Is what passes for Art today really just something unusual ??

The basis for my cynisism is from observation.

The "art world" is just another commerce engine.
It creates value by implying scarcity. Nothing more.
Any actual talent is a seperate although often connected aspect of an "art" piece.

True art is a different thing completely. The value in $$ (scarcity) is unimportant. Only expression is important.

Most of what is represented as art should really be considered "decor" rather than art.
There is nothing wrong with that. There can still be genuine skill of craft and visual essence. It's often lacking in expression. Made more as an assembly to meet an end ($$ Making a living).

This is my opinion from obsevation not as an academic in the field.
 
Art cannot be defined. But if you want your work to be considered art that is accepted by others, it first has to be noticed, which is even more difficult in this era of infinite images and no attention span than in the past. The "unusual" has a better chance of getting noticed, then others can debate whether or not it is art.
 
Stephen, Can you please post the photographers work your referring to?



Reason being is that without viewing the work it makes it hard to talk about the images in entirety.


Personally, what I find that many people dont understand about much art and photography is that often that art has a deep undertone and meaning which can be discerned from clues. Unfortunately for many of us (including myself at times), we may not have the knowledge to begin with to understand the references that lies within the imagery.


For those that say art is "undefinable", I would highly recommend everyone read this book:


Beginning Aesthetics: Intro to Philosophy and Art.

It can be found on the usual means via googling.


It's a really great read and would give many an insight into the understanding of "Aesthetics" philolsopy of art in a variety of different viewpoints (curators / museums, individuals, etc).

It provides a good range of different viewpoints and philosophies and honestly its quite awesome. It definitely gave me a broader appreciation for things that I may have otherwise not given two flips about.
 
jbf said:
Stephen, Can you please post the photographers work your referring to?
.
Click to expand...

In a word, no.

This thread is not about their work.

This thread is about whether or not the commercial "Art World" - photography or not - is so devoid of traditional talent and imagination that merely offering up an unusual work is all that is needed to be considered an "artist."

Stephen
 
I'd say it takes a lot more than being unusual to be successful, but that it's very unlikely you'll be successful today without being unusual. Through modern communications everyone is so inundated with visual content that you need something distinctive to get noticed.

John
 
johnwolf said:
I'd say it takes a lot more than being unusual to be successful, but that it's very unlikely you'll be successful today without being unusual. Through modern communications everyone is so inundated with visual content that you need something distinctive to get noticed.

John
Click to expand...


This is true.
In terms of 2D images, everything has been done to death a few times over.
And today's artist is caught between producing the "familiar" (his stuff is so so boring) and the "unusual" (his stuff is so weird).
So, it's kind of a no-win scenario.

Do what makes you happy, and don't quit your day job. :)
 
johnwolf said:
I'd say it takes a lot more than being unusual to be successful, but that it's very unlikely you'll be successful today without being unusual. Through modern communications everyone is so inundated with visual content that you need something distinctive to get noticed.
Click to expand...

I can not name, nor pick out a single Lady Gaga song. I do, however, know that she is the "artist" that wore a meat dress on or about the time she made the stage acquaintance of another "artist" -one Millie Brown.
 
daveleo said:
This is true.
In terms of 2D images, everything has been done to death a few times over.
And today's artist is caught between producing the "familiar" (his stuff is so so boring) and the "unusual" (his stuff is so weird).
So, it's kind of a no-win scenario.

Do what makes you happy, and don't quit your day job. :)
Click to expand...

Best advice. Ever. :)
 
I love these discussions. I am on a local art show committee and I cringe when they refer to me as one of the artist.

I upset some of my fellow members when I said, "The last thing this world needs is another photo of a "F*&*ing sunset". One of them asked me, "you don't think that waiting for three hours for a perfect sunset is art". I said, "no, that is timing".
 
Some people thinks good images in perfect focus from zero to infinity and with perfect exposure are the only art. :)

Lets take it just technically. Like review of rangefinders. RF - check, frame lines - check...


Is this website represents something known and successful? If yes, proceed to next step.

Are their images are known and successful? If, yes -

this is form of art you might not like and or don't understand.

To me, if they make enough for living by selling of their images it is art.
May be as art of selling something. :)
 
I think it was an RFF member who once wrote something like this:

1 out of focus picture is a mistake
10 is carelessness
100 is a style

:)
 
FrankS said:
I thought this was brilliantly simple, but then I thought of all the work done which is never selected, organized, and displayed.
Click to expand...

All those unattributed hieroglyphs, meaningless squiggles and the worship of cats one finds in ancient Egypt?

... oh, sorry no, I mean flicker :)
 
Internet has meant a few changes, but I really think the whole story with art and its sung and unsung heroes was basically the same one century ago, or two:
In every era, every movement or country, there are and there were artists that were considered interesting or important by lots of people, and even by reasonably good critics, newspapers and buyers, and most of those "famous" artists have totally vanished in time... Some really great artists received little or no attention or respect, and some of those considered masters now were recongnized back then...
So to answer the question, yes, innovation has always been a way of getting attention, today and in the past.
Maybe durable art requires a new idea, and (but) depth. When art is our heartly friend (when we can go away with it as Warhol said) and lots of people and generations feel something while taking a look, and when it, no matter its new surface speaks with humility and wisdom about what's being alive and dying, it goes beyond what today invades most galleries.
A bit of fame doesn't mean a work won't die forever.
For the thread's title, no, it's not unusual all kinds of things being named art.
Cheers,
Juan
 
Last edited:
Then there were the impressionists that were forced to paint outside the art mainstream. Their work was pretty much hated by the art insiders of the time and most artists to. Post Impressionism and Vah Gogh in particular were not excepted during the time they were creating. It sometimes takes time to see how important work is. So many times when work is good during the time it is being created it is often not seen as so by most so it shouldn't come as any surprise that a lot of work being created is seen as not good when in fact time might show it to be.

A great quote by the great dancer Martha Graham:
“No artist is ahead of his time. He is the time. It is just that others are behind the time.”
― Martha Graham

My advice is just create and not worry about it. Look at as much art and photography as you can and like and dislike whatever you want and don't worry so much about it. Just enjoy how accessible it all is to us today and that is of course a double edge sword and can cut both ways.
 
Many "artists" would be better employed working as accountants and book-keepers in my experience.

In particular, most artists who see their art as serving a purpose of "social commentary" are not artists at all - they are wannabe revolutionaries but do not have the guts to really do it. (And maybe we should be thankful for that).

We are fed on the image of starving artists working in freezing garrets. There is a reason for that! :D It is called lack of talent.
 
I donno I think the work of Davidson inside the civil rights movement is pretty important and powerful. East 100th St and Subway are also peeks inside those places at particualr points in time. The work of W.Eugene Smith at Minamata helped those people and changed things in that fishing village. He was attacked by employees of the Chisso company to try and keep him from showing the world what was going on. The work of the FSA is a great document of the dust bowl and great depression. I wouldn't call any of those artists wannabes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom