The Online Photographer: "The Ort of Photography"

[Brian C. Miller]

John Camp posted a guest essay on The Online Photographer, entitled, "The Ort of Photography (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/guest-post-john-camp.html)."

His premise basic premise is that painting originates from within, while photography originates from without. Photography will never match or exceed painting's strengths, so instead its practitioners should concentrate on photography's strengths. What happens for a fleeting instant before a shutter in motion is photography's strength, which painting won't match.

Do you think he's right? I think so, but to the extent that a photographer's name will fade, but the photograph, especially an iconic photograph, will remain. But I'm still not sure that a photograph will approach the monetary value of a painting.

[John Kasaian]

Monetary value is nebulous at best. For Art to have usefulness, it has to be appreciated and the most famous paintings are appreciated by far more people through photographic reproductions (and now digital images) than when hanging in museums or mansions.

[Greg Blank]

Brian;

Nice topic!

Does it matter, that a photo could, will, or would? So much of art is wrapped into religion-superstition (by that I mean man's earliest experience) and therefore is steeped in the depths of fear and reverence. The cave painters were the spiritual leaders of the klan and produced awe inspired into the others in the group. If others without the ability to consult the "GODS" saw you chanting and producing the creatures from the world onto a wall- you were powerful. Today: If you look at how enchanted people become, when they watch you draw something, or watch someone else as they produce -building something of interest from "scratch". Look at how distant society is from beliefs, moralities, nature, one's own self, you may understand that having enough money to fill that space places a much higher value than perhaps.

Suddenly a great percentage of society has technology but not everyone can draw with a stick, a brush, a pencil or ever will be able to without far greater advancements in technology. Tech may truly even the playing field- but uniqueness "could" ultimately be the thing that fades.



Do you think he's right? I think so, but to the extent that a photographer's name will fade, but the photograph, especially an iconic photograph, will remain. But I'm still not sure that a photograph will approach the monetary value of a painting.

[Greg Blank]

A very valid point, without photography, art on its own might not have produced a more vibrant and advanced society. In a way though as history happened it made Art a client or spouse to photography/instead of an included medium...which makes Photography somewhat obligated to Art. But then you have the Philosophy-Science-Religion- Superstition thing going on again by default :D

Just think if video had been the first evolutionary step in this process ;),....we could have all been happy photographers without consequence.



Monetary value is nebulous at best. For Art to have usefulness, it has to be appreciated and the most famous paintings are appreciated by far more people through photographic reproductions (and now digital images) than when hanging in museums or mansions.

[David R Munson]

I do not think he's right. In fact, I disagree with him to a high degree. It's a matter of taste that he's presenting as a matter of truth. There are all sorts of problems with his argument, not the least of which is using what sells for the most as a basis for judging the inherent value of one form of art versus another.

[cowanw]

He says...
"•Portraiture
•Genre scenes
•History painting (including religious art)
•Abstraction
•Outsider art (which in photography would include snapshots)
In none of these areas do I think the best of photography can match the best of painting in terms of power, or emotional effectiveness, or aesthetic quality."

In an earlier post referred to he says...
"Ask, "Who can be judged a great artist (in photography) fifty years after he died?" So, right now, what photographer who died before 1961 is generally recognized by the public as a great artist?

In painting, of course, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of them, going all the way back to the Renaissance. Who hasn't heard of Leonardo? That's even true with Americans, like Winslow Homer, Thomas Eakins, Mary Cassatt, Grant Wood, Jackson Pollock, etc. Where are the photographers? When you say 'Stieglitz,' how many people jump up and shout, "Love those cloud photos!""

I think he is being a bit of a troll.
Just to ignore the portraiture of the 19th and 20th century, is remarkably obtuse.
I would answer. When you say 'Karsh' how many people jump up and shout,"Love those portraits"
You may insert any of dozens of your favorite portraitists.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, I think the monetary value of photography in the art market is somewhat determined by the number of prints made. He seems to feel that great paintings sell for more because people value them more than a photo however had Ansel only printed one "Moonrise, Hernandez" and that image was held in the same high regard amongst collectors then my guess is it would fetch millions at auction. The value is somewhat dictated by availability.

I also don,t agree that photography is an external response while painting is an internal response. All art begins with an internal vision, at least good art. I think a great photographer works the same way any other great artist works, they begin with the end in mind. Perhaps abstract painting is purely internal' but then so would abstract photography (and I think even abstracts begin with an external influence at some point).

I will spend a little more time with this article, thanks for posting.

[Jim Jones]

Monetary value is nebulous at best. . . .

Yes, indeed. Art is art, and money is business. The value of each is variable. For example, the value of one dollar to someone desperate for a loaf of bread is rather higher than the value of one dollar to Bill Gates. A child's fleeting wonder at the beauty of music and other art should be as valuable as the shreds of wonder that remain under the burden of sophistication.

John Camp claims, "In none of these areas do I think the best of photography can match the best of painting in terms of power, or emotional effectiveness, or aesthetic quality." I strongly disagree. Even in the age of Photoshop, photography suggests integrity. Has any painter ever portrayed a sitter as completely as Yousuf Karsh in his most famous photo of Hemingway? Perhaps Rembrandt shows what Rembrandt saw and felt about his subjects, but Karsh doesn't stand between us and his sitters.

Then Camp says, ". . . those artworks that are most widely accepted as masterpieces sell for the most money." To some businessmen, probably yes. Perhaps by a similar standard we should consider Paris Hilton as the epitome of class and wisdom.

[Brian K]

I agree with Camp when he states that "photographers will be lost in time" but to that I would add "the vast majority of photographers" will be lost in time. And I think the problem is not that photography itself is a less expressive medium than say painting or sculpture, but because there is so much of it that lacks any real expression or merit that photography as a whole has become devalued. We have gotten to a point where photography is so full of really poor photographs, being produced by the billions everyday, that work of merit is deeply buried by the mediocrity.

Much of the contemporary styled photographic work being produced today that is lauded by the art establishment is little more than fashion or short term politically based. Subjects that future generations will not see as particularly interesting as so much will change in society and it's interests between now and then. And let's be real here is that the general population looks at much of this work and thinks that they or even their children could do it. Contentless and pointless work does not inspire.

The comparison that Camp made to the painting of flowers by Breughel and the flowers by Mapplethorpe I think is a good example. I can view a painting of flowers and be so blown away by the painter's ability to render such amazing detail and quality that that in itself makes me revere the piece. And if the painter has combined that impressive talent with content that is interesting then I am incredibly impressed. I look at Mapplethorpe's sample of flowers in a vase, and have to say to myself that I'd seen that type of image 1000 times before Mapplethorpe did it so it's not like he did anything unique or creative there, I've seen it better done, and as someone with extensive studio experience know exactly how difficult and how competent a photograph that is. I also know that there are perhaps a dozen photographers here on LFF who could have done it just as well, perhaps even better. So to say the least I am not impressed with it, and have never been.

However what Camp seems to forget is that photography has a few other tricks up it's sleeve that painting lacks. One is that traditionally photography was a capture of a real event, and unless the content is edited, is still telling a real story, that is a story from real life as it happens. Paintings do not get the degree of credibility that photographs get when it comes to the truth aspect.

The other thing that photography does well is the use of the 4th dimension. By utilizing either super short exposures and freezing an instant, or by using very long exposures to expand time, a photographer can show what the eye can not see.

