ART and other things

[Herb Cunningham]

The folks who decide what print is accepted and what is not are a puzzle. My tastes tend to run to what Brooks Jensen publishes in Lenswork, and it appears many if not all the "Art" professors and the like do not have my tastes.
A show I went to last weekend had a judge that was the head of a Univ Art dept, who chose some pretty weird stuff for the show, only maybe 10% of what I like, the rest pretty much gimmicky.
Is my reaction common among LFers? I don't have a problem with people liking whatever they like, but this guy was bored by things that would be printed in Lenswork, calling such "cliches", where I would be impressed by the simple feeling produced by the images that Brooks chooses.
Perhaps the choosing of judges is what I need to research??

[Kirk Gittings]

Some judges are just interested in quality (me), some are most interested in images that are pushing the boundaries. University professors are more often of the later group. IMO it doesn't mean much either way beyond one judges personal tastes. No one should put much emotional energy into being accepted or rejected into a juried event. Even if you get accepted in a few short months it means nothing more than a line on your resume.

[photobymike]

When i was a kid just beginning in photography, i went to a photo exhibit at a community college i went to. The herds of people were raving over photos of the artist's nude mother sitting in a dentist chair. Upon closer inspection of this guys "art" , he pasted macaroni on the pictures at just the right spots. While the photography was poor, and the display was juvenile, i never forgot this art show.... it was more like remembering trauma to my spirit. But it did settle me with a question that i have spent my whole life trying to figure out. What is art? and more specifically; photo art.

http://www.mikepic.com

[paulr]

Some judges are just interested in quality (me), some are most interested in images that are pushing the boundaries.

There's also enormous subjectivity involved in what we deem "quality" or "pushing boundaries." Find ten curators or editors who claim to be interested in quality, for example, and you might find ten very different kinds of choices.

I do think tastes run very conservative around here. That's not even the right word. I would call them outright anachronistic. My tastes (in photography) are probably conservative, and I get lambasted a lot and lumped with the evil and trendy in a lot of art discussions.

This is all ok ... it's a big world, with room for many different kinds of tastes. It is not the duty of any artist or curator to please me. Or you. Artists should do what interests them. Curators should show art that they think is relevant, important, characteristic of what's happening now—or that fits whatever other criteria is determined by the vision of their institution.

Commercial galleries are mostly obligated to show what sells ... but it's a hard business, so in general you'll find it only attracts people with a genuine passion for what they push. Here too, tastes run the whole imaginable range.

[Richard M. Coda]

Don't get me started... I feel your pain.

Most of what I see today (not here on LF) I would classify as "cliche". If I see one more series of photographs of tiny toys in out of focus "sets" I will puke, especially to push a political agenda. Same thing with "deadpan" portraits and images of things that really don't belong together or occur naturally (WHY is that brand new piano out there in the middle of a dirt road?) - sure it makes me think, for a millisecond, but then I give up trying because I live in the real world and have real responsibilities. Like I say... "nothing I would put on my wall, but something I might see in a magazine while I'm getting my hair cut."

[mdm]

Time is the great leveler. Many people making great art make no pretence about it, Gursky for example does not believe he is making art. Fine art appears to be a category reserved by photographers for pointless rubbish. I would say if you can get people to give you millions for your pointless rubbish you can call it whatever you like.

[Kirk Gittings]

Time is the great leveler. Many people making great art make no pretence about it, Gursky for example does not believe he is making art. Fine art appears to be a category reserved by photographers for pointless rubbish. I would say if you can get people to give you millions for your pointless rubbish you can call it whatever you like.

In Gursky's case I find that statement humorous. Who? WHO! Is better at playing the art game than Gursky?

[paulr]

Don't get me started... I feel your pain.

Most of what I see today (not here on LF) I would classify as "cliche". If I see one more series of photographs of tiny toys in out of focus "sets" I will puke...

Fair enough, but I would likewise say the same thing about contemporary work that looks like Ansel Adams or Edward Weston or like a nature calendar.

These are examples of showing things in as familiar a light as possible. There is no seeing, only reminding and reassurance ... the essence of kitsch. It's utterly divorced from the experience of seeing this kind of work (or making it) back when it was revolutionary and new.

[BarryS]

Photography finally broke down the doors to the art world in the later part of the twentieth century, but with the acceptance--photography is now judged as part of the larger world of art. If you aren't aware of the current trends in art, you're likely to run into brick walls with some curators and gallerists. However, photography still exists as its own independent craft, and I think that's a good thing; photography shouldn't be reduced to just another choice of media by conceptual artists. Good work will usually find its place.

[paulr]

Photography finally broke down the doors to the art world in the later part of the twentieth century, but with the acceptance--photography is now judged as part of the larger world of art

I think that's a good way of understanding it. I also think it's a good thing in general. It would be lousy if the "larger world of art" were something homogenous and closed, but this isn't the case. The effect on photography of these barriers dropping has been expansive, not reductive. Photograph's horizons and possibilities are broader by a lot than they've ever been.

Now, I understand how it can seem like this isn't so. The work that's gotten the most attention in the last couple of decades has often looked surprisingly narrow and predictable. And if your explorations into what's going on stop after a glance or two, you might not see anything else. But there's a lot going on.

In my own luddite opinion, we live in an interesting time more because of the possibilities hinted at than for the work itself. I don't find a whole lot of new work that excites me, and I get bored easily while looking for it. So it becomes a self fulfilling profecy … you stop looking, you stop finding. Not the best state of affairs, and I have take some responsibility for it.

I'm also distracted by what's going on in some other art media. Music and literature especially. It's hard to worry about what I'll find (or not) at the armory show this weekend when I'm listening to the new Radiohead album for the 12th time.

[Bruce Watson]

...it appears many if not all the "Art" professors and the like do not have my tastes.

Welcome to my world.

My philosophy is that I make art for me. I do what makes me tick. If it doesn't interest anyone else (and there's ample reason to think that it doesn't) so be it. At least I'm true to myself.

[paulr]

My philosophy is that I make art for me. I do what makes me tick.

Well, if you do it for you, there's a fighting chance that it will resonate with somebody out there. Maybe even lots of people (even if they're not so easy to find).

If you make art that you don't connect with yourself, then the chances of it mattering to anyone else seem a lot slimmer. And if someone did like it, why would you care?

[mdm]

In Gursky's case I find that statement humorous. Who? WHO! Is better at playing the art game than Gursky?

Good business. We all sing for our supper, however that may be.

[Richard M. Coda]

May be a little OT, but I was just thinking about this...

guys my age (50)... LFers in general, are usually trying to see what to exclude from the frame (or what to keep in the frame). Younger photographers are usually trying to figure out what they can put into the frame. Yes? No? Maybe?

[BillA]

Photography finally broke down the doors to the art world in the later part of the twentieth century, but with the acceptance--photography is now judged as part of the larger world of art. If you aren't aware of the current trends in art, you're likely to run into brick walls with some curators and gallerists.

Barry, would you mind elaborating a bit on this thought? Are you saying that the artist's choice of media is equal so long as the finished product flows with the art market trends?

[BarryS]

In the late 20th century art began accelerating its fragmentation and subsuming everything it could get its hands on--including photography. Photography became another tool or medium of the artist. Artists using photography might not even admit to being photographers and critics and curators played along--sometimes treating photography as something artists took from photographers. In many ways, this was (and is) a market-driven fiction.

Photography always had a problem getting into the art mainstream because of the mechanical reproduction aspect and the difficulty of establishing a personal style. Yes, there were photographers that were able to (somewhat) transcend those problems, but until very recently photographs still sold for peanuts compared to contemporary non-photographic art. The idea of what constitutes art has been expanding since Duchamp submitted his urinal to the Armory show. If an artist can incorporate any object-- fat, felt, video, sound, ice, microorganisms, etc.--photographic processes become just another raw material.

I remember seeing works by the Starn Twins at the MCA in Chicago in the 80's. They were doing big collages of classic works of art--composed of poorly processed silver gelatin photos taped together. The Starns weren't photographers--they were artists referencing photography. WTF, you say? The wall between photography and art wasn't so much breaking down, as artists were reaching over the wall and grabbing stuff.

Think of Wolfgang Tillmans, Chuck Close, and Jeff Wall--all are generally regarded as contemporary artists incorporating photographic processes. There are enormous advantages to being an artist that uses photography as opposed to a "photographer"--the money is a lot better and you're free to switch mediums at will. Seems like a pretty good deal---no?

Part of the problem may be photographers too narrowly defining the medium and choking themselves off from the larger art world. Spend some time in an old style "camera club" and you can witness the dying remnants of the ruins of Pictorialism that lowered the status of photography for a generation. I spent a year (all I could take) as a member of local camera club and marveled at how these photographers with nothing to lose (they didn't make their livings off of photography)--refused to take any chances with their work. There are some strains of conservatism that don't serve photography very well.

It's hard to blame the art world for barring entry if you don't know the price of admission. This isn't anything new-- in studying Steichen--I understood the way he figured out how the art world worked--and did what he needed to establish his legitimacy.



Barry, would you mind elaborating a bit on this thought? Are you saying that the artist's choice of media is equal so long as the finished product flows with the art market trends?

[Brian C. Miller]

Part of the problem may be photographers too narrowly defining the medium and choking themselves off from the larger art world. Spend some time in an old style "camera club" and you can witness the dying remnants of the ruins of Pictorialism that lowered the status of photography for a generation. I spent a year (all I could take) as a member of local camera club and marveled at how these photographers with nothing to lose (they didn't make their livings off of photography)--refused to take any chances with their work. There are some strains of conservatism that don't serve photography very well.

What do you define as Pictorialism? Is it based on stressing atmosphere and viewpoint at the expense of the subject? Would that also encompass Surrealism and Abstraction?

What would "taking a chance" amount to? For a moment, let's take as a subject, a lemon.
Under Pictorialism, I would use an Imagon or Petzval lens, maybe even slap a Tiffen Softnet filter on. If I was using some hard lighting, I'd use a Tiffen SoftFX filter and some shiny utensils. I could print it with split toning, or use an alternative print process like cyanotype or kallitype. I could use Velvia and an enhancing filter.
Under Surrealism, I could photograph it as it fell, giving the illusion of being suspended in air. Or I could use various mirrors to warp its image. Or I could blur its image with a slow shutter speed. I could borrow Jim Galli's Eddie Lens (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/EddieLens/TheEddieLens.html) and photograph it with that. I could focus on the texture of the rind, and overlay that on something else. Or put lemon cutouts or overlays on other things, like Frank's models, for no apparent reason.
Under Abstractionism, I could photograph the lemon, and then remove it from the print. I could chop up the negative and rearrange it, or fold it. I could photograph not the lemon, but how it sounds. Or photograph a print the lemon makes. Or photograph the photograph missing a lemon.
Under Modernism (f/64), I'd use my best lens, and photograph the lemon. Nice lighting, blah blah blah.

Stieglitz on Pictorialism:
"It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow."
"Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph."
(Which I find kind of an odd thing to say, since it was his magazine that promoted Pictorialism.)

At the end of it all, it's still a lemon, and goes well on fish and chips.


It's hard to blame the art world for barring entry if you don't know the price of admission. This isn't anything new-- in studying Steichen--I understood the way he figured out how the art world worked--and did what he needed to establish his legitimacy.

Could you give a synopsis of that? Or a couple of good titles for reading?

[BillA]

Thank you, this is very enlightening. Where does someone like Jan Saudek fall in the grand scheme of things?

[Herb Cunningham]

glad I got some juices flowing. I was accepted in one university gallery, and got good reviews, just not 1st place. As this was my second submission, I am happy.
What I am trying to get my mind around is how in the h*** do these guys reach their conclusions?
Art, if I may be so bold, MUST generate a feeling, an emotion, or at least a strong, if not powerful thought.
That should be enough. If it generates a whole symphony of emotions, then I call it great Art. That fair?

[BillA]

One thing I really like about this forum is the level of reasoned debate, I always learn a lot here.

Working with the local design and arts colleges, I would say that many of the local professors value 'vision' and 'statement' over craftsmanship. I suspect this may be because students at the 100 and 200 level courses aren't great at technique (many of the 400 level students aren't either).

Surprisingly, one of the most technically demanding testing comes from a local community college rather than the local private art school.

[John Voss]

I love these two quoted statements:

"The history of modern art is also the history of the progressive loss of art's audience. Art has increasingly become the concern of the artist and the bafflement of the public."
Henry Geldzahler

"Art has gotten a bad name as the realm of unctuous charlatans, greedy dealers and their glamortrash clientele--the hang of smartypants fish-wrapper scribblers and toot-brained mummies who dress like Johnny Cash. As cartoon-like as it seems..., the fashionable art world constitutes a tiny fraction of the comprehensive art world, but it has plenty of money behind it." James L. McElhinney

It's very interesting to observe what work is being shown in galleries in different parts of the country. In NYC, unless you're very well established or classically collectible, large color prints of the sort you can see here www.bonnibenrubi.com seem to dominate. But if you look at the artists represented by www.susanspiritusgallery.com or galleries in the southwest, you'll see very different kinds of work. Some of the best work I've ever seen at bonni benrubi has been large format, but not at all in the arch conservative manner that is easily thought of as typical of that kind of photograph. I'm damn sure my photographs will never be hung in a gallery in NYC, but I'm not going to stress over it. As long as I'm happy with the best of what I'm doing, and continue to evolve in vision and technique, I'll feel satisfied...I think! lol

[BillA]

Wow, I like both examples, John Voss!

Bonnibenrubi had me thinking "wow, I wish I thought of that", while the "collapse" photo in susanspiritgallery is gorgeous.

There's a great book "How to survive and prosper as an artist" that speaks at length how many artists don't feel validated unless they hang in a NYC gallery. Quite a good read.

[Nathan Potter]

Most all photographic work done today is a cliche of some sort (been done before) and includes much of the work shown on this forum and elsewhere. In the most general sense it is still art. But some of it occasionally trends into a realm of personal expression where the content of the image is less apparent or significant than the emotion that is conveyed by the photographer. That is, the photograph reveals more about the image maker than the scene encompassing the image.

This notion, I think, explains why gallery owners look for distinctiveness of style and vision when choosing portfolios. A recognizable personal vision in a photograph attaches a higher potential value to that photographer simply due to potential ascending notoriety. Even greater value is ascribed when there is some underlying consistency of vision among many of the images. This kind of sensibility will be found among the elite gallery owners and often reflected in many university art professors. This is simply where photographic fine art is in its most healthy development. We need only look at well known historic photographers to see that the best known had a distinctive stye running through their images.

Photographic art encompasses a hugh range of image making and there is no well defined place where a snapshot is art or especially fine art. We have a succession of images from the snapshot to simple documentary to considered high quality images to incisive personal statements. Anywhere along the chain can be found, what is fair to say, fine art.

Art at all levels of sophistication has a piece of the photographers emotion attached to it. The viewer, however, brings their own emotional baggage (even DNA) when viewing the image, thus the ever important contract between viewer and image maker may be crisp or highly blurred. Hence judges of photographic art (and all art in fact) will be prone to great variation in interpretation.

Well, my brief two cents.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

I love these two quoted statements:

"The history of modern art is also the history of the progressive loss of art's audience. Art has increasingly become the concern of the artist and the bafflement of the public."
Henry Geldzahler

People have been saying stuff like this forever. It's a way of using an imagined version of "the public" as a surrogate for yourself, when you don't happen to like a particular trend.

It's also arguably nonsense. All you have to do is look at the line around the block outside MoMA on any sunny Saturday afternoon. For every black-turtlenecked "insider" you'll see a dozen families from the midwest, the south, the west coast, europe, asia ... all willing to wait half an hour and pay $20 to see some interesting and relevant things.

The biggest complaints about modern art (an anachronism if ever there was one ... the modernist era, according to many, ended over a half century ago) come from artists who feel disenfranchised, or by ultraconservatives or other social/political control freaks who feel threatened by it.

Take a look at some of the most vocal enemies of art … not just modernism, but all flavors of the avant garde, culturally challenging, or even just basic abstraction: Hitler, Mao, stalin, Jesse Helms …

[paulr]

Even greater value is ascribed when there is some underlying consistency of vision among many of the images.

I think you're hinting at an important difference in emphasis. At the higher end, either in academia or in public institutions, the emphasis is on what the artist has to say: is it interesting, relevent, in any way distinctive; is it well developed and well articulated?

These concerns are much different from the ones you see in a guild or camera club kinds of settings, where the emphasis is often on prettiness or craft (both of which tend to be judged by conformity to conventions).

It's why I get frustrated when people post individual images and ask for a critique. This is much like a novelist for a critique of a sentence without any context.

It can be done, but only on the most superficial level, as a high school teacher might critique your grammar according to conventions. Without the broader context of the rest of the book, or at least a paragraph or two, how can you know what the writer is even trying to do? A textbook-perfect, conventional sentence might be be what's called for—but maybe something rough, imperfect, elliptical, or strangely inflected would do the job best. Wtihout knowing the point, you can't judge the craft.

[Kirk Gittings]

Most all photographic work done today is a cliche of some sort (been done before) and includes much of the work shown on this forum and elsewhere. In the most general sense it is still art. But some of it occasionally trends into a realm of personal expression where the content of the image is less apparent or significant than the emotion that is conveyed by the photographer. That is, the photograph reveals more about the image maker than the scene encompassing the image.

Well said.

[Brian K]

For all the screams of "cliche" from the trendiest of curators and artists, most of the work produced by them or exclaimed by them closely resembles the work done by first year art students for the last 50 years. Work lacking in the maturity of expression and emotion but instead reliant on shock or surprise. Conceptual work lacking any concepts and requiring a virtual lab analysis to find any meaning in. And so often what would have been described as low quality commercial work 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, is now viewed by much of the art establishment as being masterful.

So for me, I just shoot what I want. I've been around long enough to see a great many styles in art come and go, and return, and get replaced again by the next new/old thing. If you shoot for a market, you'll never be true to what you want and you'll always have to keep changing with the capricious nature of taste and acceptance in the art world.

Art has become fashion, with all the depth and reverence of any commodity that requires a fresh look every season to stay "current".

[Vaughn]

...guys my age (50)... LFers in general, are usually trying to see what to exclude from the frame (or what to keep in the frame). Younger photographers are usually trying to figure out what they can put into the frame. Yes? No? Maybe?

I am closing in on 57, and generally I still am looking for light to cram onto an 8x10 piece of film. Exclusion and inclusion carry about the same weight.

[jnantz]

whether it is judged competitions or gallery stuff.
you have to do your homework learn about the judges or the galleries
and submit work accordingly. if judges like off the wall stuff, well,
maybe that isn't the competition for you, and if a gallery only likes 32x40
pt/pd gumovers that look like andy warhol m-m lithos, well maybe that isn't the gallery to get an audience at.

there are plenty of judged competitions and plenty of galleries out there
it is a matter of showing work to one that is a nice "fit" for your style.

[Vaughn]

Even knowing the style of the juror it can still be a bit of a crap-shoot. And finding out how they have judged past shows can be hard to find.

Seems like judges can be tougher on images made in the judge's own style or process.

[Richard M. Coda]

I am closing in on 57, and generally I still am looking for light to cram onto an 8x10 piece of film. Exclusion and inclusion carry about the same weight.

I was referring to actually physically putting things into the frame, versus photographing what you have before you.

[paulr]

For all the screams of "cliche" from the trendiest of curators and artists, most of the work produced by them or exclaimed by them closely resembles the work done by first year art students for the last 50 years. Work lacking in the maturity of expression and emotion but instead reliant on shock or surprise. Conceptual work lacking any concepts and requiring a virtual lab analysis to find any meaning in. And so often what would have been described as low quality commercial work 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, is now viewed by much of the art establishment as being masterful.

I'm curious to know who you're talking about. Who are the trendiest curators and artists?

[Nathan Potter]

I think you're hinting at an important difference in emphasis. At the higher end, either in academia or in public institutions, the emphasis is on what the artist has to say: is it interesting, relevent, in any way distinctive; is it well developed and well articulated?

These concerns are much different from the ones you see in a guild or camera club kinds of settings, where the emphasis is often on prettiness or craft (both of which tend to be judged by conformity to conventions).

It's why I get frustrated when people post individual images and ask for a critique. This is much like a novelist for a critique of a sentence without any context.

