Art vs Equipment

[semilog]

Well consent is a legal issue and a moral issue not an aesthetic issue.

Nonsense. If it influences one's emotional response to a work, it is part of the work's aesthetic content.

I bet the families of the corpses so liberally sprawled out in Weegee's work would tend to disagree about how freely the images should be disseminated. If we didn't ignore the families feelings and need for privacy we wouldn't have the great Weegee images.

I bet you're right.

I don't claim to be completely consistent in my readings of art. But I do have my opinions. One of these is that the merits of what Weegee accomplished might outweigh the discomfort of the subjects (many of whom were in fact still alive). In Tichy's case I see technical (compositional) skill but his work does not move me.

YMMV.

 

[Sparrow]

I think the Victorian's get a bad rap - a convenient catch phrase for sexual repression that is not historically accurate. Merely pondering the sexual peccadilloes of the famous men of that age would give the lie to that shibboleth. Recent studies of 19th century medical studies, personal diaries and other primary sources clearly demonstrate that both male and female interest and pleasure in sex was not any different from our current age. Not surprising when one considers the biological imperative and doing what come naturally hasn't changed - ever.

As to boring classical references, there has to be a more creative means of portraying the female form than copying classic sculpture or its frequent reiteration through Western art.

I chose my words carefully, I said "Victorian values" I didn't say they were not hypocrites. They did have those personal peccadilloes but cirtainly didnt allow there wives and servants to share in them.

The discoveries of ancient art towards the end of the 18c was a big difficulty at the time, much was destroyed or disappeared into private hands as unsuitable for the public's view.

Perhaps providing your source would be helpful

 

[Jamie123]

I don't claim to be completely consistent in my readings of art. But I do have my opinions. One of these is that the merits of what Weegee accomplished might outweigh the discomfort of the subjects (many of whom were in fact still alive). In Tichy's case I see technical (compositional) skill but his work does not move me.

YMMV.

I'm not sure what Weegee's accomplishments are in a moral sense. Has his photography had any real influence on society? Has crime gone down after he published his pictures?
If you're going to get all utilitarian and say 'this outweighs that' you should at least justify it. Are you saying the aesthetic value of Weegee's work outweighs the discomfort of people who have just lost a loved one?

If so, then there shouldn't be any problem with Tichy's work. The discomfort of his subjects is probably non existant as they were not aware of being photographed and are also not likely to recognize their blurry behind on a photograph. So if there is even the slightest aesthetic value in his work it surely outweighs the subject's discomfort.

As for your last sentence, I feel exactly the same way. His work doesn't do anything for me. I do feel, however, that voyerism is one aspect of his photographs and without it they would be something completely different.

 

[taxi38]

Weegee was a photojournalist,he had a brilliant photographic eye that he used to the full.Im surprised at the knowledgeable posters here comparing these secretly taken pictures to the brazen genius of arthur fellig.
p.s.this photo is by weegee

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not sure what Weegee's accomplishments are in a moral sense. Has his photography had any real influence on society? Has crime gone down after he published his pictures?
If you're going to get all utilitarian and say 'this outweighs that' you should at least justify it. Are you saying the aesthetic value of Weegee's work outweighs the discomfort of people who have just lost a loved one?

If so, then there shouldn't be any problem with Tichy's work. The discomfort of his subjects is probably non existant as they were not aware of being photographed and are also not likely to recognize their blurry behind on a photograph. So if there is even the slightest aesthetic value in his work it surely outweighs the subject's discomfort.

As for your last sentence, I feel exactly the same way. His work doesn't do anything for me. I do feel, however, that voyerism is one aspect of his photographs and without it they would be something completely different.

That's a very interesting point. In fact it's independent of anyone's opinion of Weegee. If you don't know you've been photographed, and would almost certainly be unable to recognize the picture even if you saw it, how can you possibly be offended?

Others can be offended on your behalf, but that's mainly for people who make a hobby of being offended. Certainly your family and friends can't be offended if they can't recognize it either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[taxi38]

If you now remove the photographer from this equation by using the new backside recognition software on my new" NICAN pervert 430"the morality of the exercise is focussed on the image not the photographer. However this rightness or wrongness is left hanging in the air and is possibly now more tangible by its absense.Both of these photographers have had their artistic qualifictions thrust upon them ,it is important that we are able to see the difference and not elevate the mundane above what it deserves,we are the arbiters of right and wrong,good and bad,not self serving critics paid by a greedy art market.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't all true artists have their 'artistic qualifications thrust upon them'?

Any fool can say 'I am an artist', but in the long run it is society -- which includes the self serving critic and the greedy art market as well as all the rest of us -- that sets the definition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

That can't be right. Surely the makers of art are free to define themselves as artists, or not.

From little kids with crayons, to big kids with cameras, (even plumbers wives), are artists if they make art, and this, even if no one ever sees it.

Perhaps you didn't notice the "but in the long run" bit ... one can claim to be anything, claiming and being are different surely

 

[Sparrow]

I can't see the significance of "in the long run".

I didn't use the word "claim", but "define", as did Roger.
As in "I define myself an artist, as I make art". I don't need to have this approved by someone in NYC (or London) with a degree in criticism.

let me explain; you can, for example, claim to be a photographer but until we see your work and agree that they are in fact photos then you are just so much talk

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

I wish other members of RFF wouldn’t be such condescending #$%## all the time. Just because you have 5 million posts doesn’t mean you are an expert or give you the right to repeatedly spew out your opinions as unquestionable truths.

Thank you Ruby for being cool.

 

[Sparrow]

define yourself as you will, but sadly if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you aren't an artist you're delusional

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

I & others agree that Ruby is an artist.

So she is.

End of story.

 

[Paul T.]

define yourself as you will, but sadly if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you aren't an artist you're delusional

Judge not, lest ye shall be judged.

As far as this site goes, we can all say whatever we want. It's not real life. And although I defended ROger on another thread, where someone sought to denigrate his whole life, I think that attacking someone for being a plumber's wife, in an aside that has marginal relevance to this thread, does far more damage than did his previous, anonymous attacker.

 

[FrankS]

Ruby is married to a plumber?

😉

 

[Viktor Sebastian]

Indeed. Roger’s condescending attitude gets tiring very quickly.
But hey, that is just my anonymous opinion, so keep flaming on.

 

[Jamie123]

Let me explain.

I do not claim to be a photographer.

I define myself as an artist.

I do not need you to agree to this for it to be true.

I do not seek or need validation from my peers, nor those in academia.

You can define yourself as whatever you want but if you're the only person who holds the belief that your definition is correct then ultimately you're just speaking a different language than anyone else.

The funny thing is that I think you don't really believe that anyone can define themselves as an artist. If I say I'm an artist because the CO2 that leaves my mouth everytime I breathe out is art then you will (hopefully) just laugh at me and call me an idiot. Just because there's no universally agreed upon definition of art it doesn't mean that it's completely arbitrary.

What you seem to want to say is that you're not happy with institutions such as the art market, museums and academia deciding who is and who isn't an artist. You want to shift the emphasis from the receiving institutions to the creating institution (the artist himself). But what you're really doing is just replacing one receiving institution (art market, etc.) with another (yourself). If those things you produce are artworks to you then you are an artist at least to one person (yourself). The problem is that once that 'institution' ceases to exist (i.e. you die), those 'artworks' of yours will just be things. This is where the ''in the long run'' part comes in.

 

[Jamie123]

I & others agree that Ruby is an artist.

So she is.

End of story.

For the sake of the argument, I and others agree that he isn't an artist .

So he isn't.

End of story?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Judge not, lest ye shall be judged.

As far as this site goes, we can all say whatever we want. It's not real life. And although I defended ROger on another thread, where someone sought to denigrate his whole life, I think that attacking someone for being a plumber's wife, in an aside that has marginal relevance to this thread, does far more damage than did his previous, anonymous attacker.

Dear Paul,

I completely agree, and I'd like to apologize unreservedly to Philly for dismissing her as a plumber's wife. It was, as you say, an aside of marginal relevance, and of course I wish I'd never said it. There is absolutely no reason why a plumber's wife shouldn't be an artist, and if I see some of her work I may well agree that she is. This is not just an empty apology: I am genuinely sorry, because it was an unfair thing to say.

I do not however apologize for pointing out that it is silly to pretend that photographers use anything other than they want and what they can afford. This is so self-evident as to be incontrovertible.

Nor do I apologize for my post about society deciding who is an artist. 'Society' is more than a partisan of a particular photographer, or someone trying to score points.

We all say stupid things when we're angry, and I get pretty angry with anyone who says "anyone can afford whatever they need" or that a Holga (or whatever) is all that any artist ever needs to create art. For some it's true, but it's hard to imagine Ansel Adams or Sebastiao Salgado doing as well with a point-and-shoot.

So, to recap, I said something stupid, in the heat of the moment -- as did Philly with her 'come back when you're sober' -- and once again, I apologize unreservedly. All I can say in my defence is that I try never to be gratuitously malicious (though apparently some people read me sometimes that way) and that I apologize for being so easily provoked.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

define yourself as you will, but sadly if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you aren't an artist you're delusional

Wow. So "art" requires consensus? Sorry, but that's delusional. Art and the democratic impulse bear no relation to one another. You don't get to "vote" on it, in other words. The role of the artist is to do what he or she is drawn to do, and our role on the receiving end is to approach it with an open mind. With any luck, a connection of some sort will be made, but it's an inherently personal thing on both ends and not subject to limiting pre-definition of any sort.

 

[Tompas]

(...) The problem is that once that 'institution' ceases to exist (i.e. you die), those 'artworks' of yours will just be things. This is where the ''in the long run'' part comes in.

So, why don't we postpone such questions indefinitely and let history decide eventually?

I believe many especially of the greatest artists tend not to care (whether someone regards them as artists) anyway.