in society.

[EdWorkman]

An interesting question. But isn't art supported by money and time that isn't squandered on food and shelter, thus following rather than leading?
Not that there aren't/weren't "starving artists", but that existence depends on relative prosperity around it, as in, what good does it do to play your violin on a streetcorner if nobody has a nickel to toss in the case? Or one might buy a photo of one's dead child by foregoing a coupla days' food, but not a family portrait. The [really good] art of the Rennaisance survives, but what artifacts are available from a couple of decades, say, before those folks started painting?

[Toyon]

Artists have often been the harbingers of new insights relative to culture in the past. Most photographers, however, are not artists, but technicians. Many who claim to be artists today are not even artists; they wear black, speak in riddles, don't eat meat, and "create" ridiculous, inflammatory "works" in order to garner attention, and subsequently, fame. These people are not possessed of the same perceptual and conceptual talents as true artists. What you have, in effect, is a "watering down", if you will, of the artist's function in society.

Okay, you've defined poseur-artists, now define true artists. Is it purely that "they are not possessed of the same perceptual and conceptual talents as true artists". Talent is defined as "natural aptitude" or "capacity for achievement and success". This alone doesn't seem enough of a definition, since there are plenty of artists who have lesser talents than others. Is it as you point out, the ridiculous poses some "artists" adopt? I'm not convinced that their decision to adopt them has much bearing on their ability. Is it that some of them use these poses and associated stunts in an attempt to gain fame? Does that make them non-artists? I'm not convinced of that either.

You're saying something.... but your thought is unfinished.