I think long term that landscape will become more valued, especially photographic landscape. I think this because we are altering the surface of the planet at an alarming and accelerating rate, and at some point the beauty of nature will be all but gone. We just welcomed the 7 billionth person to the planet, and the rate of population is also accelerating. Sustaining the natural beauty of the Earth will not last long against the requirements, of food, energy, raw materials and housing. And while a painting of a landscape lost may make the viewer ponder what was, the credibility of what really was , that only a photograph can provide, will resonate far more deeply.

[Ben Syverson]

The entire argument is hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

As I just posted to TOP, "You can ask whether they'll ever make a potato chip that's as tasty as a french fry, but you can't expect a rational person to engage in that debate."

[David R Munson]

How many painters have painted flowers and have subsequently been completely forgotten?

[Brian K]

How many painters have painted flowers and have subsequently been completely forgotten?

I'm willing to bet that more people have photographed flowers in the last 100 years than painted flowers in the last 500 so I think the argument about quantity will not favor photography.

Poor painting is forgotten, poor photography is forgotten. But the sheer volume of poor photography vastly overwhelms the sheer volume of people painting poorly. Being realistic, painting requires far more of a commitment today than photography does. Someone who wants to start painting has to go out and buy all the materials, materials suited to only one goal and painting is very time intensive. Someone wanting to take photos just needs to own a cell phone, something completely ubiquitous even in poor parts of the world and they can produce an image in less than a minute.

[David R Munson]

Doing anything well enough to be remembered in any medium is hard enough to dictate that most people creating in that way will be forgotten in time. There are plenty of dilettantes with brushes as well as with cameras. The accessibility of photography and the resulting profusion of it in the world does not diminish its validity or its relevance. Being realistic, to get good at anything requires a hell of a major commitment. This is as true with photography as it is with painting or anything else. If I want to make photographs in the way that communicates my vision fully, that requires no less work and no less careful selection of materials than would painting.

tl;dr superiority of one medium over another is necessarily a bullshit concept

[Greg Blank]

With Ketchup or without? With Krinkles or Ruffles?


The entire argument is hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

As I just posted to TOP, "You can ask whether they'll ever make a potato chip that's as tasty as a french fry, but you can't expect a rational person to engage in that debate."

[cowanw]

We are comparing thousands of years of other art to 150 years of photography. The 20th century was the century of film. The most visual century ever, yet. I expect more photographers will be remembered, as a proportion, than Breugel's contemporaries. Yes, the vast majority will be forgotten. Y'all and me, but not all.
Since this is the 21st Century, without Googling, who can name a great painter of, say, the 11th century.
Comparing apples and apples;
How about Steichen's "Heavy Roses" and Sargent's "Roses"

[Greg Blank]

Camp actually agrees with the first two quoted paragraphs you wrote Brian, & I agree with the third I have reposted.




However what Camp seems to forget is that photography has a few other tricks up it's sleeve that painting lacks. One is that traditionally photography was a capture of a real event, and unless the content is edited, is still telling a real story, that is a story from real life as it happens. Paintings do not get the degree of credibility that photographs get when it comes to the truth aspect.

The other thing that photography does well is the use of the 4th dimension. By utilizing either super short exposures and freezing an instant, or by using very long exposures to expand time, a photographer can show what the eye can not see.

I think long term that landscape will become more valued, especially photographic landscape. I think this because we are altering the surface of the planet at an alarming and accelerating rate, and at some point the beauty of nature will be all but gone. We just welcomed the 7 billionth person to the planet, and the rate of population is also accelerating. Sustaining the natural beauty of the Earth will not last long against the requirements, of food, energy, raw materials and housing. And while a painting of a landscape lost may make the viewer ponder what was, the credibility of what really was , that only a photograph can provide, will resonate far more deeply.

[Brian C. Miller]

Poor painting is forgotten...

Well, then you should visit the Museum of Bad Art (http://museumofbadart.org/)! Yes, when art finally reaches its true value, it winds up in MOBA.

[Brian Ellis]

I read the essay. I questioned his dichotomy between painting as something that originates from within and photography as something that originates from without. Plenty of photographers have a particular photograph in mind before they actually make the photograph and they then set out to make that photograph. And some types of painters are inspired by particular scenes or subjects and use them as the basis for a painting. I don't know, maybe it would be more accurate to say most paintings or most photographs. But regardless, it was a thoughtful and insightful article I thought.

[Brian K]

Well, then you should visit the Museum of Bad Art (http://museumofbadart.org/)! Yes, when art finally reaches its true value, it winds up in MOBA.

Why go there when all I need do is go look at flickr?

[E. von Hoegh]

Ort - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ort

[Greg Blank]

Ah ha! Now we are the hoar-crux of it all! The Ort of any Art is just a scrap of creative thought! :) Well done Herr Hoegh!


Ort - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ort

[Jay DeFehr]

Camp's perspective is an early 20th century one, and none of his arguments/observations are new, or particularly well thought. Any theory that doesn't consider the latest, best thinking on cognition and evolution doesn't warrant much attention.

[Brian C. Miller]

Any theory that doesn't consider the latest, best thinking on cognition and evolution doesn't warrant much attention.

:) So the next time we wonder, "why doesn't anybody buy my photographs," we should crack open a tome on evolved cognition?

I was reading "Art Values or Money Values? (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit3-6-07.asp)," by Donald Kuspit, and he made the point that what we are seeing for these prices is not the cultivation of art, but the cultivation of money. "Art has never been independent of money, but now it has become a dependency of money. Consciousness of money is all-pervasive." He makes a case that money is changing how we view art, based on what an investment house does.

So if investment is driving art prices and not the value of the art, then art's worth as art is subverted. And cognition and evolution are comletely irrelevant in the face of an investment portfolio.

[cyrus]

A rather limited understanding of photography consisting of capturing external truths. Theres a lot more to it. It is just a medium recordong light. You can do all sorts of things with that as with a paintbrush

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

When you ask, "why doesn't anybody buy my photographs," you might console yourself with Camp's argument that your photos are not paintings, but I remain unconvinced. I suspect straight photography is dead as an art form, and the work being done now that will be important in the coming years is much more conceptual in nature. I think photographers who wonder why no one is buying their photos should consider the possibility their photos are not very interesting, and that probably has little to do with painting.

If you think cognition and evolution have nothing to do with an investment portfolio, you have a very limited understanding of both. The financial markets are dependent on evolutionary algorithms, and no one makes a decision of any kind without cognition. Markets, including the art market, are emergent technologies that evolved rather than being designed, and any theory that doesn't consider that fact is not one likely to have a lot of explanatory power.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

When you ask, "why doesn't anybody buy my photographs," you might console yourself with Camp's argument that your photos are not paintings, but I remain unconvinced. I suspect straight photography is dead as an art form, and the work being done now that will be important in the coming years is much more conceptual in nature. I think photographers who wonder why no one is buying their photos should consider the possibility their photos are not very interesting, and that probably has little to do with painting.

If you think cognition and evolution have nothing to do with an investment portfolio, you have a very limited understanding of both. The financial markets are dependent on evolutionary algorithms, and no one makes a decision of any kind without cognition. Markets, including the art market, are emergent technologies that evolved rather than being designed, and any theory that doesn't consider that fact is not one likely to have a lot of explanatory power.

What's "straight" photography? Gursky's images look very straight to me. Sure there's concepts behind it but the images themselves that I've seen are about as "straight" as it gets. Ditto Struth, Shore, the list goes on and on.

If by "straight" you mean typical photographs of old barns, trees, and rocks made by living photographers and devoid of any concept except "isn't that nice," that kind of work has been dead as an art form at the highest levels of "art" for decades. That doesn't mean there's no market for it, just that it isn't going to bring hundreds of thousands of dollars at major galleries and Art News isn't going to devote pages to it and Aperture probably isn't going to publish it and it isn't what's admired in the fine art departments of universities and it isn't what most critics write about.

I'm certainly not dumping on that kind of photography, it's more or less the kind of thing I do. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to get the Castelli Gallery to sell it or Sotheby's to devote an auction to it.

[Brian K]

Brian,

I suspect straight photography is dead as an art form, and the work being done now that will be important in the coming years is much more conceptual in nature. I think photographers who wonder why no one is buying their photos should consider the possibility their photos are not very interesting, and that probably has little to do with painting.

If you think cognition and evolution have nothing to do with an investment portfolio, you have a very limited understanding of both. The financial markets are dependent on evolutionary algorithms, and no one makes a decision of any kind without cognition. Markets, including the art market, are emergent technologies that evolved rather than being designed, and any theory that doesn't consider that fact is not one likely to have a lot of explanatory power.

I was in a gallery yesterday, the work being shown were small canvases or painted wood simply framed. The "painting" was simply one solid color, nothing more. No content, no gradation of color, only one solid color, on a smooth substrate, in a very simple, downright plain frame. The type of thing that easily 95% of the people viewing would scratch their heads at and wonder why this was in a gallery and would quite easily claim that their kids could do just as well, and a professional house painter could do better. Is this really going to kill the appreciation for art that has actual visual content, and composition, mood, visual interest, a story or narrative?

The problem is that the art world is currently run by academics, not by those who actually produce art. Academics like to ponder questions that are rather academic, not work centered on the real world, but on THEIR institutional art world. And as they are now the curators of the great museums and the writers for the art journals they set the stage for what is valued. They are the experts that the wealthy patrons go to for direction. And where the money goes, so does the market. So the auction houses and galleries follow them and the museums. This is how a Richard Prince plagiarized painting of a advertising photograph can sell for a million, it's not because the content of the work means something, it's because the work itself is a statement about the art world itself, it's subject is academic. The established art world is fascinated by itself and is narcissistic and work that addresses the art world gains status, and value.

Another thing that the academics have is more an appreciation of painting than photography. And for this reason the direction for photography being set is following more closely that set for contemporary painting. So you're going to see photographs that emulate contemporary painting styles and philosophy more than that of traditional photographic values. Look at the Gursky work that just fetched the record, it looks a lot like much of the contemporary paintings that lack a real subject and are more a simple color graphic. What the photography galleries seem to consider new and cutting edge today, is what painting considered new and cutting edge 40 years ago.

And BTW regarding the financial markets? They are very heavily influenced by past patterns and histories and their analyses are based on finding patterns in past performance. And regarding markets being evolved and not designed, they are both. Design denotes an intentional influence, evolution a naturally occurring one. Were the derivatives markets and the granting of mortgages to sub prime borrowers a natural evolution or intentional choices made by those in a position to influence the markets?

What influences the art market are two things, where money can be made and status can be attained. Curators showing "cutting edge" or "revolutionary" work get articles in Art in America, and reap the rewards of recognition. So the incentive there is to eagerly embrace what is new, not necessarily what has merit. Someone spending $3 million on a Gursky gets the status among his peers that he/she owns the most expensive photo in the world. And when you already have about as much money as you can possibly spend what goal is left for you but status? And the best argument about art value being linked to status is edition size. Is the work of art that you bought less meritorious in it's content or creativity, execution or technique because it's 1 of a 100 or 1 of 5? Yet for the vast majority of collectors it is the status of owning something scarce or rare that has as much value as the actual merit of the work itself.

There have been many credible claims made that Hirst, or Hirst's galleries bought a great deal of the work at his last auction as a means to keep his prices high and his work in demand. Is that evolution or design?

[Greg Blank]

Lots of food for thought. & There was a reason for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-Secession ,

That reason is still being missed by the Art and Photo communities.



Another thing that the academics have is more an appreciation of painting than photography. And for this reason the direction for photography being set is following more closely that set for contemporary painting. So you're going to see photographs that emulate contemporary painting styles and philosophy more than that of traditional photographic values. Look at the Gursky work that just fetched the record, it looks a lot like much of the contemporary paintings that lack a real subject and are more a simple color graphic. What the photography galleries seem to consider new and cutting edge today, is what painting considered new and cutting edge 40 years ago.

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. When I said straight photography is dead as an art form, I didn't mean that it will no longer be appreciated, and perhaps my language was too strong. What I meant by my comment is that I don't believe Gursky's work has achieved its status because it can be called straight photography, but despite the fact. I think Gursky's work lives and dies by its conceptual content, and I agree that photography tends to lag behind painting in this regard. Rhein II was made over a decade ago. I think the work being done today that will be recognized as great, will be even more conceptual in nature than Gursky's work. I think it's a mistake to overlook the fact that photography has always been a collaboration of man and machine, and that the machine is evolving much faster than man is. Straight photography will continue to make less and less sense as the machine continues to evolve.

When you say, "The problem is that the art world is currently run by academics, not by those who actually produce art.", I'm not convinced. Certainly the leading artists are major players, if not the driving forces of the art world, and secondly, even if what you claim were true, you fail to describe the nature of the problem, and for whom it's a problem. Your distinction between the academics and the "real world is similarly unconvincing. If the art world is not a world of ideas, what is it? You seem to be suggesting the art world would be a better one if it more closely reflected your opinions and ideas, or those of the public at large, but that has never been the role of the fine arts.

The artist/patron relationship is as old as the arts, and the reciprocal influences are quite complex, but you shouldn't make the mistake of confusing any single decision/action as evidence of design. No one designed capitalism; it emerged as the result of environmental conditions and selection pressures, through a very large number of individual transactions that when isolated, might appear random, but from which an order emerges. The basis for the market is rational actors acting in their own self interest, and though counter examples are numerous, the larger order prevails. Your Hirst example is not a counter example, but a classical one. The cumulative effect of these self interested acts is a market, and attempts to regulate that market are also evolutionary. You're making a forest and trees error. While it's impossible to predict the position or motion of any individual molecule in a gaseous body, the behavior of the body itself is precisely predicted by the law of thermodynamics. This is why nothing has been as successful at predicting the financial markets as evolutionary algorithms have been.

If you believe academics, curators, and collectors are a poor basis for an art market, what would you prefer?

[Brian C. Miller]

What I meant by my comment is that I don't believe Gursky's work has achieved its status because it can be called straight photography, but despite the fact. I think Gursky's work lives and dies by its conceptual content, and I agree that photography tends to lag behind painting in this regard. Rhein II was made over a decade ago. I think the work being done today that will be recognized as great, will be even more conceptual in nature than Gursky's work. I think it's a mistake to overlook the fact that photography has always been a collaboration of man and machine, and that the machine is evolving much faster than man is. Straight photography will continue to make less and less sense as the machine continues to evolve.

Rhien II isn't "straight" photography, it was meant to be an abstract, and in the interviews I watched about it, there was some commentary that it might be too abstract. A "straight" photograph would also include the background across the Rhine, which is the city and the coal plant. Gursky edited out the background, replacing all of it with clouds. If Gursky were making a "straight" photograph, perhaps he would have used selective focus to blur away the man-made constructs.

When a photograph's concept no longer connects with the audience in any way, shape, or form, is the concept retained or lost? Conceptual art has been around for a rather long time, and examples of abstract photography are even found in the 1830s. Abstract and conceptual photography is currently alive and well, with many examples (Artspan link (http://www.artspan.com/abstract-photography)). I see many examples of abstract photography that I've been contemplating, the difference being that I would use chemical-optical photography instead of digital imaging.

As for evolution of photography, where do you see it going? I see lots of abstract and manipulated images. What I see in the art market is big=dollars. Print big, sell big. Does photographic evolution come down to a new Photoshop tool? Is there one, just one, idea that has been explored in painting that hasn't been explored in photography?

[Greg Blank]

I was going to post some of this a few posts back, I was more interested to see if there were others with similar thoughts. Appears so, what Brian Eliis said is pretty inclusive of the straight photo meaning "at least for me" There will always be some requirement for straight journalistic and editorial photography in the reportage mode. Wether one can make a living from lt will depend on circumstances, I guess. ARAT photographers are always going to compete for where the money is in that vien, because its popular to delude oneself that your view as the 10,000th rendition of Half dome is just what some editor that sees several hundred a season?, or a year is going to jump up and phone you to publish it....but it does sometimes happen. As art that is a tough sell, even for posters...it better be mind blowingly different, and factual or now the folks that do Photoshop at home will know you are a sham, and won't spend the twenty bucks to have a poster, they would buy the AAdams, first anyway :)

So on to Photoshop, its been around for along time related to my photo career, I use it sparingly, for reproduction, and for retouching it's a god send. When you place elements together on a page and call it a photo personally I think people are deluded to beleive its a photograph or perhaps non truthfully seeking to create some experience diverged from simply making a photograph. Or perhaps they intend to create Digital Art and don't feel secure enough to classify themselves as a Digital Artist, its not a photograph defined by most of the current shows, exhibitions and galleries in my experience. That is the prospecti, that I see clearly ask you to define the work as such, when it is.

[jnantz]

when was the art world run by the artists themselves?
maybe my art history education is lacking, but it seems that there have always been
patrons and academics who were and are still in charge of what is good and what/who will be supported.

[Brian K]

Brian,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. When I said straight photography is dead as an art form, I didn't mean that it will no longer be appreciated, and perhaps my language was too strong. What I meant by my comment is that I don't believe Gursky's work has achieved its status because it can be called straight photography, but despite the fact. I think Gursky's work lives and dies by its conceptual content, and I agree that photography tends to lag behind painting in this regard. Rhein II was made over a decade ago. I think the work being done today that will be recognized as great, will be even more conceptual in nature than Gursky's work. I think it's a mistake to overlook the fact that photography has always been a collaboration of man and machine, and that the machine is evolving much faster than man is. Straight photography will continue to make less and less sense as the machine continues to evolve.

To me the Gursky image is a very straight image. There's nothing cutting edge about it. I, and many of my contemporaries, did landscape photos equally minimal 40 years ago and if you look on my site you'll see quite a few with similar content. And that image being "conceptual" is really funny as the entire concept of conceptual as a different genre , movement or direction in art is utter nonsense. ALL art is conceptual. But if you want to limit the definition of conceptual as it being something more revolutionary, then I have to laugh further because pretty much ALL of the conceptual work seen today has been done before and for many decades. I routinely see conceptual work in shows that are near exact replicas of what my class mates at SVA did in the 1970's. And back then a great deal of that work was considered crap. Work is only revolutionary, cutting edge or conceptual if the viewer has never seen it before. But once you've been exposed to a great deal of that, and especially if you were exposed to that type of work decades before, it's not all that new. To someone who's never seen a stick figure drawing before, but has access to an art major's vocabulary, you'd hear references to minimalism, and Mies van der rohe, and Keith Haring, etc, etc.




When you say, "The problem is that the art world is currently run by academics, not by those who actually produce art.", I'm not convinced. Certainly the leading artists are major players, if not the driving forces of the art world, and secondly, even if what you claim were true, you fail to describe the nature of the problem, and for whom it's a problem. Your distinction between the academics and the "real world is similarly unconvincing. If the art world is not a world of ideas, what is it? You seem to be suggesting the art world would be a better one if it more closely reflected your opinions and ideas, or those of the public at large, but that has never been the role of the fine arts.


You think the leading artists drive the art world? A few bad reviews and the prices for that artist's work drops like a rock. A few auctions where the buyers don't bite and that artist's prices and reputation drops. Art value is all about perception. And perception is created by the writers, curators, dealers. But who knows maybe leading artists can influence the art world but maybe not in the way you think. One of the 10 highest priced photographs ever sold is a Peter Lik. Sold for $1 million. The buyer is anonymous of course. Do you really think a collector bought that or someone representing Lik himself? And if it were Lik why would he do that? Because now he can claim that his work is worth a million and the rest of his work has a much higher perceived value. But is the image any better having been "sold" for a million?




If you believe academics, curators, and collectors are a poor basis for an art market, what would you prefer?

I'd prefer if the basis for the market were really left to the buyers and the artists. The artists charge what they need to support their art and life off of it, the buyers buy work that on it's merits alone has value to them. But I'll be the first to admit that that is an ideal, and with so many people making large amounts of money by acting as middlemen and facilitators that such a pure transaction could never be.

[Brian K]

when was the art world run by the artists themselves?
maybe my art history education is lacking, but it seems that there have always been
patrons and academics who were and are still in charge of what is good and what/who will be supported.

The art world has never been run by the artists, but art education was for centuries. Art was taught through the apprentice system by assisting a working professional artist. That taught the apprentice the practical skills but also taught the spiritual side as well as few will argue the emotional and spiritual content of the work created by many of these apprentices.

Artists have almost always worked for a patron or patrons, historically the Church, which is why the majority of early art was religious. As there became rising merchant classes with disposable incomes, these people who saw great art in the churches or owned by the aristocrats wanted that for their homes and artists were then able to have patrons other than the church.

The formal academic education of artists was mostly about giving artists a practical and commercial use of their talents. But as the level of affluence grew the requirement of an art education being about the actual creation of art declined and became often just as oriented toward liberal arts study and the academic aspects of art. A great deal of art education is oriented to the furtherance of teaching art. There are more people making their living teaching art, writing about art, selling art, than there are those making a living at producing fine art ( i'm leaving commercial creation of art out of this).

BTW here's a link to Yale's photography program which among academics is considered the most prestigious. The page is mostly a photograph of a baby being fed baby food. Is that really art? Or does it look like a poorly executed image for a baby food ad? Or am I just ignorant and can't recognize some really high concept there.

http://art.yale.edu/Photography

[Greg Blank]

NO.YES. Most likely not. It goes back to my statement in maybe another thread that there is this brown nose mentality in some of the Art community that if you have the balls to say this POS sucks you get outcast, this is a prime example, I'll take the risk.
& It does.


Is that really art? Or does it look like a poorly executed image for a baby food ad? Or am I just ignorant and can't recognize some really high concept there.

http://art.yale.edu/Photography

[D. Bryant]

BTW here's a link to Yale's photography program which among academics is considered the most prestigious. The page is mostly a photograph of a baby being fed baby food. Is that really art? Or does it look like a poorly executed image for a baby food ad? Or am I just ignorant and can't recognize some really high concept there.

I think the purpose of the photo is to imply nurturing of the student or help providing for the development of the student photographer. At least that's my take. I don't see any great artistic effort in the photo, essentially a technically competent commercial effort. Whether they will receive a balanced education that or not is another question.

