"rm409" blog post.

[rbiemer]

This:
http://rm409.tumblr.com/post/13881743013/paul-graham-the-unreasonable-apple

is an interesting read, I think.
The first few paragraphs got my attention and while I'm certainly not qualified to judge the merits of this, I think Mr. Graham's remarks are worth considering:

Paul Graham: The Unreasonable Apple

Presentation at first MoMA Photography Forum, February 2010

This month I read a review in a leading US Art Magazine of a Jeff Wall survey book, praising how he had distinguished himself from previous art photography by:

“Carefully constructing his pictures as provocative often open ended vignettes, instead of just snapping his surroundings”

Anyone who cares about photography‘s unique and astonishing qualities as a medium should be insulted by such remarks, especially here in 2010, in this country, in this city, which has embraced photography like no other.

And I'm interested in reading what y'all think of the entire article!
Rob

 

[Landshark]

I won't read the article. Why? Too much "artspeak" for any photograph.

BUT! Most successful photographers are very conversant with the language. It's like "baffle 'em with BS"

 

[rbiemer]

I won't read the article. Why? Too much "artspeak" for any photograph.

BUT! Most successful photographers are very conversant with the language. It's like "baffle 'em with BS"

If you don't want to read it that's fine, but the blog post is pretty straight forward and nothing like the italicized quote in that first part of it I quoted.


Rob

 

[furcafe]

I agree w/Mr. Graham. My opinion is that starting about 100 years or so (w/Duchamp, etc.) & increasingly in the past 50 years, the art world has been enamored of the conceptual, so as a general rule, the more conceptual a photographer's work, the more seriously he/she is taken as an artist.

This:
http://rm409.tumblr.com/post/13881743013/paul-graham-the-unreasonable-apple

is an interesting read, I think.
The first few paragraphs got my attention and while I'm certainly not qualified to judge the merits of this, I think Mr. Graham's remarks are worth considering:


And I'm interested in reading what y'all think of the entire article!
Rob

 

[anu L ogy]

I read the second comment before the blog post. I didn't find his article tough to read. I do agree, the quote he chose to use in his post is fairly stupid. As far as having both type of photography goes, I don't have anything to hide, I like black and white pictures. I'll look at Cindy Sherman type stuff if I am in a museum and its there, but I dont seek it out, and I do fine with out it. But I don't really agree with his asking more art people to focus on b/w photos. In my opinion, Winogrand and Robert Frank esque photographers already get coverage in the fine art world.

 

[Neare]

I agree w/Mr. Graham. My opinion is that starting about 100 years or so (w/Duchamp, etc.) & increasingly in the past 50 years, the art world has been enamored of the conceptual, so as a general rule, the more conceptual a photographer's work, the more seriously he/she is taken as an artist.

On one hand that is true, on the other there is an art community who have actively moved away from this sort of mindset and they are taken seriously by the appropriate crowd. Pop Art and what has derived from that for example.
With regards to photography, what has followed on from HIROMIX and other similar photographers proves that there is a market outside the conceptual. So I wouldn't say it is increasing, I would say it's the opposite.