The Art of Talking Art

[amateriat]

Hold it, Fred: Are you insinuating that I wasn't abducted by Dadaist aliens as a youngster and given the same treatment (among other things unmentionable here)? How can you be sure? 🙄

BTW, love the new avatar of you and companion.


- Barrett

 

[Roger Hicks]

If possible I'll try to get this thread back on track.

"Photography" is not a hermetic medium peopled by any specific class, race, gender or clique.

How could it be "invaded" by conceptual artists, or anyone else?

The language of art is what is is. Learn it or leave it. There is no obligation.

No.

Change it, or reveal it for the drivel it is.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

All that is necessary for drivel to triumph is for those who can read, and write, and think, to do nothing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnnyT]

The problem is... At least, I think...

The problem is... At least, I think...

I've just got out of the university a year ago to "refine" my writting and... It happens that i've took some more "pictures" classes...

Ok, the thing is that the people who teach tell us that the technique is not important, only the concept does... I mean, they don't understand no technique at all and they teach us how to make "art" with a pen in one hand and a Lacan book in the other... When we were describing a picture from an italian photographer, he talked about lens...and perspective and the power of the narrow angle lens... At the pause, I came to tell him... Mister, actually this picture was taken with a normal lens, around 50mm, and there is no big perspective here because the depth of field is very small... Believe it or not, he did't understood what I've just told him... The important stuff was WWLCT which means, What Would Lacan Could Think. :bang:

I've got a friend who did the same thing as me... He decided to take a course at the university in painting. The teacher was alwals disapointed when he took a look at his work... One day, his cat puke on one of his painting... this is no joke and this is totally genuine... Guess what? The teacher told him that this work was absolutely fanstastic... Artistic...passion.... ! After this case, my friend lefts...

This is ok to make theories about art and make parallels within concepts... But the sad thing is that they actually teach us how to make pictures out of a semiotic book. I read about semiology at home and i often find that Lacan had some interresting idea... but not in my camera nor my pen.

Great stuff did come out of this "artistic movement", but only those who were able to put a great piece of work and a great concept... I'm sorry for those who still make white square on white background : this is not "in"!

Anyway, in 20 years, we will laught at all this stuff and in 100 years those people will be long forgotten... That's ok, it is the cycle of the art movement. Classisism will always prevails one day, for a time thought....:angel:

 

[bmattock]

The language of art is what is is. Learn it or leave it. There is no obligation.

Actually, the language of art (criticism) is what it isn't. I try not to immerse myself in things which have no meaning.

Read "The State of Art Criticism," by Michael Newman and James Elkins for a thorough exposition of the loss of validity of art criticism since the advent of Modernism.

I am sorry if it fashes art critics to hear that their work is wretched, their product pitiful, and their values vacuous, but there it is. That indeed "is what it is."

 

[amateriat]

Read "The State of Art Criticism," by Michael Newman and James Elkins for a thorough exposition of the loss of validity of art criticism since the advent of Modernism.

Or, the rather shorter The End of the Art World by Robert C. Morgan, which more or less leans the same way, perhaps with a sharper blade toward Postmodernism. Don't forget the popcorn.


- Barrett

 

[Roger Hicks]

After reading the last few posts I don't understand what this forum is doing with a high fallutin' philosophy section.

A genuine question: Why so much hatred for art on this forum?

Dear George,

Can you not distinguish between art and art criticism?

Most artists can. Even some critics can.

Cheers,

R.

 

[amateriat]

I don't think it's about hatred of art from most anyone here.


- Barrett

 

[pggunn]

The language of art is what is is. Learn it or leave it. There is no obligation.

I'm still not convinced that the language of art is necessarily art, or even necessarily necessary. I still maintain that great art speaks for itself and that there is too much second rate art, or worse, out there where attempts have been made to legitimize it with convoluted, pompous, psuedointellectual bull****. That is not to say that a work of art can't be discussed intelligently or that it can't benefit by some well thought out and communicated exegesis from a good critic schooled in the medium, or from the artist himself.

I think what most of us have been complaining about are the attempts to feed us crap, selling it as art, and telling us it smells like roses.

I mean no disrespect and hope I haven't offended anyone. That is not my intention. I do love art, especially photography, and I'm not a Philistine, nor am I anti-intellectual. I just call bull**** when I see it, or smell it! Of course, you have the right to tell me that I'm full of it too! And then I might joke that at least mine doesn't stink! 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I can tell my arse from my elbow.

Dear George,

Can we have some evidence of that, please?

Or better still, some evidence you can tell art from art criticism?

Many in this thread have declared that they find a great deal of art criticism to be pretentious, pompous drivel. Actually, it always was: read Ruskin. The only real difference was that Ruskin wrote pretentious, pompous drivel using something approaching a common vocabulary, rather than hiding behind jargon derived from an imperfect understanding of late 20th century French philosophers.

Some have said that they find some artists pretentious or incompetent or both. Well, it would be surprising if some artists were not pretentious or incompetent or both. After all, the pretentious and incompetent exist in every other walk of life.

Very few have however attacked art itself.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

I'm still not convinced that the language of art is necessarily art, or even necessarily necessary. I still maintain that great art speaks for itself and that there is too much second rate art, or worse, out there where attempts have been made to legitimize it with convoluted, pompous, psuedointellectual bull****. That is not to say that a work of art can't be discussed intelligently or that it can't benefit by some well thought out and communicated exegesis from a good critic schooled in the medium, or from the artist himself.

I fully agree that great art speaks for itself and that there's too much second rate art out there. However, I think a lot of people confuse "speaking for itself" with "speaking to the uneducated spectator". There's a lot of art that I don't "get" simply because I don't know enough about art history but usually I at least try to make an effort. Sometimes I turns out that I really like the art once I learn more about it and sometimes I still think it's BS.
And yes, there's a lot of pseudointellectual bull**** being talked about art but I don't get why people are so intimidated by it. Instead of discarding it as BS because they don't unterstand it people should first try to understand what is being said. It might turn out that it's interesting afterall.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I fully agree that great art speaks for itself and that there's too much second rate art out there. However, I think a lot of people confuse "speaking for itself" with "speaking to the uneducated spectator". There's a lot of art that I don't "get" simply because I don't know enough about art history but usually I at least try to make an effort. Sometimes I turns out that I really like the art once I learn more about it and sometimes I still think it's BS.
And yes, there's a lot of pseudointellectual bull**** being talked about art but I don't get why people are so intimidated by it. Instead of discarding it as BS because they don't unterstand it people should first try to understand what is being said. It might turn out that it's interesting afterall.

Dear Jamie,

Hang on. By definition you can't understand BS. You may be taken in by it, but that's not the same as understanding it.

I completely agree with trying to understand art criticism. I also agree with your point that in many cases, one can appreciate a particular kind or school of of art more, as a result of learning more about it. I've studied quite a lot of art history, and one of my closest friends is an expert in the field -- but he agrees that an awful lot of art 'theory' or art 'criticism' is, in fact, pure rubbish.

Dismissing some of it as pure rubbish (when it is) is not the same as being intimidated by it. It is actually a refusal to be intimidated by it.

Note also 'some of it'. I do not think that anyone denies that it is possible to write both intelligently and intelligibly about art. The dispute is about how much of what is written about art actually is intelligent or intelligible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[retnull]

Willful obfuscation does exist, but I think there is more involved in this case. The fact is that ART CHANGED about 30 or 40 years ago: it transformed into something entirely different. Those not actively participating in the fine-art world have not come to understand these changes yet.

Art-world insiders will tell you that in 2009, art is very much like doing philosophy. Art is no longer about beauty. It is not even about what is visible. It is about exploring the way that things take on meaning.

If you're not OK with that, then you're invited to happily continue enjoying the type of art you've always enjoyed. HOWEVER, quite frankly, it is lazy to assume that things you don't understand are without merit.

 

[Sparrow]

Willful obfuscation does exist, but I think there is more involved in this case. The fact is that ART CHANGED about 30 or 40 years ago: it transformed into something entirely different. Those not actively participating in the fine-art world have not come to understand these changes yet.

Art-world insiders will tell you that in 2009, art is very much like doing philosophy. Art is no longer about beauty. It is not even about what is visible. It is about exploring the way that things take on meaning.

If you're not OK with that, then you're invited to happily continue enjoying the type of art you've always enjoyed. HOWEVER, quite frankly, it is lazy to assume that things you don't understand are without merit.

Or possibly we do understand and find that explanation unconvincing? and this Saatchification of fine art by a metropolitan elite to be irrelevant to society at large, possibly? which is, after all, the whole point

 

[bmattock]

Art-world insiders will tell you that in 2009, art is very much like doing philosophy. Art is no longer about beauty. It is not even about what is visible. It is about exploring the way that things take on meaning.

If you're not OK with that, then you're invited to happily continue enjoying the type of art you've always enjoyed. HOWEVER, quite frankly, it is lazy to assume that things you don't understand are without merit.

Once again, some refuse to accept that the criticism being leveled is at art criticism and insist that by criticizing criticism, we instead revile art itself.

It's funny and analogous to those who argue with anthropomorphic global warming 'deniers' by insisting that global warming exists. It does, but that does not make it anthropogenic. Likewise, not having much use for current art criticism is not the same as disliking current art.

And frankly, that sniffy "you Philistines just don't get it" bit is played.

 

[pggunn]

I fully agree that great art speaks for itself and that there's too much second rate art out there. However, I think a lot of people confuse "speaking for itself" with "speaking to the uneducated spectator". There's a lot of art that I don't "get" simply because I don't know enough about art history but usually I at least try to make an effort. Sometimes I turns out that I really like the art once I learn more about it and sometimes I still think it's BS.
And yes, there's a lot of pseudointellectual bull**** being talked about art but I don't get why people are so intimidated by it. Instead of discarding it as BS because they don't unterstand it people should first try to understand what is being said. It might turn out that it's interesting afterall.

Hi Jamie,

I agree that sometimes it does take some effort to "get" a work of art. Some works don't lend themselves to a quick and easy reading, but I'm certainly not intimidated by it and I never immediately dismiss a work of art simply because I can't figure it out in thirty seconds. I do try to understand a work before passing final judgment. And I'm not intimidated by bull****. However, I am infuriated by it when it is, indeed bull****, and it is used in an attempt to legitimize poorly formulated, poorly executed, poorly realized, inferior works by pretentious and untalented artists. There is an awful lot of that going around in fine art photography circles. On the other hand, there is a lot of good work out there too and in my experience most of the really good work comes unaccompanied by a lot of bull****. There appears to be an inverse relationship at work there.

 

[aizan]

artistic lingo lets everyone know you're part of the club, and that you're doing something important. it's easy enough, but always felt...tawdry. it's unclean! unclean, i tell you!

 

[AnalogForever]

 

[Roger Hicks]

Willful obfuscation does exist, but I think there is more involved in this case. The fact is that ART CHANGED about 30 or 40 years ago: it transformed into something entirely different. Those not actively participating in the fine-art world have not come to understand these changes yet.

Art-world insiders will tell you that in 2009, art is very much like doing philosophy. Art is no longer about beauty. It is not even about what is visible. It is about exploring the way that things take on meaning.

If you're not OK with that, then you're invited to happily continue enjoying the type of art you've always enjoyed. HOWEVER, quite frankly, it is lazy to assume that things you don't understand are without merit.

Art changes constantly. To pretend that what happened 30 or 40 years ago is of unique significance is meaningless, and frankly lazy.

Leonardo complained that people were no longer telling him what to paint: they just wanted a Da Vinci. A fairly major change. The bourgeoisification of art in the 19th century was another major change. So was the rise of critics (in all fields -- music, theatre, painting...) with the newspapers, to tell the bourgeois what they liked. So was the wilful refusal to be conventionally representative by the Fauves. So was 'found' art, as already pointed out (R. Mutt).

'Exploring the way that things take on meaning' is indeed a part of art, and a rather larger part of philosophy, but to pretend that it is the whole of art (or even of philosophy) portrays breathtaking arrogance and indeed ignorance: it is the statement, in effect, that this is the only kind of art that exists, and that anything else claiming to be 'art' is making a false claim, which is patent nonsense. What you describe is merely the fashion among a small coterie at the moment -- the small coterie of self-proclaimed 'art world insiders' to whom you refer -- and it will pass.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[AnalogForever]

I'm considered a God in the art world. I don't see what's so hard about it.

 

[Turtle]

I'm considered a God in the art world. I don't see what's so hard about it.

I don't think the discussion is about whether 'it is hard' or even about 'how to do it' but about whether photography is being claimed by the 'art scene' with the consequence that it is being changed in an 'undesirable way'. As others have pointed out, this all too frequently (IMO) means making the images subordinate to, or in support of, a fairly lame 'concept' that I would not have found terribly stimulating intellectually as a developing teenager never mind now. Personally, if I want that kind of revelation, I read a book, which can deliver far more, far more effectively, than the sort of work featured in the aperture contest. The horizons broadened by reading, learning, understanding, being challenged or surprised, tend to stay with me. The vacuous emanations of critics tend to evaporate quite quickly for lack of substance in my experience.

To me, it is about the validity of things that are unpretentious, simple and honest being undermined by conceptual work (that is supported either by weak novel concepts or nonsensical BS) of little substance and which I suspect will end up in the dustbin of time. It is about the demand for (pseudo)complexity and novelty at the expense of honesty and substance. I am not suggesting that the art world in inherently dishonest, but I am suggesting that it does not attribute much value to the genuine or substantial and this is IMHO relevant to photography as a medium. It is a shame that a medium that, while very flexible, can be used to show things either literally or close to literally, is being relegated to the 'concept support role' where the photograph itself has lost almost all, if not all, of its inherent value as a stand alone 'thing.' I rather think of it as removing the identity of the medium, its history, its strengths, and IMHO, its wonder.