art photo market critique

[Peter Esbensen]

Found the analysis of this critic (Dave Hickey) to be amusing:

"I just talked to a friend of mine who came back from New York, and he said, 'I didn't see anything but C-prints.' They're all going to turn green, which makes them terrible collector objects. And they're all really boring.

What do you do with an art world in which the normative work of art is a giant C-print of three Germans standing beside a mailbox. What's that? Stop it, please.

There's a tendency in the art world to mistake the end of something for the beginning of something. I think this is certainly the case with photography."

The rest of the article is at http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~78~1680878,00.html .

Anyways, I'm not in a position to comment on his view of contemporary art; it just struck me as kind of funny. I personally have enjoyed the giant C-prints I've seen.

[John Kasaian]

Peter,

Pardon my ignorance, but whats a C-print?

[D. Kevin Gibson]

your regular chromogenic (or dye coupler) colour print - of course it's the old codger who's showing his ignorance. Current colour materials are rated at between 100 and 200 years depending on display and storage conditions and aren't going to fade to green. They will also probably last longer than many of the materials modern painters are using.

[John Kasaian]

Ah-hah! Thats why everyone in my sister's wedding photos from the late 70's looks like they have jaundice(and all this time I thought it was the champagne!)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The person being interviwed was only quoting his friend, I dont think this was his beleif. But in any case accelerated test are only an indication that a color print could possible last the so called 100 years, yet they do not provide cathegoric proof they do. Since the tests do not take into account the usual pollutants found in a household or gallery, for example ammonia from glass cleaning, organic solvents from floor wax, oil grease from cooking, etc. All of which are airborne and can come in contact with a print.



Perhaps it is not so much that people are ignorant when they do not beleive accelerated tests, but that those who do are guilty of wishful thinking.

[Martin Patek-Strutsky]

If one uses Cindy Sherman and Mathew Barney as representatives for the current stage of contemporary photography in general he should better write about other topics.

Disparaging c-prints as being as perishable as a bottle of milk seems to be very en vogue today. Especially by authors who don't like photography for other reasons and who are not willing/ able to look after the technical facts.

Yes, compared to a marble sculpture photography has a durability problem. But this problem is shared in one or another way by 80% of contemporary art...

[James Driscoll]

What do you do with an art world in which the normative work of art is a giant C-print of three Germans standing beside a mailbox. What's that? Stop it, please.



If one uses Cindy Sherman and Mathew Barney as representatives for the current stage of contemporary photography in general he should better write about other topics.



DITTO!!!!

[David L.]

David Hickey’s remarks seem to be hypocritical. He implies he doesn’t like contemporary photography and yet he’s upset that wont last that long!!

[ronald lamarsh]

Who Cares? I do this for my own gratification which in the end is the only thing that really means anything anyway so why get upset? The "art world" meaning the current in vogue critics and the lucky artists they happen to like along with the gallery owners comprise a very small portion of our society as a whole. And they are motivated by self-preservation......so the bottom line is I don't let anyone tell me what to think is good art, "NEW" art, meaningful art etc.,etc.,etc. I like what I like and do for my own enjoyment and to hell with the rest of it. If you are bent on breaking into the Art Market you'd better be willing to starve, then make some compromises.