May photography rest in peace, hopefully in some quiet shaded cemetery where someone like me can set up a boring old-fashioned still shot of its venerable lichen-encrusted tombstone with my 8X10. I have no idea what to call all this neo-stuff. I guess "art" is good enough, since it's so broad a classification that it means absolutely nothing in particular. But I tend to think of it as painting for those who can't actually paint. Interesting, yup. Genius? - no way.
Neopictorialism then?Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
There's certainly a view that it's become worth so much money because it is much easier to explain to buyers what the artist/ photographer did compared to most other photographs - see Paul Graham's lecture/ essay on 'The Unreasonable Apple'
I think lots of museums and so forth are running on fumes, desperate to attract an audience with one novelty after another just to keep income coming in. Digital nonsense is trendy. Of course, I don't mean this as an affront to Gursky, whose compositions I often like. But it's largely new-techno based. Reminds me of back when a notable local gallery wanted to throw a then-new media exhibition based on Cibachrome. I turned him down. Of course, there were a lot of subjects with bright red in them; but I rarely included red. Just another trendy gimmick of yesteryear, Cibachrome red. All this will pass too. People knew how to comp Bigfoot, Elvis, and aliens into the same picture just with scissors and glue once. I see no difference. They should throw a big museum show of National Enquirer covers.
[QUOTE=They should throw a big museum show of National Enquirer covers.[/QUOTE]
I'd pay to see that.
I'm in a bit cranky mood - not in general, but just with regard to the whole momentum of modern art exhibitions etc, which I find myself increasingly ignoring. A couple weeks ago the SFMMA sent out advertising soliciting memberships, with the upcoming feature being a big Warhol retrospective. Well, in my estimation that's tantamount to saying they're going to put a Starbucks in their lobby. I don't want another Starbucks. Instead, find me a street corner without one! Likewise, Warhol has become such a commodity that he should simply be packaged and sold in the frozen goods section of Costco or Safeway; he's on every corner already, and it would certainly be refreshing to find some new fresh produce instead of the usual suspects... and I don't mean digitized Paintball Wars, which are everywhere too. Being holed up in my own darkroom doing my own thing is a lot more interesting. Even a throwaway print I've done myself beats another endless Warhol or Avedon or whatever.
Well yeah, museums having to attract big crowds with "blockbuster" shows that are made to instagram and that the crowds can understand without knowing anything about the history of art or whatever medium it's in is irritating. I'm not a fan of digitized paintball wars either. But it's complicated. They have to get people in the door...people will find ways to hate on fresh produce or worse, ignore it...Gursky figured out how to make us look hard at the frozen food section as relevant subject matter! Curators can't really take chances or go out on limbs, they have to show what's already been vetted by the gallery system and what the big donors have donated.
The museum of contemporary art in LA did a show of photographs by Zoe Leonard, I doubt it was noticed much by people who weren't already aware of her work....But a curator at a major museum would lose their job if they were like, Yeah I want to give this whole floor to Clyde Butcher who does these quiet landscape photographs of swamps in Florida. I do think it's worthwhile to at least look at the people who use photography who get attention in the art word, even if you hate it or think it's stupid. For me at least, attempting to understand why their photography (or whatever they do) is so exulted makes me feel less trapped inside the box of photography that doesn't mean anything outside of itself.
But I'm with you Drew, going to an art museum feels increasingly similar to going through airport security or attending a large concert....not exactly my idea of a good time.
Clyde is getting plenty of museum space here in the south. And I am always impressed by how many people know him or his work (of course, I understand I am right next to Florida here so obviously that is a factor). On the other hand, I did just overhear two obvious gearheads joking about the crazy old guy in Florida shooting view cameras in the swamp and then went back to discussing whatever $5,000 digital system they had bought this year.
Anyway, what's wrong with a major museum showing his work? Is classic b&w film landscapes passé in that space? And if so, why? Personally in my eyes, the current academic world and by extension museums are pandering not to crowds but instead to superficial work that is more about a political or social statement rather than excellent photography/art.
Since we are talking about art...when I first learned about Gursky, it was when Rhein II was the most expensive photograph ever. I didn't understand it or its relatively banal subject, at least on the surface. Now, I appreciate it more as an echo of Color Field paintings like those by Rothko. I also was lucky enough to see some massive prints of Gursky's work at an art museum, I think in Florida, a few years ago. It was certainly much more impressive than a 600px JPEG.
There'd be nothing wrong with a major museum showing his work, it's just not instagram–able enough to be a crowd pleaser – I'd certainly go see it. Yes, I think classic b&w film landscapes are seen as passé in that space, simply because they are 'classic'. Views of nature - no matter how well crafted and beautiful, for most of the contemporary art audience, aren't enough, there's gotta be some idea, or political content...I mean I guess Sugimoto's seascapes, Lynn Davis's icebergs, (can anyone think of more?) but even those are 20-30 years old now. Even landscapes with obvious man made stuff in it a la Robert Adams, unless it's Robert Adams himself, is seen as too 70s New Topopgraphics, and old news...Excellent photography is not necessarily excellent Art outside of a safe space like this forum!
I think Thomas Joshua Cooper is an exception, he was supposed to have a show at LACMA, but it was delayed or cancelled doubtless because it wasn't splashy enough. maybe Mark Ruwedel - ever heard of him? the art audience wants to connect it to other forms of art like 'land art' or 'conceptual art'...You're absolutely right the work that is shown usually does have a political or social statement but the elite would argue that it's not superficial, they would argue that simply depicting nature without intervening or having an idea is superficial and about nothing other then technique...
Depends on the crowd. I wonder about the general population, the non-artists, perhaps an untapped audience which very well may not be interested or like the overtly politicized or social commentary stuff. Perhaps contemplative landscapes would be something unusual in this day and age in some galleries! And as Adams showed, all landscapes can be political, and perhaps those worried about global warming and environmental issues should remember his political impact through photography.
I'm reminded of classical orchestras, but perhaps in the opposite way. Many are stagnating (old rich donors dying off) and younger audiences aren't interested in the "classics" from Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms - so many are working hard to bring in new audiences with more pop-oriented stuff (consider the huge uptick in movie screenings w/ live orchestral performance of the soundtrack) and also the programming of more modern works / modernist composers using technology in new ways. When I was a professional musician in two orchestras I loved getting to play new and interesting music. I was also one of the stage managers and recording engineer for an iPad concerto. Huge draw to these concerts, just not from the traditional crowd.
What do young, new audiences w/o an art background want to see I wonder? What would bring them in to the museum? Recently at the High in Atlanta, Yayoi Kusama's Infinity Mirrors exhibit was sold-out and a huge draw for young audiences. I think the "cool" factor greatly outweighed any "message" in the work, which I will admit I have not really researched. Myself, I did not get to go due to the High's absolutely abysmal ticketing system. I declined to buy a scalped ticket at 10x the cost. I have gone to the High many times, but my personal favorite area is the top floor with modern work and usually a photography feature. These modern works are in massive rooms and they are usually pretty empty. I'm not sure if these works bring crowds. The photography exhibits, unfortunately, are horribly lit - a real disservice to the work.
There was a giant Ansel Adams exhibit at the MFA in Boston just a few months ago that got writeups in pretty much every major newspaper that still covers art - I think I read about it in the WSJ, the NY Times, and the LA Times (or maybe it was the WA Post) at least. Yes it was St. Ansel and not a currently working B&W landscape photographer, but I think the idea that B&W landscape photography is persona non grata at museums because they are all on an Instagram bandwagon, is crying into one's beer. In fact, one can be interested in both "straight" photography and manipulated images ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks