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

[Bill Clark]

Could it be that one persons definition of art is different than another?

Maybe it can be looked at like Justice Potter Stewart who once said about pornography:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

But I do agree with your statement. It's just what I would label as art may or may not be art to you. Maybe, because of the flood of photos, unusual is needed to get the attention of the viewer.

 

[airfrogusmc]

You can still like or dislike something and see why it is considered art, right?

I'm not a huge fan of Witkins work but can clearly see why it was important. There are also things I like that I know are not art or meant to be art.

The next to the last paragraph on the first page
"The important point to remember is that we should all feel free to like or dislike what we will, on grounds of personal taste. HOWEVER, please note that there is a distinction between personal taste or preference and objective judgements of success or failure in a work of design or art. It is possible to recognize that a work is successful and significant, even though it does not suit our personal taste. It should be clear that unless one can lay claim to a high level of expertise it is rather immoderate to condemn a work as "bad" just because one doesn't like it. It is important for an artist to understand this distinction, and even more so for a designer, who will surely be called upon to do creative work in a framework of someone else's tastes and ideas."

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm

 

[thegman]

I think that art is only art if somebody thinks it is, so it's sort of a meaningless term. I don't consider my photos to be art, they're really just photographs of places I've been. But if I thought of them as art, then they would be, which kind of makes the word borderline pointless.

Going back the original post, I think to be successful in the art world is much the same as success anywhere else isn't it? Good marketing, publicity, get the word out, and whip up enthusiasm. Merit will help you out, but it's certainly not required. Price it just right, too low and people don't value it (look at the 99 cent apps for phones), too high and few buy.

We can all look at art, which is successful and consider it junk, but the same can be said for any other industry.

 

[__jc]

Whats the point if you arn't going to take a look a specific works and analyze them? Talking in generalizations doesnt really prove anything. Lets talk about baseless opinion. Yaay.


Whats more informing is actually critiquing work. Otherwise it's like asking, "Do all chevrolets look terrible now? Yes or no?"


Its about as silly as online "clickbait" sites with headlines like, "You'll never guess what this man found in his cd rom drive! Click to find out more!"



With that being said, it goes without saying that every place in the world has people who "make it" without talent. Talent is only a piece of the pie. The rest is being at the right place at the right time, and being passionate / obsessed (which you cannot will).

Hey I couldn't find anywhere to click for the link about what the guy had on his cd drive.

 

[RichL]

"Is what passes for Art today really just something unusual ??" Nothing new with that question folks, move along. Andy Warhol Marcel Duchamp Dalí Etc. I'm guessing that anything different will be called art (or not art) by pundits, intelligent critics and artist alike. Whether it is considered art 10, 70 or 130 years from now is another story.

 

[mdarnton]

Has the mainstream world EVER done a good job selecting good contemporary and lasting work in any field? The popular-acclaim system in my own field has been spectacularly bad at picking the long-term winners. The Impressionist painters weren't appreciated in their own time. Why would we expect the present photography world to read the future any better than critics of the past have done?

Honestly, the more widespread popularity something attracts, the dumber it has to become to get there, as anyone who pays attention to TV should well know. That's not going to change.

Now that anyone who owns a camera is a photographer, traditional values can't possibly determine popularity. Case: I like photos of people and follow fashion photography. Most of it is crap, violating every good rule, because the people who do it are mostly ignorant. There are simple technical problems that anyone along the line could correct--common things your small-town 60s studio knew to retouch out--and no one from the photographer to the art directors and retouchers sees them. That's just technical, and doesn't touch on the value of the photos themselves, but it does indicate how little photographers of today know about even the good things of the past.

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."

 

[airfrogusmc]

Thats why I said in an earlier post worry less about what is or what isn't because history is there to determine that. Just enjoy shooting whatever you have a real passion for and enjoy what you like to look at. When I am creating the thought of what I am creating and whether is or isn't doesn't even enter the process. I am just consumed with the work at hand. I'll leave all the high brow stuff to those that do kinds of things. I am just trying to follow my heart, soul and passion.

 

[Empire]

The main issue that an artist must contented with today is why make anything. The idea behind the photograph or the idea the photograph captures, like Andy Goldsworthy, are the most important aspect of a work in the minds of many dealers. As an artist, you are selling your process and the ideas attached to it, Sally Mann is a great example. In the end, great Art and great Photography are not one in the same.

 

[ABrosig]

I'm currently re-reading Sontag's "On Photography" and she talks about this very subject quite a bit, albeit from a slightly more cynical bend.

I'm fascinated recently by the amazing attraction to older photographs and how they are becoming coveted and fawned over, simply because they're old. And I'm not talking about the work of the "greats." People seem to be going crazy over just old family photographs, the stuff we take every day of reunions, birthday parties, etc. Definitely not "high art," but in some cases commanding pretty impressive prices and a lot of critical acclaim.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm fascinated recently by the amazing attraction to older photographs and how they are becoming coveted and fawned over, simply because they're old. And I'm not talking about the work of the "greats." People seem to be going crazy over just old family photographs, the stuff we take every day of reunions, birthday parties, etc. Definitely not "high art," but in some cases commanding pretty impressive prices and a lot of critical acclaim.

Do you have any examples?

 

[nongfuspring]

Do you have any examples?

I for one collect old found photographs, I'm not unusual in this either, there's a large market for it. But I don't think photographs turn into art with age, they become historical artefacts and accumulate perceived cultural significance. The market for old non-"art" or documentary photographs is more like the market for stamp collecting or vintage coins than for art.

Anyway, I said it before in another thread and I'll say it again: trying to define art is a stupid waste of time that would be far better spent thinking about wether or not something is good. If something makes you think and feel something, who cares what if it's a photo of a plastic christ submerged in piss or a urinal - the lofty demarcation of "art" is almost always used as a way of ending conversations and galvanising prejudices, not opening developing meaningful dialogue.

 

[jsrockit]

I for one collect old found photographs, I'm not unusual in this either, there's a large market for it. But I don't think photographs turn into art with age, they become historical artefacts and accumulate perceived cultural significance. The market for old non-"art" or documentary photographs is more like the market for stamp collecting or vintage coins than for art.

I get that people are into vernacular photography from the past... but I was interested in the ones that fit the category of: "but in some cases commanding pretty impressive prices and a lot of critical acclaim."

Not being ass, but am truly intrigued and interested at which ones fit the quote.

 

[nongfuspring]

I get that people are into vernacular photography from the past... but I was interested in the ones that fit the category of: "but in some cases commanding pretty impressive prices and a lot of critical acclaim."

Not being ass, but am truly intrigued and interested at which ones fit the quote.

I think it's a reasonable question you're asking. The high prices aspect is pretty self evident since with age generally comes scarcity, but the subject of critical acclaim is definitely something I'm unsure about. I guess when we talk about critical acclaim we're talking about the attribution of importance of an image to the talent of a photographer instead of historical happenstance, which suggests that the photographer has developed their own language and is working outside of a vernacular practice.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The main issue that an artist must contented with today is why make anything. The idea behind the photograph or the idea the photograph captures, like Andy Goldsworthy, are the most important aspect of a work in the minds of many dealers. As an artist, you are selling your process and the ideas attached to it, Sally Mann is a great example. In the end, great Art and great Photography are not one in the same.

But many times they are....😉

 

[jsrockit]

In paticuar I rememer one which focussed on southern black proms.

I saw that one...but didn't realize the pricing could be high. That is what I'm interested in. I do know that old side show photos can be worth a lot of cash, but more because of the content.

 

[jsrockit]

The info isn't critical... I was just curious.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm currently re-reading Sontag's "On Photography" and she talks about this very subject quite a bit, albeit from a slightly more cynical bend.

I'm fascinated recently by the amazing attraction to older photographs and how they are becoming coveted and fawned over, simply because they're old. And I'm not talking about the work of the "greats." People seem to be going crazy over just old family photographs, the stuff we take every day of reunions, birthday parties, etc. Definitely not "high art," but in some cases commanding pretty impressive prices and a lot of critical acclaim.

... you should be commended for getting all the way through it twice sir ... and for the latin text in your tag-line 🙂

 

[helen.HH]

all these things come to mind:

Live it, Breathe it, its a State of Mind
Be Inspired and Create
it's ever present ... ever fleeting
it's All hype, of the moment, Here today, Gone tomorrow

 

[porktaco]

Over the weekend I listened to an eloquent and famous photographer giving a great radio interview. The comments were intelligent and insightful about their childhood determination to be an artist and their successful commercial pursuit of same.

Then I visited their website for a big shock.

To me personally, their images which are so successful commercially are third rate, if that. If I had shot those images, I would have destroyed them as mistakes not worth showing to anyone. The only good thing that I can say about their images is that they are unusual - and so were marginally imaginative.

So, in today's art world, is all that it takes to be successful as an artist or photographer the ability to present something unusual -- even if that presentation shows little or no talent?.

Stephen

always been plenty of junk art. only the good survives over the decades. well, mostly. one time i went into a very high powered office. we walked down the little hall to the conference room. the whole place was decorated in corporate/federal-american. almost every bit of the walls
back to the conference room were covered with oil paintings from the 18th and 19th century. horsemen hunting. nature scenes. portraits. you know. later, i asked a friend of mine who had been a curator earlier in his life about all this. i expressed surprise that so much older art was used in a corporate office. he said, oh yeah, well, at the museum, we used to call that stuff "near art". lol.

 

[Sparrow]

all these things come to mind:

Live it, Breathe it, its a State of Mind
Be Inspired and Create
it's ever present ... ever fleeting
it's All hype, of the moment, Here today, Gone tomorrow

... and it also works with pâtisserie too 🙂