One thing is certain, if they are enrolled into the program they will leave with a large debt unless the student has wealth or a generous scholarship.

Don Bryant

[Jay DeFehr]

Gentlemen,

Thank you all for a lively, thoughtful discussion. It's discussions like this one that keep me coming back to this forum. This one seems to be dominated by Brians, so I'll try to be specific in my replies.

Brian E,

What constitutes straight photography is debatable, as evidenced by other replies, some claiming Gursky's work is straight, and others claiming it's not, and both apparently disagreeing with me. Certainly straightness lies on a spectrum, unless one maintains a rigid definition of the term, which I do not. I said Gursky's work could be called straight, and indeed you have done so, but others disagree. I think we all have our own line in the sand regarding what makes a photo straight, or more curved. When I said I think straight photography is dead as an art form, I understated my opinion, a little. As others have noted, straight photography of the photo secession/ f64 variety has been dead as an art form for a long time now. Regarding Gursky's image, I think it retains an element of straightness, but is overwhelmingly conceptual, and a large part of that concept is the size of the image.

Brian M,

Straight photography and abstract photography are not mutually exclusive. Again, we're talking about a spectrum, as all photographs are abstract, to one degree or another, and some of the best known straight photographers (Weston, Strand, Evans, etc.) produced highly abstract photos.

Regarding your question about a concept that doesn't connect with an audience, I'd say an uncommunicated concept is a failed one, but it's always possible the work will resonate with future generations. I'm not sure how this relates to this discussion.

As for the evolution of photography, I think that's a subject worthy of its own discussion, but I'm happy to include some thoughts here. Photography has always been a collaboration of man and machine, and the medium has been defined by the properties of the machine. The machine has evolved, slowly at first, but with increasing speed, and we've struggled to evolve a definition of photography in step with the evolution of the machine. Some claim digital photography is not photography, and I think there's more to that position than is generally acknowledged. Digital photography represents a speciation, or paradigm shift, and whether we call it photography, or something else, it's the most evolved form, and has replaced its ancestor. Photographers working within the constraints of chemical photography are irrelevant. The photographers from this period who will be remembered are the ones defining the medium as it exists today. Digital imaging is itself a transitional phase between chemical and quantum imaging, and the most relevant digital work will reflect that role. Chemical photography was camera + chemicals, digital imaging is camera + computer, and quantum imaging will be mind + computer. The machine interjected an element of objectivity, or machine's eye view into imaging, but this is only a transitional feature. As the machine evolves, it will restore the mind's eye view to a degree and precision unseen before. That's my vision of the evolution of photography, in a nutshell.

Brian K,

I think your missing the big picture, regarding Gursky's image, and that is that it's a big picture. Others, yourself included, might have made images of similar composition and subject matter, but you didn't make it at the scale of Gursky's work, and here, size matters. I don't think anyone, and surely I never suggested conceptual is a genre or movement, but a quality. So, before you laugh too hard, perhaps you should read a little more carefully and try to consider the point being made instead of just the terms used.

Artists are a driving force in the art world because without them there is no art world. One can argue the degree and extent of their influence, but one cannot remove them from the equation. Further, artists play another role as peer reviewers, and formers of schools/movements. I think you discount the role of artists in the art world far too heavily.

Your vision for an ideal art market is childish, at best, and totalitarian in implication. Who, in your perfect world would decide for the artist how much she needs to "support their art and life off of it"? And who would determine for the buyer which of the work's merits are worthy of consideration? Would you outlaw museums? If not, who would curate the shows? Would you ban all discussion of works of art, or just writing about art? We can also assume you'd discontinue all art education, since there would be no art scholars. It doesn't appear you've given this much serious thought, or at least I hope that's the case.

[Brian K]

I think the purpose of the photo is to imply nurturing of the student or help providing for the development of the student photographer. At least that's my take. I don't see any great artistic effort in the photo, essentially a technically competent commercial effort. Whether they will receive a balanced education that or not is another question.

One thing is certain, if they are enrolled into the program they will leave with a large debt unless the student has wealth or a generous scholarship.

Don Bryant

Don that's a good interpretation. However the choice of image and it's merits don't work well if the meaning you state is their goal. One can easily interpret from that photo that the baby is being force fed, the food being pushed into his/her mouth faster than he/she can accept it, hence the mess. And his/her expression is not one of the joy or satisfaction of eating but is instead more of concern, maybe even slightly distressed. Is the message that Yale is trying to communicate that "we will force feed you more glop than you can readily ingest while making you feel uncomfortable?"

One has to wonder then if the Yale art school is so insightful regarding the meaning and expressiveness of photography how they could have picked such an image. I can not imagine any of the art directors that I worked with in my career ever choosing to use that image for this usage.

[Brian K]

Brian K,

I think your missing the big picture, regarding Gursky's image, and that is that it's a big picture. Others, yourself included, might have made images of similar composition and subject matter, but you didn't make it at the scale of Gursky's work, and here, size matters. I don't think anyone, and surely I never suggested conceptual is a genre or movement, but a quality. So, before you laugh too hard, perhaps you should read a little more carefully and try to consider the point being made instead of just the terms used.

Artists are a driving force in the art world because without them there is no art world. One can argue the degree and extent of their influence, but one cannot remove them from the equation. Further, artists play another role as peer reviewers, and formers of schools/movements. I think you discount the role of artists in the art world far too heavily.

Your vision for an ideal art market is childish, at best, and totalitarian in implication. Who, in your perfect world would decide for the artist how much she needs to "support their art and life off of it"? And who would determine for the buyer which of the work's merits are worthy of consideration? Would you outlaw museums? If not, who would curate the shows? Would you ban all discussion of works of art, or just writing about art? We can also assume you'd discontinue all art education, since there would be no art scholars. It doesn't appear you've given this much serious thought, or at least I hope that's the case.



Jay, what you're saying is that the pretty common content of the image doesn't matter, but that only size does? So if big is all that matters today then all those biilboards with my photographs on them are worth a fortune.

Artists are NOT a driving force in art. Artists have the least power. There are millions of people who will sell their art work at a loss. I went to the biggest art fair in the US this summer, the Ann Arbor, and I saw large, mounted, matted framed prints selling at a price barely profitable. I mean 40" wide, matted, mounted , FRAMED prints selling for $150-250. So even if the artist managed to break even on his costs, he's making no money for his time. Artists almost universally undervalue what they do. And if artist A won't play ball, then artists B through ZZZZ, will. And it's not just at the art fair level, it's also the case at the gallery level. Ask a gallery director just how many photographers solicit them a week.

As for who should decide for the artist how much is needed to support them.... the artist themselves of course! I know what it costs me to produce my work and what I need to make from each print in order to support what I do. I then tell that to the gallery, who in turns doubles that number so that the added 50% is theirs.

As for my views on the art world being "childish" you should realize that i actually make my living in the art world, and have also taught in the art world. So it's not like I'm talking about something that I don't have a great deal of firsthand knowledge of.
I think more emphasis should be placed on galleries as a market motivator as they deal most directly with both the artist and the buyer. The gallery motivation is to make a profit, but the making of a profit is altruistic here because it's fulfilling the needs of the artist and the needs of the buyer. However the galleries will often include or exclude work based on their perception of the trends in art. And the trends are established or approved by the curators and writers.

The museums and the writers are more detached from the buyers. except the very high end buyers, and are further detached from the average artist. It's rare for the typical artist to have ANY contact with a museum curator or an art writer. They will most often have relationships with their art school classmates, the higher end buyers who at social functions will introduce them to artists that are already in this elite circle, people they meet at auctions, again almost exclusively people within this elite circle. I've been showing my work at galleries in most of the major US cities for over a decade, have been to and had my work at an auction at Sotheby's, and have never been able to meet ANY museum curators. Good luck getting your work in front of them.

And to be realistic, most museums are not all that interested in photography. And when they do have a show it's usually the name brands that are the current darlings of the art world, or retrospectives of deceased or very old photographers.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, what you're saying is that the pretty common content of the image doesn't matter, but that only size does?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Do you believe making an image that size is like making a small one, but more so? Do you believe the viewing experience created by Gursky's image could be reproduced by standing closer to a smaller image? How do you get from "size matters" to "size is all that matters"? I hope you're only pretending to be so naive.


Artists are NOT a driving force in art. Artists have the least power. There are millions of people who will sell their art work at a loss.

And again with the same failure of logic. Do you really see no distinction in the phrases, artists are a driving force in the art world, and all artists are a driving force in the art world? Ironically, your art fair example is a very close approximation to your ideal art market.




As for who should decide for the artist how much is needed to support them.... the artist themselves of course! I know what it costs me to produce my work and what I need to make from each print in order to support what I do. I then tell that to the gallery, who in turns doubles that number so that the added 50% is theirs.

Why do you go to the gallery? Why not sell directly to the buyers, as your ideal demands?


As for my views on the art world being "childish" you should realize that i actually make my living in the art world, and have also taught in the art world.

It seems you're under the influence of a rather strong and pervasive self serving bias. What I referred to as childish was your ideal of an art market, and I challenge you to defend it as a serious proposal. And if you're going to keep singing the "I'm a professional photographer, so I know what I'm talking about" song, I will lose any enthusiasm I might have for taking you seriously. Your credentials don't give you a pass from defending your positions in meaningful ways.



I think more emphasis should be placed on galleries as a market motivator as they deal most directly with both the artist and the buyer.

What happened to cutting out the middlemen?


The gallery motivation is to make a profit, but the making of a profit is altruistic here because it's fulfilling the needs of the artist and the needs of the buyer.

No, it's not altruistic (look it up), it's blatant self interest, which might or might not be aligned with the interests of the buyers and sellers.


However the galleries will often include or exclude work based on their perception of the trends in art.

I think you mean to say, based on whether or not they think they can sell the work. That's that self interest thing again.


And the trends are established or approved by the curators and writers.

Established and approved are both unrealistically strong terms for influenced, at best. These are the properties of an emergent system, each part of which exercises some influence on the whole, but none of which design or control the system as a whole. Your backpedalling from a artist>buyer model to become an artist> gallery> many buyers model is just the first step in your recognizing the legitimacy and inevitability of the system as it exists in reality. This system exists to benefit all participants, and simultaneously to screen the participants in order to concentrate the benefits among the smallest group. These are not esoteric concepts, and one hardly need be an industry insider to be aware of the mechanisms at work. That they seem to perplex you I attribute to the aforementioned self serving bias. The self serving bias is the mechanism responsible for a strong majority of people ranking themselves above average, and the basis for Freud's joke: A man says to his wife, "If one of us should die, I shall move to Paris".

[Greg Blank]

Jay; This sounds like a cut at Brian, I am sure you did not mean that, after all his work as it appears on his website is top notch both from a conceptual stand point and a technical one. If you truly wish to make this that sort of comment regarding Brian's work, then perhaps you have some imagery to have us compare it to, but a cut perhaps you did not intend to make.



That they seem to perplex you I attribute to the aforementioned self serving bias. The self serving bias is the mechanism responsible for a strong majority of people ranking themselves above average, and the basis for Freud's joke: A man says to his wife, "If one of us should die, I shall move to Paris".

[Jay DeFehr]

Greg,

My comments were not directed to you, and I don't respect your opinion enough to care what inferences you draw from them.

[Greg Blank]

Good to have that out in that out in the open, the feeling is mutual.

[Brian K]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Do you believe making an image that size is like making a small one, but more so? Do you believe the viewing experience created by Gursky's image could be reproduced by standing closer to a smaller image? How do you get from "size matters" to "size is all that matters"? I hope you're only pretending to be so naive.



Jay you wrote,"I think your missing the big picture, regarding Gursky's image, and that is that it's a big picture. Others, yourself included, might have made images of similar composition and subject matter, but you didn't make it at the scale of Gursky's work, and here, size matters." You're the one who brought up the argument that it's a big picture and size matters. My argument is that size is not content, and that if the argument is that it's size that matters then why aren't billboards hanging in museums? As for my being naive, I'M the one making money in the art world, you're not, so who is actually naive?





And again with the same failure of logic. Do you really see no distinction in the phrases, artists are a driving force in the art world, and all artists are a driving force in the art world? Ironically, your art fair example is a very close approximation to your ideal art market.

Again, you're making assumption on the art world based on zero actual experience in it. The reality is that there are many more artists trying to make a living in this area than there are ones that are making a living, and when you have that kind of situation, tremendous supply and small demand, it is the BUYERS or their agents that yield the power, not the suppliers. For any artist making a living as an artist there are probably a 100 that would like to. How many members of LFF would like to make a living with their personal art work? I bet you for one wouldn't mind.





Why do you go to the gallery? Why not sell directly to the buyers, as your ideal demands?

I spend 3-6 months a year on the road. Often for 3 months at a time which means if someone wanted to buy work while I was away they'd have to wait for many months, not a good way to do business. And when I come back I have an enormous backlog of work and personal matters to deal with. Having gallery representation gives me a full time sales force, distribution network and marketing presence. So for right now that is in my best interest. However, that adds a 100% mark up to my work which causes my work to be expensive to most people. A 24" print of mine starts at $2000 and goes up to 4000 at the end of the edition. That means that for many potential buyers I am too expensive. But if I didn't have galleries the price range would be half of that, $1000-2000, that means far more people can afford my work and I could possibly make more sales while yielding the same per print profit AND not waiting to get paid by a gallery which is often a slow process. That might be a direction I take some day, but given my current travel situation I am simply not around to ship out work to people and do not want to incur the costs of hiring a full timer to do it in my absence.





It seems you're under the influence of a rather strong and pervasive self serving bias. What I referred to as childish was your ideal of an art market, and I challenge you to defend it as a serious proposal. And if you're going to keep singing the "I'm a professional photographer, so I know what I'm talking about" song, I will lose any enthusiasm I might have for taking you seriously. Your credentials don't give you a pass from defending your positions in meaningful ways.

Of course my ideal is self serving, I'm an artist and I'm interested in bettering the situation for myself and other artists. And regarding your enthusiasm, why should I care about your enthusiasm while you're being disrespectful and ignorant of the fact that I am the one who actually has experience in this area and you have none? I've been patient enough to explain to you the POV of someone who actually does this for a living, but you lack consideration of the fact that your position is based on your assumptions and presume that your assumptions trumps actual experience. Did you sleep in a holiday inn express last night?





No, it's not altruistic (look it up), it's blatant self interest, which might or might not be aligned with the interests of the buyers and sellers.


I know the meaning of altruism, and from the perspective of the gallery they are looking to make a profit, but among the majority of gallery owners that have represented me and that I know who don't represent me, they also want to do right by their artists, further their careers and sell work to buyers that the buyers really appreciate. And to me a desire to do well for all parties involved is altruistic.

