Jamie123
Veteran
On RFF I often sense a certain contempt for what I'd loosely surmise under the term contemporary art photography. By that I mean the type of photography that is held in high esteem by the art world (art market, institutions, etc.). There would be no point in trying to give an essential definition of art photography as I don't think there is one. However, it's safe to say that art circles often tend to favour a certain type of photography that is rather 'conceptual' (although I'm sure many art historians would slap my fingers for using this term here).
Of course the issue that generally arises is one concerning the 'art' part and who has the authority to assign this status. This often goes along with what I'm tempted to call reverse snobism, i.e. a contempt for academia, intellectualism etc. Or the opinion that art photography is just a load of BS that get's justified by a bunch of scholars writing BS about it that no one understands.
I'm somewhat annoyed by this because although I agree for a large part that there's a lot of BS in the art world I still don't think this warrants the overall dismissive attitude. I think some so called 'art' photographers are producing some of the best photographic work out there today. Jeff Wall is a genius in my book. Cindy Sherman's early work is fantastic. Hiroshi Sugimoto's work is great, too. I'm not completely won over by the Düsseldorf school but I very much appreciate Gursky's, Struth's and Höfer's work. Sometimes even Ruff's.
I'm also a big fan of Taryn Simon's and Alec Soth's work and of course all the stuff from the 70s and 80s by Shore, Sternfeld and Eggleston.
I'm generally not willing to forego aesthetics in favor of concept but I do find myself getting more and more bored with the kind of 'stunning' imagery that seems to move most people around here. All of the 'old school' Magnum reportage stuff just doesn't do it anymore for me. I used to love it but now I just find it awfully repetitive. These days the images that move me are those that make me think.
Of course the issue that generally arises is one concerning the 'art' part and who has the authority to assign this status. This often goes along with what I'm tempted to call reverse snobism, i.e. a contempt for academia, intellectualism etc. Or the opinion that art photography is just a load of BS that get's justified by a bunch of scholars writing BS about it that no one understands.
I'm somewhat annoyed by this because although I agree for a large part that there's a lot of BS in the art world I still don't think this warrants the overall dismissive attitude. I think some so called 'art' photographers are producing some of the best photographic work out there today. Jeff Wall is a genius in my book. Cindy Sherman's early work is fantastic. Hiroshi Sugimoto's work is great, too. I'm not completely won over by the Düsseldorf school but I very much appreciate Gursky's, Struth's and Höfer's work. Sometimes even Ruff's.
I'm also a big fan of Taryn Simon's and Alec Soth's work and of course all the stuff from the 70s and 80s by Shore, Sternfeld and Eggleston.
I'm generally not willing to forego aesthetics in favor of concept but I do find myself getting more and more bored with the kind of 'stunning' imagery that seems to move most people around here. All of the 'old school' Magnum reportage stuff just doesn't do it anymore for me. I used to love it but now I just find it awfully repetitive. These days the images that move me are those that make me think.
FrankS
Registered User
"I agree for a large part that there's a lot of BS in the art world I still don't think this warrants the overall dismissive attitude."
This attitude is simply an over-stated reaction to the BS.
Perhaps the brush used is a bit too broad, but understandable, no?
This attitude is simply an over-stated reaction to the BS.
Perhaps the brush used is a bit too broad, but understandable, no?
Morca007
Matt
Actually a large amount of currently relevant art photography is straight photography rather than conceptual.
emraphoto
Veteran
certainly in documentary work.
but hey, never much room for the facts in this particular wormhole.
Jamie123
Veteran
I knew that word would come back to haunt me
I didn't mean 'conceptual' as in 60s conceptual art. What I meant was photography that is heavily based on certain conceptual considerations. But on second thought I think I should drop the term altogether as it's strongly misleading.
It's true that a lot of the currently relevant art photography is straight photography at least as far as aesthetics are concerned.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree with you Jamie. There is an attitude here that if its not simple vanilla flavored photography its not real photography. Particularly if it ain't street photography or reportage. :^)
That genre is only one small aspect of this art (that's what it is, folks -art). And art involves interpretation / experimentation and speaking for myself I love to experiment. I like abstract photos and I often post process quite a bit to avoid "bland". Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. Having said that, like you I think there is a lot of BS in the art world, but then again if they (we / I ) did not experiment we would never have the great innovations in art and we would all still be painting stick figures on the walls of caves. I am happy to accept the BS and flops in exchange for the smaller percentage of good outcomes.
Open your minds guys, we don't all have to pretend to be HCB's love child just because we shoot with rangefinders sometimes. (Tongue firmly in my chubby cheek.)
That genre is only one small aspect of this art (that's what it is, folks -art). And art involves interpretation / experimentation and speaking for myself I love to experiment. I like abstract photos and I often post process quite a bit to avoid "bland". Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. Having said that, like you I think there is a lot of BS in the art world, but then again if they (we / I ) did not experiment we would never have the great innovations in art and we would all still be painting stick figures on the walls of caves. I am happy to accept the BS and flops in exchange for the smaller percentage of good outcomes.
Open your minds guys, we don't all have to pretend to be HCB's love child just because we shoot with rangefinders sometimes. (Tongue firmly in my chubby cheek.)
Last edited:
sig
Well-known
To answer your question: In our minds RFs is used for photo journalism and street. No conceptual art at all. And I have a feeling that most (ok, many or some or maybe it is just me) members of this forum uses RFs / or want to use RFs for this purpose.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Gotta admit, I do not know any of the photographers you mention. I got spare time this weekend and will look them over online, maybe I'll like them too.
I'm not good with conceptual stuff. Too short of an attention span and still developing a vision. Shooting occasions, model sets and in the streets is more my thing. According to some this might fit the art bill better nowadays, but I really don't know.
Someday I'd like to get work sold and I would really enjoy knowing that my (big) print is hanging somewhere, wherever. I really don't mind where as long as people can see it. Then they can decide whether they're looking at 'art' or 'rubbish'. Meanwhile, I'm just doing what I feel like and if no one ever picks it up, I don't care. Rembrandt and Van Gogh weren't held in too high esteem in their days either
I'm not good with conceptual stuff. Too short of an attention span and still developing a vision. Shooting occasions, model sets and in the streets is more my thing. According to some this might fit the art bill better nowadays, but I really don't know.
Someday I'd like to get work sold and I would really enjoy knowing that my (big) print is hanging somewhere, wherever. I really don't mind where as long as people can see it. Then they can decide whether they're looking at 'art' or 'rubbish'. Meanwhile, I'm just doing what I feel like and if no one ever picks it up, I don't care. Rembrandt and Van Gogh weren't held in too high esteem in their days either
Jamie123
Veteran
Maybe understandable but not justifiable. Nowadays no one wants to make an effort to understand something anymore. People read a few paragraphs of a text with a couple of words they don't understand and, instead of looking them up in a dictionary, they dismiss it as BS.
There's a lot of BS in all areas of photography. I'm sure in reportage photography there are lots of pompous a-holes who talk bs all day and think they're god's gift to humanity. So what? There are lots of footballers who also fit this description but no one would deny that they're good at what they do.
emraphoto
Veteran
i dont know about the '...at all' part.
Agata for instance.
Agata for instance.
emraphoto
Veteran
Pellegrin has often said the pinnacle for him is an M and 35mm
FrankS
Registered User
The problem is when one understands all of the words but the paragraph is still oderous.
sig
Well-known
at all... Used it to explain the preferences of 'most' of the members, of course there are RFs out there used for other things than photo journalism or street.
ryan26
Established
I did an MFA in photography, and trust me, the "workingman's distaste for art photography" is matched equally by the "art world's distaste for the workingman's photography".
The whole experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Curators, artist statements, critical essays, shooting in the style of the passing trends... It's not so much that any of these items individually bother me, but the way that they as a whole have become a mechanical industry so resistant to forward movement.
An example: A classmate applied to a gallery for a show with a proposal and a CV. A professor of ours was curator for the show. The classmate's work was accepted (based on the proposal, or on his CV - a good question), and was paid a fee. The classmate used the fee to hire a friend at the other art school in town to write a critical essay about his work. A critical essay and a show to add to his CV, helping his council for the arts grant applications and putting him on step closer to becoming a curator and/or professor himself. And the work shown was just like every other replica of Vancouver School "straight photography" that art school students of that generation are being taught to follow. Art itself has very little to do with it.
At a different period in my life, I was invited to attend the Eddie Adams workshop for up and coming photojournalists. This experience also left a sour taste in my mouth, for much of the same reasons, but different people.
I see nothing wrong with art photographers, or photojournalists, and I like to think that I fall somewhere between the two genres, but the systems from which they come are very very problematic.
The whole experience left a sour taste in my mouth. Curators, artist statements, critical essays, shooting in the style of the passing trends... It's not so much that any of these items individually bother me, but the way that they as a whole have become a mechanical industry so resistant to forward movement.
An example: A classmate applied to a gallery for a show with a proposal and a CV. A professor of ours was curator for the show. The classmate's work was accepted (based on the proposal, or on his CV - a good question), and was paid a fee. The classmate used the fee to hire a friend at the other art school in town to write a critical essay about his work. A critical essay and a show to add to his CV, helping his council for the arts grant applications and putting him on step closer to becoming a curator and/or professor himself. And the work shown was just like every other replica of Vancouver School "straight photography" that art school students of that generation are being taught to follow. Art itself has very little to do with it.
At a different period in my life, I was invited to attend the Eddie Adams workshop for up and coming photojournalists. This experience also left a sour taste in my mouth, for much of the same reasons, but different people.
I see nothing wrong with art photographers, or photojournalists, and I like to think that I fall somewhere between the two genres, but the systems from which they come are very very problematic.
Last edited:
AgentX
Well-known
You'll never take away my subscription to Blind Spot!
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
For me, there are two aspects to this area of discussion.
The first is that, too often, I don't find anything of interest or that strikes some chord of communication within me when I view some images presented as 'art'. That I can live with - tastes differ and a lot (most?) of my shots probably don't interest anyone else anyway.
What really sticks in my craw is what I call the "psychobabble" that accompanies the images as text explaining the motivation, inspiration, subject choices, genre that "inform" (hate that word nearly as much as "passion") the photographer.
A lot of times it's indecipherable to a person who speaks normal English. The blame lies collectively with photographers, their agents and gallery owners. Whoever writes this stuff (and if it's NOT the photographer then they shouldn't allow it) sounds like they're up themselves so far it's affecting their brain patterns. Now you know how I feel!
The first is that, too often, I don't find anything of interest or that strikes some chord of communication within me when I view some images presented as 'art'. That I can live with - tastes differ and a lot (most?) of my shots probably don't interest anyone else anyway.
What really sticks in my craw is what I call the "psychobabble" that accompanies the images as text explaining the motivation, inspiration, subject choices, genre that "inform" (hate that word nearly as much as "passion") the photographer.
A lot of times it's indecipherable to a person who speaks normal English. The blame lies collectively with photographers, their agents and gallery owners. Whoever writes this stuff (and if it's NOT the photographer then they shouldn't allow it) sounds like they're up themselves so far it's affecting their brain patterns. Now you know how I feel!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I've been through a few art schools, as a student and teacher. I've only seen that "artist as his own interpreter" type of behaviour once or twice, from venerable relics of the roaring twenties (plus temporary, from a few people suffering alcohol or drug related logorrhoea). If you see can it now in a sober adult, the guy you are watching will be no artist, but a comedian or a very suburbian amateur...
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First of all there's Sturgeon's Law. When told that 90% of science fiction was crap, Sturgeon replied, "Sir, 90% of everything is crap."
Anyone who dismisses all 'modern, art photography' as crap has clearly not seen much of it. I know I bang on a bit about the Rencontres d'Arles, but that's because you'll see more new (and old) photographic art there in a week than many see in a decade or even a lifetime; more than most see in a year or even a decade; and more than even the most dedicated gallery-hopper in London, New York or Paris will see in the average month.
Sure, a good deal of it's rubbish -- though not, I'd say, 90%. Sure, there's a lot of pompous drivel written about it, but then, the language of choice for pompous drivel is probably French. And it does absolutely nothing for one's opinion of most professional curators. But it's still art, and it's still worth seeing.
Very few 'fine artists' make much of the equipment they use, because they use what they like and what they can afford. The curators who write the pompous drivel generally make even less of it, because I don't think they know anything about it, or indeed about anything else much. But it's surprising how often a bit of 'gear talk' creeps in when you're talking to the artists -- and before you get too cynical, I'm not usually the one who introduces the topic. Quite a lot of them like to explain how and why they use a particular camera, or process, to get the pictures they want. Admittedly, even more don't, but what of it?
Oh: and astonishingly few regard themselves (except reluctantly) as 'fine artists', with the exception of those whose work really is abysmal, a thin idea stretched over a lot of bad pictures. You may recall Bilbo Baggins's descrition of himself, in his old age, as 'stretched, like butter that has been spread across too much bread.' Well, this is the same, except that it's low-fat margarine. Rather, a lot of the good ones just call themselves 'photographers'. And some deliberately take the piss out of 'fine art': the most magnificent and best-known that I've encountered recently (at Arles) was Duane Michals.
Cheers,
R.
Anyone who dismisses all 'modern, art photography' as crap has clearly not seen much of it. I know I bang on a bit about the Rencontres d'Arles, but that's because you'll see more new (and old) photographic art there in a week than many see in a decade or even a lifetime; more than most see in a year or even a decade; and more than even the most dedicated gallery-hopper in London, New York or Paris will see in the average month.
Sure, a good deal of it's rubbish -- though not, I'd say, 90%. Sure, there's a lot of pompous drivel written about it, but then, the language of choice for pompous drivel is probably French. And it does absolutely nothing for one's opinion of most professional curators. But it's still art, and it's still worth seeing.
Very few 'fine artists' make much of the equipment they use, because they use what they like and what they can afford. The curators who write the pompous drivel generally make even less of it, because I don't think they know anything about it, or indeed about anything else much. But it's surprising how often a bit of 'gear talk' creeps in when you're talking to the artists -- and before you get too cynical, I'm not usually the one who introduces the topic. Quite a lot of them like to explain how and why they use a particular camera, or process, to get the pictures they want. Admittedly, even more don't, but what of it?
Oh: and astonishingly few regard themselves (except reluctantly) as 'fine artists', with the exception of those whose work really is abysmal, a thin idea stretched over a lot of bad pictures. You may recall Bilbo Baggins's descrition of himself, in his old age, as 'stretched, like butter that has been spread across too much bread.' Well, this is the same, except that it's low-fat margarine. Rather, a lot of the good ones just call themselves 'photographers'. And some deliberately take the piss out of 'fine art': the most magnificent and best-known that I've encountered recently (at Arles) was Duane Michals.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
There is beauty, which is in the eye of the beholder, and "beauty which has to be explained". I am of the school, that if a visual work does not move you on its own, then no amount of explanation and no price tag can make it a work of art.
Here are some examples from my book:
1 - Renoir: http://www.talismancoins.com/catalog/PortraitofActressJeanneSamary1877.jpg
2- HCB: http://moma.org/interactives/exhibi...ipts/cartier-bresson_audio_transcript_605.pdf
3- Jeff Wall: http://www.whitecube.com/artists/wall/
Here are some examples from my book:
1 - Renoir: http://www.talismancoins.com/catalog/PortraitofActressJeanneSamary1877.jpg
2- HCB: http://moma.org/interactives/exhibi...ipts/cartier-bresson_audio_transcript_605.pdf
3- Jeff Wall: http://www.whitecube.com/artists/wall/
Sparrow
Veteran
For the Art-Elite to maintain their hegemony they have little choice but to deride the tastes of the plebs as simply bread and circus, and conceal their own behind smoke and mirrors, I mean we're talking art here it isn't democratic ...
Last edited: