Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Well anyone can call himself anything he wants as far as what kind of photographer you are, at least in the USA. If you want to be a professional artist though, the community (or at least that part that constitutes the art world) is important. If no one will exhibit, publish, buy or sell your work, you aren't a professional artist.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In that case, you don't need anyone's validation. Now, if you go around telling people you are an artist, they will ask to see your work. Some will say it sucks! I haven't seen your work, but someone will tell you it is crap, because thats just how it is....no one agrees on what 'good' art is, so no matter how good you are someone will hate it and someone else will love it! I know that from experience, so you gotta be thick skinned if you tell people you are an artist.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dorothy Parker reportedly had a budgerigar called Onan. She named him this because he spilled his seed upon the ground. (Genesis 38:9)
Cheers,
R.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
Chris,as you are brave enough to give access to your work,unlike Ruby who simply declares herself an artist,could you maybe state why youre work should be considered not only as art but "fine art".
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The term fine art is really a marketing term; its what galleries call the product they sell. In photography the name Fine Art distinguishes photography done purely as personal expression (art) from commercial work and snapshots (though sometimes both can be art too)
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Funny thing is that Onan didn't do the thing he gave his name to (masterbation). He had sex with a woman, but pulled out at the last second to avoid becoming a father...thus spilling his seed. lol
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
This is my understanding. Unless you want to sell your work, then it is pointless to press the back of your wrist to your brow, assume an expression of suffering, and say, "But I am an ARTIST!"
And if you do want to sell your work, it's what the galleries and buyers want you do. No doubt we shall both be accused of trying to reduce Art to a cash nexus, whereas in fact all we are doing is reducing the sale of art to a cash nexus -- in which case the word 'sale' is something of a clue.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
I think that’s what I feel, by claiming to be an artist one risks being perceived as an artiest
parsec1
parsec1
With all he latest plumbing equipment it has still taken nearly two years to fix a friends shower and it still leaks into the kitchen below.
What we are talkng about here is 'Visual Perception' you either have it or you don't and no amount of equipment will make you a better photographer if you don't.
Art these days seems to comprise of anything from unmade beds , half of a cow suspended in formaldahyde or whatever gets the attention of the media how ever ridiculous it is. This whole 'art movement' today seems to comprise of 'freaky airheads' concerned with the obscure. It may be the the tide has ebbed and all that remains on the beach are a few bit of flotsam and jetsam for the 'airheads' to get excited about, or at least pretend to.
Once the airhead media gets up a head of steam so many people become embarressed to challenge what for them means precisely nothing and normally is exactly that.
I would and have derived more inspiration from spending a good few hours 'seeing' a Vermeer , Monet or even a Lowry than looking at this 'exibition' of mostly out of focus bums and legs from this particular 'Photographer'.
'Art is in the eye of the beholder' it is said but in this case its in the hands of the money grabbing felons who could and would sell ice to Eskimos and feel proud that they have done so.
I feel more affinity with the likes of John Constable (perhaps because I live in his area) who created real emotive masterpieces from the almost empty tubes of paint that other artist threw away and whose paintings were refused exhibition by the Royal Academy who refered to them as 'Green Slime'.
As a professional photojournalist for 30 years I wonder what there is in this mans work that deserves an exhibition of any sort.
Its a great shame that the rats didn't get to finish their meal.
What we are talkng about here is 'Visual Perception' you either have it or you don't and no amount of equipment will make you a better photographer if you don't.
Art these days seems to comprise of anything from unmade beds , half of a cow suspended in formaldahyde or whatever gets the attention of the media how ever ridiculous it is. This whole 'art movement' today seems to comprise of 'freaky airheads' concerned with the obscure. It may be the the tide has ebbed and all that remains on the beach are a few bit of flotsam and jetsam for the 'airheads' to get excited about, or at least pretend to.
Once the airhead media gets up a head of steam so many people become embarressed to challenge what for them means precisely nothing and normally is exactly that.
I would and have derived more inspiration from spending a good few hours 'seeing' a Vermeer , Monet or even a Lowry than looking at this 'exibition' of mostly out of focus bums and legs from this particular 'Photographer'.
'Art is in the eye of the beholder' it is said but in this case its in the hands of the money grabbing felons who could and would sell ice to Eskimos and feel proud that they have done so.
I feel more affinity with the likes of John Constable (perhaps because I live in his area) who created real emotive masterpieces from the almost empty tubes of paint that other artist threw away and whose paintings were refused exhibition by the Royal Academy who refered to them as 'Green Slime'.
As a professional photojournalist for 30 years I wonder what there is in this mans work that deserves an exhibition of any sort.
Its a great shame that the rats didn't get to finish their meal.
Saw this show this weekend. I think his story, his historical significance, and his homemade cameras trump his images. Show the images without his background story and info about his cameras, I'm not so sure the images would hold up. Equal parts creep-job and mad genius.
kevin m
Veteran
More risible mud-slinging from our resident master sophist. Again, no one here has made the argument you're ridiculing. You have, again, made it up.
It is a wholly understandable human tendency that the artist would desire an audience for their work. It is another thing altogether to take note of what people are willing to pay for and produce that thing. That can be called many things, of course: Making a living; commerce; prostitution, on a sliding scale. We all have to do a bit of it to keep a roof over our heads. Mocking the artistic impulse, on the other hand, leads one to believe that the speaker has slipped off the scale altogether.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Only if you also produce art, as well as claiming to be an artist. Even then, it can get interesting if you don't take yourself too seriously. There's a lovely story of Picasso being asked to authenticate one of his own paintings, and dismissing it as a fake. The owner was horrified: "But I saw you paint it."
Picasso shrugged. "Yes. I often fake Picassos."
Can anyone point to a source for this story? I heard it only at second hand.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
When I first heard that one it was comrade P claiming he had disowned works held by dealers to reduce their value, it was in an interview with an American magazine journalist I think, but many years back, and I was suspicious of it’s authenticity at the time.
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
It's easy to champion the established greats from a few hundred years ago. There's less consensus around more recent stuff. The examples you give are from 10-15 years ago. Maybe a hundred years from now nobody will question the artistic value of Hirst's pickled animals or Emin's messy bed.
parsec1
parsec1
More likely nobody will remember them.
Paul T.
Veteran
And who would remember a Constable copyist?
parsec1
parsec1
I called one of my former homes 'Willow Farm'....Genesis.....Suppers Ready(23 minutes and 32 seconds) Foxtrot 1973.
Peter
parsec1
parsec1
Nobody and rightly so.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course he may have said it more than once...
Like you, I've long held doubts about its authenticity. But it's such a lovely story that it ought to be true.
Cheers,
R.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
- Status
- Not open for further replies.