[Brian K]

Jay; This sounds like a cut at Brian, I am sure you did not mean that, after all his work as it appears on his website is top notch both from a conceptual stand point and a technical one. If you truly wish to make this that sort of comment regarding Brian's work, then perhaps you have some imagery to have us compare it to, but a cut perhaps you did not intend to make.

Greg, Jay is the world's leading expert on whatever it is he's discussing that day, so really, don't question him.

[jnantz]

i know brian - but in your comments a few pages ago you said the reason
why things are so bad is because the art world is run by academics ...
i was responding to that and said it has never really been run by anyone else.
the rich, the church, the state, they are all academics compared to the 'unwashed" class

it doesn't matter much to me what advertising image yale has on their website
i am note sure why that should matter at all. years ago mass college of art
had a series of photographs made by nicholas nixon in their brochure. the woman
i apprenticed with had a similar response as you " these aren't portraits, these are terrible"
... still, i found them interesting, and i am still thinking about the images 20+ years later
... ( and from what i remember, art is supposed to make you think )

through other comments you have made in this thread and others over the last 6months
it is obvious that you think that most of the "famous artists of today" have little or no
talent. i can't really answer to the talent question, i know my own tastes and i find
photographs by gursky and cindy sherman and some of the other folks whose work
is selling these days, to be more interesting / makes me think
more than ansel adams landscapes or weston's truncated portraits.




The art world has never been run by the artists, but art education was for centuries. Art was taught through the apprentice system by assisting a working professional artist. That taught the apprentice the practical skills but also taught the spiritual side as well as few will argue the emotional and spiritual content of the work created by many of these apprentices.

Artists have almost always worked for a patron or patrons, historically the Church, which is why the majority of early art was religious. As there became rising merchant classes with disposable incomes, these people who saw great art in the churches or owned by the aristocrats wanted that for their homes and artists were then able to have patrons other than the church.

The formal academic education of artists was mostly about giving artists a practical and commercial use of their talents. But as the level of affluence grew the requirement of an art education being about the actual creation of art declined and became often just as oriented toward liberal arts study and the academic aspects of art. A great deal of art education is oriented to the furtherance of teaching art. There are more people making their living teaching art, writing about art, selling art, than there are those making a living at producing fine art ( i'm leaving commercial creation of art out of this).

BTW here's a link to Yale's photography program which among academics is considered the most prestigious. The page is mostly a photograph of a baby being fed baby food. Is that really art? Or does it look like a poorly executed image for a baby food ad? Or am I just ignorant and can't recognize some really high concept there.

http://art.yale.edu/Photography

[Brian K]

i know brian - but in your comments a few pages ago you said the reason
why things are so bad is because the art world is run by academics ...
i was responding to that and saying it has never really been run by anyone else.
the rich, the church, the state, they are all academics compared to the 'unwashed" class

it doesn't matter much to me what advertising image yale has on their website
i am note sure why that should matter at all. years ago mass college of art
had a series of photographs made by nicholas nixon in their brochure, and the woman
i apprenticed with had a similar response as you " these aren't portraits, these are terrible"
... still, i found it interesting, and i am still thinking about the images 20+ years later
... ( and from what i remember, art is supposed to make you think )

through other comments you have made in this thread and others over the last 6months
it is obvious that you think that most of the "famous artist of today" have little or no
talent. i can't really answer to the talent question, i know my own tastes and i find
photographs by gursky and cindy sherman and some of the other folks whose work
is selling these days, to be more interesting ( and makes me think )
more than ansel adams landscapes or weston's truncated portraits.

Actually Jon I like a good deal of Gursky's work, although this particular image does little for me and visually is very common place. But it does illustrate the absurdity of the current art market, at least to me. As for Sherman, when you've seen Penn and Newman do portraits firsthand, her work seems rather amateurish.

The church, the state, may have been academics, but the audience for their art were the people, and mostly simple uneducated people. Early art from both the church and state were a form of propaganda in a way. A way to express or communicate a message or story to a population that was largely illiterate. The difference now is that the populace most of the time does not relate to the story being told or even understand it. Art now is addressed by the academics to other academics. And I think there's something wrong in someone having to have studied art to be able to understand and appreciate it. And it is a very small segment of our society who can most often appreciate this work, not the average person. Conversely, work that can find appreciation from a large audience is frowned upon as being common or meritless.

And regarding the Yale image, while it may not matter to you, it's appearance on their web site is an endorsement of it as an image. it's quite literally the image they are projecting. And for the young eager minds looking to apply there it tells them that this is a model of what we consider a successful image. It's setting a bar, and unfortunately a rather low one.

And if you think my tastes revolve around Ansel or Weston you really don't know me. I respect them, but am not impressed with their work as much as I am with the work of others.

[dperez]

I don't agree with John Camp.

Look at the work of a photographer like David Lachapelle and tell me that his photography is not inspired by his internal creativity. Also look at Jeff Wall's work. What about the creative photography of, I know this is going to hurt, Gregory Crewdson?

[Jay DeFehr]

I am, and it does, but you're the one who interjected that "size is all that matters". See the difference? And that's why I didn't bother responding to your fatuous billboard argument.

[QUOTE]As for my being naive, I'M the one making money in the art world, you're not, so who is actually naive?

Yes, Brian we know, we all know. If I put it in bold type will you stop reminding us in every single thread? And if you think the only reason to make photographs is to sell them to someone, well, it explains a lot.



Again, you're making assumption on the art world based on zero actual experience in it. The reality is that there are many more artists trying to make a living in this area than there are ones that are making a living, and when you have that kind of situation, tremendous supply and small demand, it is the BUYERS or their agents that yield the power, not the suppliers. For any artist making a living as an artist there are probably a 100 that would like to.

You either can't or won't understand what I write, however plainly I write it. Obviously the artists with no influence have no power, but that's not the same as saying artists have no power in the art market. If these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, there's really no point in discussing anything with you. You just fall back on your well worn refrain of, "I'm in the biz, so I must be right".


How many members of LFF would like to make a living with their personal art work? I bet you for one wouldn't mind.

And you'd lose that bet. I'm not in the art business, and have no desire to be. The business I am in affords me lots of free time to pursue whatever interests me, and I don't need to worry about selling anything.


I spend 3-6 months a year on the road. etc. etc.

I understand. The gallery/dealer system provides value to you as an artist, and ostensibly, to the buyer, too. I get it. I wasn't the one arguing for a childishly simplistic replacement for the present system; you were.


Of course my ideal is self serving, I'm an artist and I'm interested in bettering the situation for myself and other artists.

I didn't say your ideal is self serving, I said it is childish and simplistic. I think you're better served by the real system, and you agree.


And regarding your enthusiasm, why should I care about your enthusiasm while you're being disrespectful and ignorant of the fact that I am the one who actually has experience in this area and you have none?

Your experience is worthy of respect to the extent it provides you insights you can express in a meaningful way. Having been a professional photographer isn't in itself an unassailable argument for any proposition you care to make regarding photography, art, economics, or anything else. The art world is not half as mysterious as you like to pretend. Do you think you're the only person with experience in the arts? What does one do when people with experience in a given area disagree? Consider the source. Your arguments are laughable, your jokes- not so much.



I know the meaning of altruism, and from the perspective of the gallery they are looking to make a profit, but among the majority of gallery owners that have represented me and that I know who don't represent me, they also want to do right by their artists, further their careers and sell work to buyers that the buyers really appreciate. And to me a desire to do well for all parties involved is altruistic.

These are the individual motives and complexities I wrote about, and which you apparently ignored. The personal motives of any one person, or the character of any single transaction do not translate to the system as a whole. The system emerges from the rule. The rule that produces markets is self interest. A perceptive person might glean this from working as a professional photographer, but a background in physics, biology, economics, or philosophy would probably be more instructive.

Your penchant for ad hominem is quite predictable and consistent with style of argument. Intelligent argument requires resources, while ad hominem requires only a lack of decorum.

[Greg Blank]

Daniel;

Some nice stuff on your site, like those Bodie mobiles, but also a lot of others.

I looked at Lachepelle's work and the stuff that catches my attention is the decidedly humorous, why would or should that not be deemed art? All art should not be straight-laced. & I actually like the Crewdson work....its bizarre but lit rather nicely ;) So I agree.



I don't agree with John Camp.

Look at the work of a photographer like David Lachapelle and tell me that his photography is not inspired by his internal creativity. Also look at Jeff Wall's work. What about the creative photography of, I know this is going to hurt, Gregory Crewdson?

[jnantz]

Actually Jon I like a good deal of Gursky's work, although this particular image does little for me and visually is very common place. But it does illustrate the absurdity of the current art market, at least to me. As for Sherman, when you've seen Penn and Newman do portraits firsthand, her work seems rather amateurish.

The church, the state, may have been academics, but the audience for their art were the people, and mostly simple uneducated people. Early art from both the church and state were a form of propaganda in a way. A way to express or communicate a message or story to a population that was largely illiterate. The difference now is that the populace most of the time does not relate to the story being told or even understand it. Art now is addressed by the academics to other academics. And I think there's something wrong in someone having to have studied art to be able to understand and appreciate it. And it is a very small segment of our society who can most often appreciate this work, not the average person. Conversely, work that can find appreciation from a large audience is frowned upon as being common or meritless.

And regarding the Yale image, while it may not matter to you, it's appearance on their web site is an endorsement of it as an image. it's quite literally the image they are projecting. And for the young eager minds looking to apply there it tells them that this is a model of what we consider a successful image. It's setting a bar, and unfortunately a rather low one.

And if you think my tastes revolve around Ansel or Weston you really don't know me. I respect them, but am not impressed with their work as much as I am with the work of others.

i wasn't referring to your taste in particular,
but so many people who use a largeformat camera
put them on pedestals ... and do their best to emulate their style
rather than find their own path ...

[Brian K]

i wasn't referring to your taste in particular,
but so many people who use a largeformat camera
put them on pedestals ... and do their best to emulate their style
rather than find their own path ...

I agree with you there Jon. I think that for LF photographers, or those new to shooting landscape, that AA and EW are part of the learning process and at first they follow in their footsteps before finding their own.

As for putting them on pedestals, there are few photographers who have done more for photography than Ansel.

[Greg Blank]

As for putting them on pedestals, there are few photographers who have done more for photography than Ansel.

Sort of catch 22, I liked Adams work read the books at first, then discovered Strand, I also liked Porter enough to send him my first Portfolio to review. He wrote me back and told me what was bad and also pointed out my stronger work. I think that sort of critque is valuable, but it would been easy to quit from me at that point.

Adams does have good work, but not all is great. Few Photographers can say they have all great stuff around me without being deemed BSr's. I have alot of non landscape work that is influenced by my experiences in Kempo & Aikido, and my studying of Taoisim and other eastern thought. Earliest on I possessed the 4x5 for at least a few years without really knowing much about Adams, his books gave me enough infmation that could figure out what movements and exposure were really doing. I do like Weston but of course not everything, I think he was a very vibrant individual and that makes his work have meaning in the context he did it, even if it was not as complex as some work is. I like the work of Connie Imboden, ever seen it? Not per say a LF photographer, but another Baltimore resident.

[D. Bryant]

Don that's a good interpretation. However the choice of image and it's merits don't work well if the meaning you state is their goal.

Short answer for me is that I think it is a lame-ass photo for it's purpose. As for the Yale MFA photo school, like many other such programs the trend (which has been running for a good while) seems to be to graduate artists whose output could best be described as banal. In fact many of these individuals will often describe their work as such, relying on the concept of the photo or photos to involve the viewer.

Many or most of these grads plan on a teaching career and become very adept at obtaining grants to help fund their boring schlocky work.

Again in short Brian, I react to photography on a visceral level. Initially when I view a photo or print I could care less about the concept.

Don

[Brian K]

Short answer for me is that I think it is a lame-ass photo for it's purpose. As for the Yale MFA photo school, like many other such programs the trend (which has been running for a good while) seems to be to graduate artists whose output could best be described as banal. In fact many of these individuals will often describe their work as such, relying on the concept of the photo or photos to involve the viewer.

Many or most of these grads plan on a teaching career and become very adept at obtaining grants to help fund their boring schlocky work.

Again in short Brian, I react to photography on a visceral level. Initially when I view a photo or print I could care less about the concept.

Don

Don I am very much in agreement with you.

I think we're in a sad state when it comes to photography. I think for many photographers there's a comfort in seeing work that is consistent with their own skill or talent level. And that level is not high.

For some people seeing work of unusually high merit is actually uncomfortable because it makes them feel bad about themselves. This is amply demonstrated by the widespread presence of schadenfreude in our society, where seeing someone else's misfortune, especially if that person is wealthy or celebrated, causes pleasure in those viewing the calamity. The other side of this coin being that the success , achievement or talent of another makes some feel bad about themselves.

And in the case of the academics, who apparently loved art or photography enough to devote study to it, yet were never able to make a go of it as a shooter themselves, I wonder just how amenable they are to really great work coming from peers, work that demonstrates talent that they themselves don't possess. Can that explain why work so banal has become celebrated by the academics? And how the justification for that work comes not from what you see in the print, but from the rationalizing essay that accompanies it? Academics are more comfortable talking or writing about art, not actually producing it.

Personally when I see great work, I am humbled but also inspired. And conversely when i see mediocrity celebrated I am saddened. I think the higher you set the bar the more people will fail to reach it, and maybe even be discouraged, but when you set a high bar you also increase the odds of the whole field at least attempting to do their best and quite possibly pushing that bar even higher.

To me it is quite clear that there is a huge industry cropping up solely related to making money off of aspiring photographers and their desire for recognition and exposure. I receive invitations to competitions, juried shows and portfolio reviews every single day. Not to mention inclusion in vanity books, where they contact 5000 photographers with an offer to include them in a "best of .... photography" book. Of course you have to pay to be included. Every year more and more photography schools pop out more and more photographers. Feeding more and more supply into a smaller and smaller demand. If the quality standards required are high to be a photographer, won't that close the spigots on the photography marketing industry? But if EVERYONE is a photographer regardless of quality doesn't that increase the revenue source?

[Merg Ross]

To me it is quite clear that there is a huge industry cropping up solely related to making money off of aspiring photographers and their desire for recognition and exposure. I receive invitations to competitions, juried shows and portfolio reviews every single day. Not to mention inclusion in vanity books, where they contact 5000 photographers with an offer to include them in a "best of .... photography" book. Of course you have to pay to be included.

I see the same thing happening. Contrast this to photography annuals of years past (US Camera, British Photography Annual, Modern Photography, etc.) where the work of photographers was often solicited, and always paid for. Different times, for sure.