Cindy Sherman Print Sells For $3.9 Million At Auction, The Highest Ever For A Photogr

[paulr]

Many artists have become famous despite poor technical skills and no formal training. It happens so often that there is a term for it: Naive. I'm sure certain artists who value execution above insight will consider that term pejorative, but I don't think most others would. The art world would be poorer for having only naive artists, but it would also be diminished by having none.

Ornette Coleman was fascinated by this idea. He couldn't explore naiveté on the horn, being a master saxophonist, so he made a career-long experiment of performing and recording on violin, which he refused learn how to play in any conventional capacity.

This example takes the idea to its extreme (kind of like if the Shaggs had been created as an avant garde experiment). The resulting music definitely sounds "experimental." But Coleman is not kidding around.

[Vince Ryce]

I suspect Mozart is more well-known than, say, Haydn because a movie about him won an Academy Award.

Amadeus, I clearly remember the movie, at least the first thirty minutes of it, until I left.
Mozart portrayed as a Brooklyn brat, that was so unbearably stupid.
Nobody with the slightest understanding of 18 th century Europe could have made such a monstrosity. Let's talk about culture.
The only influence it may have exerted was to explain to some people that there is more about Mozart than just the name of a restaurant downtown.

[rdenney]

Amadeus, I clearly remember the movie, at least the first thirty minutes of it, until I left.
Mozart portrayed as a Brooklyn brat, that was so unbearably stupid.
Nobody with the slightest understanding of 18 th century Europe could have made such a monstrosity. Let's talk about culture.
The only influence it may have exerted was to explain to some people that there is more about Mozart than just the name of a restaurant downtown.

Sheesh. It was a movie, based on a play. It probably has resulted in selling more recordings of Mozart's music than any other single reason. And I doubt anybody not learned in classical music would know the name Salieri without that movie.

I've had to sit through many movies that depict real people fictitiously, including some people about whom I know enough to have come to admire. This one was obviously fictitious, but it was also a wonderful movie that did nothing to undermine the importance of Mozart or his music in Western culture.

It is certainly not because of the movie that I find much of his music boring. I once played in an amateur orchestra and was asked to play bass parts using a tuba in order to bolster a weak bass section. That gave me the opportunity to play both Mozart and Haydn, and that experience gave me some insight into both from a musical performance point of view. I found that both were more fun to play than to listen to, despite that both produced undeniable masterpieces. That is also true of, say, Brahms, and with a few exceptions from his oeuvre I would much rather perform his music than listen to it.

Experience with art naturally leads people to form conclusions about what they do and don't like. Those conclusions are bound to differ from the conclusions of others. In this thread, those who have dismissed Sherman because they don't like her work have dredged up a range of reasons for why it should not be considered important by anybody. I don't particularly like listening to Mozart, but using that as a reason to dismiss him as an important composer would be no more or less defensible than dismissing the importance of Sherman's work because I didn't happen to like it much.

Rick "whose recording collection ranges from Palestrina to Lutoslawski, and from the Beatles to Philip Glass" Denney

[Winger]

Rick "whose recording collection ranges from Palestrina to Lutoslawski, and from the Beatles to Philip Glass" Denney

You had me until Philip Glass. I just don't enjoy his work. For the record, I enjoy Mozart, but mainly just the horn concertos (I used to play and they are good to show off). I grew up listening to classical and enjoy most of it (I listen to almost anything these days).
I think you're very right in the last post about many posters wanting others to dismiss Sherman because they don't like her work. I'm not a complete fan, but I can appreciate the creativity and work that went into it. I remember a long article in a magazine (maybe American Photo) several years ago on the series ("film stills"). I wasn't overly impressed, but I could see how many of them would resonate with people (especially women). I find it interesting that the (few) other women on this site haven't commented on this thread, but I have only been viewing it from the sidelines, too.
And I doubt she made any money from this auction - it was the previous owner who made out well (until the IRS takes their cut, of course).

[rdenney]

You had me until Philip Glass. I just don't enjoy his work.

That's okay--I was that way at first, too. But I would recommend hearing him perform live. I first heard him back in the 80's at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. The room was small, and the sound system dominated it. It took until the second half for it to get under my skin. I was a fan by the end, when he played a piece of his new "opera" Akhenaten and then encored with Spaceship from Einstein on the Beach. I've been a fan ever since.

And that is a good lesson for me not to dismiss important artists without experiencing them in their element. For the record, I can't enjoy the Lutoslawski, but I still have some of his work in my collection.

Oh, and would you enjoy the Mozart horn concerti as much if you were not a horn player? More fun to play than to listen to in many cases.

Rick "who prefers the Richard Strauss horn concerti" Denney

[paulr]

I like Philip Glass's operas more than any from the 19th century. But when I first heard his music I thought it was some kind of joke.

I find it interesting that the (few) other women on this site haven't commented on this thread, but I have only been viewing it from the sidelines, too.

I think women are generally smarter about slipping out of the room when things start to devolve into a pissing contest.

Researchers have some other ideas about this issue, with regard to the internet at large and Wikipedia in particular.

[Mark Sawyer]

You had me until Philip Glass. I just don't enjoy his work.

Try the album Glassworks. It's more "accessible" than his other work, which tends to be a bit too self-involved...

[Jim Jones]

I like Philip Glass's operas more than any from the 19th century. But when I first heard his music I thought it was some kind of joke.


I think women are generally smarter about slipping out of the room when things start to devolve into a pissing contest.

Researchers have some other ideas about this issue, with regard to the internet at large and Wikipedia in particular.

Interesting link, Paul. I agree with it and with your comments. I'm no musician, but over the past 60+ years have listened to much music on the radio. With little choice in selections, this meant exposure to a great variety. Philip Glass, like Cindy Sherman, can be intriguing if not endearing. Mozasrt, like a good commercial artist, could write fine music on demand, even for his detested flute. Strauss had better reasons to write his horn concerti, which might make it more acceptable to real musicians.

As for women participating on photo sites, a site I'm active on is oriented towards images rather than discussion. Women seem to provide a large fraction of the photos, but less contentious criticism. I'm also involved in easel arts. Women participate much more than men. This isn't a matter of adult life style. Almost all of the most talented high school artists around home seem to be female.

One way of describing the difference between the sexes is this: Women are like cats; beautiful, graceful, well-mannered, but with claws. Men are like dogs; they run in packs, bark at the moon, bite, and pee where they shouldn't.

[paulr]

I'm usually pretty wary of "women are like this, men are like that" generalizations. But I was intrigued by something Szarkowski said, when asked why female photographers seemed underrepresented in the collection at the Modern. He pointed out that during most of photography's first century, there were simply very few female photographers, since economics and social norms mostly limited it to a hobby for men of the leisure class. Given the estimated percentage of women who were taking photos, he felt that there was actually an unusually large number of women represented. He considered their work to be equal to the work of any of the men, so this discrepancy led him to wonder if women are for some reason just more likely to have talent.

[rdenney]

...so this discrepancy led him to wonder if women are for some reason just more likely to have talent.

...or less likely to be distracted by the technology.

Rick "all generalizations are ultimately false, but some are useful" Denney