tunalegs
Pretended Artist
If anybody were still making interesting paintings he'd have a good point. But most paintings today look bad on a gallery wall - and better in the trash can. :angel:
Flat, soulless and stupid.
- Thread starter uhoh7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 16K
If anybody were still making interesting paintings he'd have a good point. But most paintings today look bad on a gallery wall - and better in the trash can. :angel:
tomtofa
Well-known
Who paints any more, and how long has it been since a painter was taken seriously as an important figure? Or novelist, or poet?
This week the most celebrated cultural news in the U.S. concerned a celebrity who displayed her large, oiled behind. There was heated debate about whether her behind, or the behind of another celebrity, was more attractive.
The top selling cameras are phones, used to transmit experiences immediately. The Fuji Instax line is also doing very well. My children and their friends, 20s to 30s, appreciate the kind of photos we take as artifacts, sometimes cool ones. I don't know that any of them has an opinion about paintings. At least they've never expressed one to me.
I used to paint, draw, and write poetry. One the surface photography is certainly 'easier' than those, but producing an excellent print of a worthwhile composition/capture/view is about equally difficult to producing an excellent work in another medium. As to the viewing experience in a gallery or museum? I prefer something that opens to a world that's not quite familiar. More often than not that's a photo or three-dimensional work; sometimes it's a painting.
This week the most celebrated cultural news in the U.S. concerned a celebrity who displayed her large, oiled behind. There was heated debate about whether her behind, or the behind of another celebrity, was more attractive.
The top selling cameras are phones, used to transmit experiences immediately. The Fuji Instax line is also doing very well. My children and their friends, 20s to 30s, appreciate the kind of photos we take as artifacts, sometimes cool ones. I don't know that any of them has an opinion about paintings. At least they've never expressed one to me.
I used to paint, draw, and write poetry. One the surface photography is certainly 'easier' than those, but producing an excellent print of a worthwhile composition/capture/view is about equally difficult to producing an excellent work in another medium. As to the viewing experience in a gallery or museum? I prefer something that opens to a world that's not quite familiar. More often than not that's a photo or three-dimensional work; sometimes it's a painting.
Richard G
Veteran
I went to the Cartier-Bresson exhibition in Paris and it was a well curated exhibition well worth being present at, walking around and looking at individual images. As to the individual photographs, I found some or indeed a lot of the prints very disappointing. But the Steichen exhibition at the NGV in Melbourne had some marvellous photographs where the individual prints sang with a sharpness that could only be enjoyed in the flesh as it were. I will stand longer in front of a painting, it's true. But dismissing photographs on the wall to look at in the flesh is just silly.
thegman
Veteran
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.
Addy101
Well-known
I was wondering why he is comparing a 17th century painter to 21st century photographers? These are different time periods and he should've compared it with a contemporary painter.
TBH, I, like this guy, prefer looking at paintings in a museum, as a painting has elements you can't see on a reproduction. However, these days, paintings are often behind glass, defeating the purpose of going out there and looking at the pictures. A photo you can see just as good in a book, but that doesn't mean it is a lesser art as this guy seems to think.
TBH, I, like this guy, prefer looking at paintings in a museum, as a painting has elements you can't see on a reproduction. However, these days, paintings are often behind glass, defeating the purpose of going out there and looking at the pictures. A photo you can see just as good in a book, but that doesn't mean it is a lesser art as this guy seems to think.
Sparrow
Veteran
.... I thought this was going to be another Kim Kardashian thread ...
V-12
Well-known
While I don't agree with all that Jonathan Jones says in his article he does go some way towards making a good point.
They way photography is presented nowadays goes all out to be superficial. Take for example the number of 'how big can I print' questions that camera forums get. It seems size is everything and has taken over from any sort of consideration of the viewer.
Look closely at detail in a 30x40 print and you cant see the whole picture, stand back and your peripheral vision picks up the adjoining pictures and people walking between you and the picture. So the eye skims the picture, tries to get an impression before moving on to the next.
But you are left with a superficial impression, was the picture about something other than detail? Was it just about the overall composition? What was the cultural or political message (that's where the catalogue comes in useful)?
So what has changed? Well it is so easy now for photographers to have very large prints made, and it seems like a knee jerk reaction to do it. But there are some photographers such as Michael Kenna who still care about the 'human scale' and intimacy, and still print small (by modern standards) pictures. And it is this intimacy that is lacking and what I think Jonathan Jones is getting at. It's not about size, because one large picture on a wall and nobody else in the room would give you intimacy with it, allow you to study it, to think about it.
But a wall full of large pictures and others you can see from the corner of the eye, plus people, are a distraction and nothing feels 'special'. Compare that with coming close to look at a smaller Kenna print, Blakemore, Adams, and it is a one-to-one relationship. You can only take it in from head on to start with, it is too small to absorb in a sideways glance while walking past. And then there is the exclusion of people and other pictures, which forms a closer bond to the viewer and the picture.
So yes, large prints are generally speaking the 'Emperor's New Clothes' of modern photography, and while clearly there are good reasons for them some of the time, the size of a print and how it is presented should be thought about far more than 'how big can I print'.
V
They way photography is presented nowadays goes all out to be superficial. Take for example the number of 'how big can I print' questions that camera forums get. It seems size is everything and has taken over from any sort of consideration of the viewer.
Look closely at detail in a 30x40 print and you cant see the whole picture, stand back and your peripheral vision picks up the adjoining pictures and people walking between you and the picture. So the eye skims the picture, tries to get an impression before moving on to the next.
But you are left with a superficial impression, was the picture about something other than detail? Was it just about the overall composition? What was the cultural or political message (that's where the catalogue comes in useful)?
So what has changed? Well it is so easy now for photographers to have very large prints made, and it seems like a knee jerk reaction to do it. But there are some photographers such as Michael Kenna who still care about the 'human scale' and intimacy, and still print small (by modern standards) pictures. And it is this intimacy that is lacking and what I think Jonathan Jones is getting at. It's not about size, because one large picture on a wall and nobody else in the room would give you intimacy with it, allow you to study it, to think about it.
But a wall full of large pictures and others you can see from the corner of the eye, plus people, are a distraction and nothing feels 'special'. Compare that with coming close to look at a smaller Kenna print, Blakemore, Adams, and it is a one-to-one relationship. You can only take it in from head on to start with, it is too small to absorb in a sideways glance while walking past. And then there is the exclusion of people and other pictures, which forms a closer bond to the viewer and the picture.
So yes, large prints are generally speaking the 'Emperor's New Clothes' of modern photography, and while clearly there are good reasons for them some of the time, the size of a print and how it is presented should be thought about far more than 'how big can I print'.
V
michaelwj
----------------
But it said Flat, with an L, and not a Ph!
Sparrow
Veteran
... I admit to a couple of errors in my reasoning
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A fairly pitiful article. Look at it in another light:
Premise 1: Some pieces of art (and some exhibitions) are better than others.
Premise 2: Some pieces of critical writing are better than others.
Cheers,
R.
Premise 1: Some pieces of art (and some exhibitions) are better than others.
Premise 2: Some pieces of critical writing are better than others.
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, I can't help wondering what we'd say and where we would end if we treated all postings on RFF like we have treated this article.
Why do our basic principles of politeness fly out of the window? I could tear a lot of post to shreds if I wanted to but usually don't but this poor guy gets it in the neck just for saying what he thinks and feels; just like the rest of us do.
Regards, David
PS I might make an exception for smart phones and their so called cameras...
Why do our basic principles of politeness fly out of the window? I could tear a lot of post to shreds if I wanted to but usually don't but this poor guy gets it in the neck just for saying what he thinks and feels; just like the rest of us do.
Regards, David
PS I might make an exception for smart phones and their so called cameras...
Ranchu
Veteran
I think if anyone here posted some idiotic bull**** like 'photography doesn't belong on walls I don't want it so yeah' like the little snotnose who wrote the article did, they'd get the same.
daveleo
what?
Hey, if people did not publish such smarta$$ stupidity, we'd have nothing to poke fun at .... so "thank you, Mr. Jones". 🙂
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I thought the article was pointing out that photos weren't best looked at in Art Galleries - not too contentious a point of view!
Photog9000
Well-known
I have to chime in on this one. I have an amazing granddaughter that has done some very interesting paintings and sketches for some competitions she has entered. But, as has been noted earlier, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
NaChase
Well-known
Wasn't this argument settled a hundred years ago?
zuiko85
Veteran
Oh well, one mans opinion I guess. I don't get to go to galleries much at all, there are none nearby, so I have no experience by which to compare. I do disagree that good photography is easy. When I look at a very well done B&W darkroom print and then compare to one of my 'knock it out quick' prints.....well there is just no comparison.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
This is exactly why he should be dismissed out of hand. What he's pushing is an idea that was discredited A CENTURY AGO. Yes, kids, it has been that long since the art world accepted photography as art. Jones is simply a mindless bigot railing against modernity. Photography was the first truly modern art. He's little different in outlook from those who rail against women having the right to vote or African-Americans the full rights of citizenship. Mindless bigotry and a romanticism for a supposedly better past when "They" (photographers in this case) knew their "Place."
viggi
Established
The article resonated with me. Perhaps because I don't want to consume art in photography the same way as I would do other expressions. Perhaps also because too many photographers consider themselves as artists or producing art. I don't really give a da*n whether or not photography is an art form; it can be used to produce art. I just don't want to use the same reference points as I would for a painting. I will say one thing though - most of what I see on this forums or others is not art. Or if it approaches it, the photographer hardly approaches the (nebulous) status of an artist. It's often beautiful, shows craftsmanship and care, but it is first and foremost (and possibly only that) photography.
daveleo
what?
Whether photography is or is not Art (or even "what is Art?") is pointless and endless, and I won't argue about it. It is whatever it is. Leave it at that.
The real topic here is the writing style of the opinionated article. It's just an over-expressed opinion written in a pontificated (that's a new adjective there) style. That's really what this discussion is about.
If he had backed off a bit on his assertive wording, we would not be talking about it.
The real topic here is the writing style of the opinionated article. It's just an over-expressed opinion written in a pontificated (that's a new adjective there) style. That's really what this discussion is about.
If he had backed off a bit on his assertive wording, we would not be talking about it.