It can be done, but only on the most superficial level, as a high school teacher might critique your grammar according to conventions. Without the broader context of the rest of the book, or at least a paragraph or two, how can you know what the writer is even trying to do? A textbook-perfect, conventional sentence might be be what's called for—but maybe something rough, imperfect, elliptical, or strangely inflected would do the job best. Wtihout knowing the point, you can't judge the craft.

Paul, yes, pretty much what I was informing and well summarized.

I would have some defense of the camera club atmosphere, less for fostering creativity, but more for the value to aspiring photographers who need basic technique and composition help. A rigid discipline can be acquired which then leads to more intimate personal explorations if the impetus is there.

In a sense, I have come to think that photographers who have developed their craft (or even their personality) in isolation from the main stream can define their vision more originally than those schooled in photographic art. Such a notion would make for an interesting thread in itself.

Nate Potter, Austin TX

[Brian C. Miller]

Art, if I may be so bold, MUST generate a feeling, an emotion, or at least a strong, if not powerful thought.
That should be enough. If it generates a whole symphony of emotions, then I call it great Art. That fair?

I figure that it needs to have as much impact as a broken bottle in a bar fight.

However, I don't know what has the same impact for someone else. Things that I would just ignore, someone else find genuinely moving and fascinating.

[Brian K]

I'm curious to know who you're talking about. Who are the trendiest curators and artists?

Paul, I won't name anyone specifically. I'm not looking to insult anyone. I think all of us who regularly go to museums, galleries and exhibitions have seen the type of work I reference. And that work appears there on the basis of the decision making of a curator or gallery director.

[paulr]

Paul, I won't name anyone specifically. I'm not looking to insult anyone. I think all of us who regularly go to museums, galleries and exhibitions have seen the type of work I reference. And that work appears there on the basis of the decision making of a curator or gallery director.

Well, I go to museums and galleries all the time, and see all kinds of different stuff. And I sometimes have strong reactions to it, both negative and positive, which don't always correspond with my friends' reactions. So I really don't know who you're talking about ... not even broadly.

Go ahead and name a curator who's super trendy and fits your description. I seriously doubt they'll care about the opinions of a couple of us yahoos on the internet.

[paulr]

Something occurred to me after reading this thread that strikes me as funny ... the sense that photography being subsumed into the larger art world is somehow a negative thing. It's specifically what many of the important photographers and curators of the early 20th century fought for! Stieglitz, Steichen, Newhall ... this is their dream. If its result is the broadening of the medium, both in its standards and in the kinds of people it attracts, great!

[BarryS]

"What do you define as Pictorialism? Is it based on stressing atmosphere and viewpoint at the expense of the subject? Would that also encompass Surrealism and Abstraction?"

When I referenced Pictorialism, I was thinking of it in its institutionalized context--the publications, salons, and clubs. I don't have much interest in the un-answerable debate of exactly what constitutes a pictorial photograph. What was the Photo-Secession, but a shifting curatorial idea in the mind of Stieglitz? Pictorialism followed in the footsteps of the giants--Steichen, Coburn, White, Kasbier, etc--but it eventually rotted out from the inside, turning in a rigorous sort of kitsch. The stinking corpse is evident in the formal camera clubs and their empty salons--not necessarily in the practioners of pictorial process. Think HDR, not gum over platinum. Risk in photography is the same as in any discipline--daring to stray from the pack and the likelihood your work will be disliked or misunderstood.

"Could you give a synopsis of that? Or a couple of good titles for reading?"

Steichen was ambitious and poor--unlike many of contemporaries that were ambitious and had plenty of daddy's money (Stieglitz) or who could afford to be dilettantes on daddy's dime (Day).

Steichen:

--Instensely studied photography and the larger world of art

--Branded himself as an multidisciplinary artist

--Cultivated relationships with pivotal figures in the art world

--Relentlessly self-promoted himself

--Knew how to play "both sides of the fence" (e.g., his friensdhip and artistic collaborations with both Day and Stieglitz--two powerful and opposed forces)

--Produced non-deriaviative photography that was grounded in both the cutting edge of photography and the contemporary art of his time

I'd recommend A Life in Photography by Steichen, Steichen by Penelope Niven, Edward Steichen: The Early Years, and Steichen's Legacy by Joanna Steichen.

[BillA]

Thanks, I ordered several of those books from the library today.