Flat, soulless and stupid.

- Is photography Art? Not an interesting subject to debate about.

- Are photographers artists? See above.

- Does photography belong on the walls of an Art Gallery? No, not really. But for some photographs, it's a nice way to see prints that need to be very large to work.

- Does the author of the article come off sounding a bit like a jerk? Yeah, sure, just like most of the folks who rattle on at the lectern in art history classes. Seems to be endemic to the endeavor.

I was at that lecture with Robert Frank the other evening. The panelists, other than Robert Frank, and most of the earnest students and participants in the discussion there sounded just like this article. Most of their questions and interpretive little analyses were just so much hot air. The only person speaking who didn't sound like that was Robert Frank—he spoke like a photographer.

G
 
viggi said:
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.
Click to expand...
How on earth do you "consume" art?

Cheers,

R.
 
If it were possible to reply to Jonathan Jones on the subject of his art opinions I would say -- "put up or shut up." My father would go to a museum and say he just wanted to be moved or connect with one piece of art -- for him that was enough. It didn't matter if it was music, theater, dance, photo, painting, comedy, sculpture or any art form - just a creative urge. That said, there's a special photo museum in Hell filled with lens bokeh tests and pet photos :)
 
David Hughes said:
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...
Click to expand...

You get the vision of a mob and torches, rope and a tree.

Jones certainly knew what the reaction to his piece would be, so it might even be considered performance art in itself. Or "Troll Art" LOL He's pushing buttons provocatively, to considerable effect. Yet, as you say, it's a not uncommon view:
"Photography is a miracle of the modern world. It gives us instant visual information from all over the planet and far beyond. It is a unique documentary record of our own lives, a simple source of creative pleasure and fun. I just wish people wouldn’t put it in art galleries."

They very fact people "go off" to this degree when directly confronted by the view proves the debate is far from dead, but in fact a sensitive subject.

I won't be surprised if he is physically attacked at some point over the issue.

tomtofa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suspect there are more painters than ever, but as you note, their relevancy is eclipsed by a world inundated with "mechanical reproductions of reflected light", as George put it LOL

It's like Custer's Last Stand for "painting" and obviously the indians are not amused by the tall blonde with the pointy beard.

Addy101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing, but what's he saying is that some very famous shooters are directly emulating Caravaggio, and he finds the exercise quite flat.

V-12 said:
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
Click to expand...

I find this an interesting post, and it brings to mind an incredible piece of kit I recently acquired which may be a landmark in digital photography.


L1024536 by unoh7, 5K

So far digital photography is a promise only half fulfilled, that is, you can capture a very detailed image digitally but you really need to go analog for detailed display past a certain size.

Our hero JJ, says we should just be given iPads to look at interesting shots: not really so silly if you have seen a retina iPad.

But the iMac above can display a M9 shot very close to full rez at a pretty good size, 27". In person it's simply stunning. True, the color gamut is not at the level of a fine print, but it's pretty dang rich.

Around here analog is King, which I think is fine, but JJ's thoughts on how photography is displayed along with V12's post above bring these developments to mind.

viggi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree, but I'd ask what are the factors which push a photograph into the realm of art, for you, or anyone here?

Photographers are very often brutal critics, perhaps jaded by seeing too many images, too the point where they are hard to impress LOL

Once they find something though, they will raise it like a banner and march to the gates of hell proclaiming it's greatness.

For others....Meh Consider recent threads on Vivian Maier

In the end I keep getting drawn to a mindset of the 20's "the masses". Another critic might declare: photography is art creation for the masses, who toil and have no time or opportunity for the genuine cultivation of eye and skill required to paint. The masses need their heros: and so celebrate the "great" photographers.
 
Oh my God, another multi-quoter! I'm not reading all that -- make one succinct point -- you can't quote me on that!
 
I don't see any major difference in visual impact between a painting and a photograph, although in my opinion it is REALLY rare to see a good colour photograph, and inversely to see a good monochrome painting. I think he has confused the depth with lack of authenticity. That Caravaggio, while a milestone in history of art, depicts a being who looks so unnatural that it brings in mind a handicapped person.
 
I wikipediaed J. Jones after reading his post, and these posts.

It's not an extensive bio, but a central point is that as a critic he is contentious and combative. This helps sell newspapers.

Also, apparently, it helps flammable personalities flame on like human torches. Why waste time getting burnt up over an opinionated art blogger when you could be shooting, developing, printing, showing?

Keep your eyes on the prize. The prize is not on this or that museum wall. It's within (and all around) the viewfinder and photographer.
 
Why not try this experiment? Go to the National Portrait Gallery’s Taylor Wessing exhibition, then pop around the corner to see the National Gallery’s late Rembrandt show. If you can really see even a millionth of the vitality of a Rembrandt portrait in any of the NPG’s photos, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Why don't we compare National Gallery’s late Rembrandt show with almost any other painting exhibition.
 
I wonder if Caravaggio or Rembrandt would have liked photography. They seemed to know something about light. Maybe they could even have come out with a photograph dramatic and full of soul.
 
John E Earley said:
Why don't we compare National Gallery’s late Rembrandt show with almost any other painting exhibition.
Click to expand...
Dear John,

Or alternatively, why do we compare National Gallery’s late Rembrandt show with almost any other painting exhibition?

Or indeed apples, oranges, herring, kangaroos, etc.

Cheers,

R.
 
The author seems to be of the school of thought, long dispensed with in photographic circles, that the length of time and degree of difficulty in making the work of art establishes its value.

That is probably true for the art work creator but not for the viewer.
 
photomoof said:
By eating it, of course!! . . .
Click to expand...
Not convinced. Were Weston's peppers are in their own right?

Earlier today I was arguing with a grievously Catholic friend about whether wine is automatically transubstantiated when drunk by a Catholic priest...

Our views of the Eucharist did not coincide 1:1.

Cheers,

R.
 
"Photographs can be powerful, beautiful, and capture the immediacy of a moment like nothing else. But they make poor art when hung on a wall like paintings" - Jonathan Jones.

This is the rather powerful, provocative and highly opinionated opening statement in the article in question here. Unfortunately the author does such an inane job of defending it in the ensuing paragraphs that its no wonder its caused such outrage here and elsewhere.

At no point does he say photographs are not art.
He knows better than to jeopardize his standing in the art industry.

Its the pathetic attempt at critical writing that we should be incensed about, not wether photographs can be art or not.
Sadly, the author, tail between his legs, dances about the question
 
My sister-in-law studied art and paints. She has no problem with photographs as art. Perhaps we should ask a few more painters what they think.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom