Flat, soulless and stupid.

I've been moved aesthetically by photographs at exhibitions, so what Mr Jones asserts just isn't true in my experience. For reasons I don't understand I don't respond the same way to images viewed on my monitor versus images viewed when framed and placed on exhibition walls. I view many more images digitally than analogically, and do wonder whether my responses to digitally presented images art are somehow diminished by frequency and habit.

At any rate, aesthetic responses, like any kind of response, vary widely by individual and can be conditioned. If photographs don't work any magic for you, in exhibitions or galleries or art fairs or wherever, then it's best not to waste time looking at them. Life is short. Look at oil paintings or whatever and wherever you fancy, Mr Jones .
 
Samouraï said:
There is no photography that I find as compelling as painting.
...
Click to expand...

I find some paintings compelling, I find some photographs compelling. Although they are both 'pictures' there is enough difference in the media that I find interest in both, independent of the other.

And on museum walls (galleries too I suppose) the two media are often presented and used together.
 
uhoh7 said:
That's what Richard Dawkins thought about the concept of "group selection" until EO Wilson recently revived it. That Brouhaha also involved a scathing review of Wilson's recent books by Dawkins which would fit right in around here LOL

Giant battle now in evolutionary Biology, over concepts considered "settled" for 20 years.
Click to expand...

I am a physical science educator. If I were to write a critique of "bioscience" as science, it would probably come out much like Jone's article.

thegman said:
Surely there are few things more ridiculous than the concept that a group of others can 'declare irrelevant' something as personal as art?

Anyway, I think this is one of those subjects where a rational debate is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

I don't think declaring that '"photography is not art" is an irrelevant statement', says anything at all about art. It's a statement about art criticism.
 
photomoof said:
One should be more careful when choosing ex's. :) While I did not get along with all of them (or we would still probably be together) all my ex's were beautiful, smart, creative and sexy. On another note: Some of you guys are really outside of my experience. It is 3:18 and I am about to go across the street, hop on the F and go to the Museum of Modern Art, to have some fun and a little cheese cake. In a half hour, I will be looking at photography. Gezz don't make such a big production about art! It sounds silly!
Click to expand...

Well said Mr. Moof! The article is silly and I am amazed it has received this much traction.
 
Can someone from Britain help me here?
Is this representative of the nonsense that the Guardian publishes?
I just don't know where to begin in describing the depth of the ignorance portrayed in this article.
 
Eric T said:
Can someone from Britain help me here?
Is this representative of the nonsense that the Guardian publishes?
I just don't know where to begin in describing the depth of the ignorance portrayed in this article.
Click to expand...
The Grauniad is... variable. Except for its proofreading, which is why it's known as the Guradian. At its best it is superb. At its worst it is a vehicle for overprivileged champagne socialists with an Oxbridge (Oxford or Cambridge) education to admire one another's (and above all their own their own) cleverness.

Cheers,

R.
 
In many US schools, the sports coach also teaches mathematics because nobody else wants to do it.
 
What he says has much validity. Photography will continue to be compared to painting and come off second best for reasons such as those he states:

Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”.

I have paintings and photos on my walls at home. The paintings are mostly permanent; the photos, unless they are personal, are always provisional.
 
Eric T said:
I just don't know where to begin in describing the depth of the ignorance portrayed in this article.
Click to expand...

I suspect J Jones knows more about photography than most of us give him credit for, and I'd venture to guess he has see the work of more accomplished shooters working today than most of the people on this or any photography forum.

But that's only a guess :)

He's certainly quite good at memorable quotes:
“There is nothing worse than good taste,” thundered the English art critic Jonathan Jones in the Guardian in 2010. “Nothing more stultifying than an array of consumer choices paraded as a philosophy of life. And there is nothing more absurd than someone who aspires to show good taste in contemporary art.”
http://www.artnews.com/2012/04/12/when-bad-is-good/

Considering the utter avalanche of photography everywhere today, from billboards to museums to websites, and the relegation of painting appreciation to what our kids do in pre-school, I'm increasingly charmed by his attack. :)

It's like one of those petite hominoids from Flores screaming at Godzilla striding toward his beach. LOL

photomoof said:
But you are right, in some circles "This is pretty cutting edge in the US right now."
Click to expand...
I'd say when it comes to dismissing mediums, in any circle, Mr Jones has nothing on you ,sir. :)
 
Chris101 said:
I am a physical science educator. If I were to write a critique of "bioscience" as science, it would probably come out much like Jone's article.



I don't think declaring that '"photography is not art" is an irrelevant statement', says anything at all about art. It's a statement about art criticism.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, I think it's ridiculous to put about anything that the art establishment (or indeed any 'establishment') as a point in an argument. Saying that the art establishment has declared the photography is art is as meaningless as saying 'some group of strangers has declared something about something'.

I'm not disputing that photography can be art, but I am saying that what the 'art world' has to say about that is neither here nor there.
 
uhoh7 said:
I suspect J Jones knows more about photography than most of us give him credit for, and I'd venture to guess he has see the work of more accomplished shooters working today than most of the people on this or any photography forum...
Click to expand...

