Flat, soulless and stupid.

[Samouraï]

Yeah, I don't know. I find a lot of photography as compelling as I do painting. At the art museum here, in the contemporary wing, you will see a Schoolworth adjacent to an Ochoa, next to something by Thiebaud, and then a Sherman, a Ruscha, Bosworth, Diebenkorn, Crewdson ... And a lot of stuff that is neither photography nor painting. Or bits of both.

This 'mediumistic' attitude does not seem to have any relationship to actual contemporary art. This Jones guy is probably confused by contemporary art if he's still fighting the "photography is not art" battle. That was declared irrelevant some time ago.

There is no photography that I find as compelling as painting.

"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

You're right. It's an interesting and thoughtful opening, and one that I agree with for the most part. It's worth having a conversation about, no doubt. I don't find traditional exhibition of photography (treating it like a painting) makes any sense. He is right about how powerful photography can appear in more practical places, such as in books and on computer screens or in newspapers.

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.

That's a trite way for you to critique the Caravaggio.

---

See, painting is not simply about depiction. Painting is a study. It's almost scientific (and often was, explicitly). Painters experiment with different methods and lines and materials and cultures. That sort of depth just ins't present or even possible in regard to the photographic medium (as much as I love photography).

 

[uhoh7]

Oh my God, another multi-quoter! I'm not reading all that -- make one succinct point -- you can't quote me on that!

TL;DR

my new fav internet shorthand. sry didn't make it to your last phrase 😉

Hmmm.... has this thread driven itself over the cliff ?

oh yes, like civilization, but it's a very long way down and things don't get really ugly till we hit the ground.

 

[RichL]

The first thing that came to mind when reading that article was "Troll". Reading the remainder of the article did nothing to change my opinion.

 

[thegman]

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...

I could not agree more. I'd much rather listen to a viewpoint I disagree with, put forward thoughtfully, than I would listen to someone I agree with scream that a person is an idiot.

I think it's sad that a view so different to that held by most here is attacked with such vitriol, just because it differs from our own.

If we assume that the article was written as genuine thought, and not just click-bait, then all we're talking about is someone's point of view. It does not invalidate our own point of view, nor discredit the art we make, yet practically all I've read here is insults.

Frankly, it's like watching Jerry Springer or something, someone says something controversial, and the rest scream at him.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That guy's hardly a good photographer... I guess he's not a great painter for the centuries... For lots of people, and a few of those are us, he's not even a critic. Why is he talking about things so far from what's his real life and understanding?
He's a salesman, a news salesman. A very cheap one. And the news he sells, have no news.
He just said nothing. More or less "All photographs, even if they're great, stop being great when in a museum". What an idiot. Shame on the guy and shame on The Guardian.
Cheers,
Juan

 

[Particular]

Last week I saw the pre-auction exhibition of modern art at Sotheby's. It was mostly painting, and as usual new records were set in sales. In the last 15 years many of the worlds major art institutions have doubled or quadrupled their real estate. Art is flooded with money. Given all these resources and the new exhibition spaces available to the art world, to complain about a shortage of wall space for the art I like, because of all the wall space that is taken up by the art that I don't like is kind of pathetic. It is petit bourgeois chauvinism of the worst kind.

 

[Ranchu]

Hmmm.... has this thread driven itself over the cliff ?

Not yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3fx552l0F4

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Not yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3fx552l0F4

Why would someone do something so damned stupid?! Leaving aside the fact that the painting he destroyed was worth money and was culturally valuable, the paints contain pigments that are quite toxic. Hope the idiot gets cancer from it.

 

[Keith]

Why would someone do something so damned stupid?! Leaving aside the fact that the painting he destroyed was worth money and was culturally valuable, the paints contain pigments that are quite toxic. Hope the idiot gets cancer from it.

It was just a movie clip ... maybe it was a very thin pizza? 😀

 

[John E Earley]

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.

Well put my good man.

 

[Dirk]

Ever since the first photograph was taken in 1826 or 1827, there has been a debate as to whether or not photography is art. It is the most boring debate imaginable, and no new light can be shed on it (pun intended).

 

[Ranchu]

Why?!

He's nuts, it's from 'Red Dragon'.

 

[Shirley Creazzo]

I am arriving late at this discussion, but have read the entire thread and think no one has yet pointed out that:
To judge a work of art by how it was produced is unjust. Whether or not the process was a difficult or simple one, is irrelevant. It should not matter to the critic whether an image was produced with a mechanical device, some animal hairs on a stick, or by rubbing two rocks together. A more accurate comparison of exhibited art could be arrived at if all forms were exhibited together. Then, I suspect a viewer might look longer at a well done photograph than a poorly done painting, and might choose to ignore the rock-rubbing altogether.

And of course it is eminently unfair to compare a photographer whose output is likely still a work-in-progress to Rembrandt - and not because they were/are working in different centuries; but rather because it would be just as unfair for a reader to compare this critic's Guardian article to a chapter from one of Hemingway's novels.

 

[thegman]

I am arriving late at this discussion, but have read the entire thread and think no one has yet pointed out that:
To judge a work of art by how it was produced is unjust. Whether or not the process was a difficult or simple one, is irrelevant. It should not matter to the critic whether an image was produced with a mechanical device, some animal hairs on a stick, or by rubbing two rocks together. A more accurate comparison of exhibited art could be arrived at if all forms were exhibited together. Then, I suspect a viewer might look longer at a well done photograph than a poorly done painting, and might choose to ignore the rock-rubbing altogether.

And of course it is eminently unfair to compare a photographer whose output is likely still a work-in-progress to Rembrandt - and not because they were/are working in different centuries; but rather because it would be just as unfair for a reader to compare this critic's Guardian article to a chapter from one of Hemingway's novels.

Hi Shirley,
I don't know anything about being an art critic, so I don't know if they consider the process in judging art. I do view art though, and I do indeed consider the process.

Take the Sistine Chapel ceiling, an incredible work, and one I think I'd find more impressive in person than a photograph of the same. I think I (and perhaps other people) do value work, effort, determination, and the single-mindedness required to create some things. Some things require more of those traits than others to achieve, and I think it's human to admire them.

Your Rembrandt paragraph makes perfect sense, and a fair point.

Garry

 

[uhoh7]

I am arriving late at this discussion, but have read the entire thread and think no one has yet pointed out that:
To judge a work of art by how it was produced is unjust.

Actually somebody did make exactly that point, which is not to say it can't be advanced again.

I think I strongly disagree, with respect.


L1016906 by unoh7, It's a book.

This is by a friend of my sister, and they both do stuff like this. Their work is being acquired by various universities right now. The idea of rich people collecting it is abhorrent to them. However, while not rich, they don't rely on the art income to survive, so that's a view they can afford.

here is an album, with shots at various stages:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/sets/72157645731737353/

They grow their own pulp and and other components come from meaningful places.

This is pretty cutting edge in the US right now, what many artists are doing instead of painting, which in itself might be considered flat. My sister started out many years ago painting.

Her daughter is a remarkable sculptor:
http://aishaharrison.com/section/168482.html

The whole idea: don't matter at all how it's made I find shallow, no offense.

And I don't think you are late; in between the simple reactionary attacks on JJ and ex wives, there are a number of interesting comments, yours included, and some actual exchange of ideas. I'm enjoying it a lot, and it may just be starting to get interesting. I hope 🙂

After all, some very interesting people are members of Mr Gandy's exceptional forum.

 

[Particular]

All aspects of how something was made, or came about contribute to our understanding of its uniqueness. They do help us find value in something, but they are not an appropriate measure of it in and of themselves.
If a work speaks to you, everything that went into making it is meaningful and worthwhile. If it doesn't, any labour and materials were a pointless waste.

 

[Carlsen Highway]

In his defence, (even if I think he is an idiot anyway), what is he seeing on the gallery walls that photographers are calling art now? It shouldnt be that easy to dismiss photography as art after all these years. Even for a pretension fool.

But his whole argument falls over when instead you compare Rembrandt with Hockney.
Painting has been dead ever since Picasso killed it. This murder could be committed because photography had rendered figurative paintings obsolete.

 

[moreorless]

In his defence, (even if I think he is an idiot anyway), what is he seeing on the gallery walls that photographers are calling art now? It shouldnt be that easy to dismiss photography as art after all these years. Even for a pretension fool.

But his whole argument falls over when instead you compare Rembrandt with Hockney.
Painting has been dead ever since Picasso killed it. This murder could be committed because photography had rendered figurative paintings obsolete.

I actually find it quite ironic that he choses Caravaggio to hold up as an example of the superiority to painting over photography when personally I would use Caravaggio as an argument photography has as you say usurped painted arts former position.

You are afterall talking about someone(Caravaggio) who's work was based on lifelike representations of scenes to the extent the use of the camera obscura has been argued and to someone who's best work was very much aimed at "the common man" that the counterreformation was looking to appeal to.

It is an interesting question whether previous "high" art fell or was it pushed? you could say the same for say popular music vs classical or cinema vs threater.

 

[Sparrow]

... Caravaggio uses way too much contrast and over-sharpens everything to death ... thank goodness he didn't have HD eh?

 

[Dektol Dan]

True to the medium...

True to the medium...

Generally, a photograph should be no larger the a 12" vinyl LP album cover.

That's somewhere between a 4X5 contact print and the average monitor.