What should knowing about photography mean? Is it strange considering it has relation with knowing how to do great photographs instead of writing stupid words?
What that guy imagines he knows about photography is that if a wonderful photograph by any great photographer is placed inside a museum for being enjoyed by common people, magically that photograph becomes flat, soulless and stupid.
It means "don't touch my little magic superior world called painting, where magic people can express magic things no others can, and magic critics can say magic things" magically... :)
And who decides a shooter working today is accomplished?
And what does seeing the work of photographers warrant? My opinion is, nothing at all. It all depends on what's inside you.
There are lots of cases, and answers for these questions, but in this case all I see is a guy saying "a museum is a place for what I say only, and I feel uncomfortable if a different kind of work is placed in a museum, because my stupid beliefs feel like falling down, so without any real argument, I declare art means painting and museums mean painting and all museums in the world must avoid photography... Please leave me alone while I imagine what big ART is... Thank God I found what to write this time, because I get paid for doing that every x hours, no matter what I write"...
Now, who in the world can believe museums in the coming centuries will avoid photography inside them?
Shame on that guy and shame on The Guardian.
Cheers,
Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
... SNIP ... Shame on that guy and shame on The Guardian.
Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...

Hi,

But it would be a lot worse if the Guardian suppressed his views, surely?

No one can make a sound judgement, imo, without hearing both sides of the argument.

Regards, David

PS, Just a thought; imagine what the moderators would have done if he (the writer) was a member of the forum...
 
photomoof said:
There is no argument in the real world, only in the mind of the author.
Click to expand...

Frankly I hear echoes of the argument from photographers themselves all the time. We are often ready to critque our own kids, but let a stranger dare…..

For example, the idea that nearly everything in photography has already been done, which I've heard discussed even here.

Consider:
Nature is astoundingly beautiful: can any of us claim to to have seen a photograph which can compete with the real thing? Trouble is our own presence is limited to a single place, so a landscape with great light and effect from another location is arresting.

Yet a giant Bierstadt, for some, can compete, and is to an excellent landscape capture what a meal cooked from scratch is to a pre-readied microwave dish, at least in the mind of Jones. What the image has over the painting is perhaps a potential for realism, though some painters show they can be very “realistic” :)

Special effects, e.g. fast lenses and long exposures, and selective framing can be applied which highlight particular aspects and inspire the mind. Humans are strongly attracted to symbols, and photography certainly is fantastic for creating and transmitting visual symbols.

Perhaps this is one source of the "soulless" aspect in his thinking. Mass production brings down unit cost...and Jones would argue it brings down the value as well. In other words it's too easy and too ubiquitous to make images which captivate the average viewer. Photography is corn syrup. The end effect is to jade the eye, and the mind becomes obese.....

The comeback to this might be: It’s like refrigeration. Makes life easier for anyone with access, and the worldwide diversity and quality of eating has improved as a result. (except it hasn’t LOL)

No people are harsher critics of photography than shooters, and there is no photographer I can think of, with the possible exception of a few giants, who I have not heard dismissed by one shooter or the other, in terms equal to the lexicon of Mr Jones.

The recent thread about Maier a case in point.

What’s the matter with photography today? Why is it so tough to make a living at it?

One arguement might state: becasue nearly anyone with the proper gear and determination can produce jaw-dropping images of just about anything. Take an unknown image by one of the greats and throw it up on a forum for review, as if a newbie shot it. No doubt many may really like it, but taken a step further and asked if it’s great….better than nearly anything they’ve seen by anyone on the forum. No Way.

It used to be very hard to get from Bejing to Paris. When you arrived you were not the same person as who left. Today you can get on plane. It’s worse than easy, because that incredible convenience has terrible side effects. Again a “Soullessness”, perhaps. Why take the time to describe a special location to your friend, when you can just snap a picture?

Our brains have been shrinking, literally, ever since we moved into cities, and some postulate that the rise of communication by image is a further fall.

OK Devil’s advocate role is taxing my tiny brain...where’s my Leica? It might not make art, but as daily fare, it's captures taste pretty good :)
 
jsrockit said:
Another person who doesn't value photography... and we are shocked?
Click to expand...
He claims to 'value' photography.
As I read it, his complaint is that since paintings look better than photographs on the wall, photographs shouldn't be using up valuable wall space that could be dedicated to painting. Realistically, there is so much art that is taking up wall space that doesn't look as good on the wall as painting, and some of it is really great art.
The article is illustrated by a picture taken at The Photographers Gallery, which is relatively small, and he tells people to go to the National Gallery, which is big and filled with paintings. This space argument just doesn't make any sense.
Photographs may be everywhere, but they are still a niche in museums and galleries.
 
photomoof said:
I think that depends on the museum. Certainly some like MoMA in NYC regularly devote 1/4 of the museum to photo exhibits like the recent Christopher Williams, or Cindy Sherman shows. Others which have large displays of permanent collections like the Metropolitan do not devote so much space to photography, however the photo shows are heavily publicized.
Click to expand...
But are paintings being crowded out by photographs, or other art? Not really.
Perhaps the metropolitan should take down one of the carpet exhibits and hang more paintings. Carpets belong on the floor after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom