The Art of Talking Art

Turtle said:
I don't think the discussion is about whether 'it is hard' or even about 'how to do it' but about whether photography is being claimed by the 'art scene' with the consequence that it is being changed in an 'undesirable way'. As others have pointed out, this all too frequently (IMO) means making the images subordinate to, or in support of, a fairly lame 'concept' that I would not have found terribly stimulating intellectually as a developing teenager never mind now. Personally, if I want that kind of revelation, I read a book, which can deliver far more, far more effectively, than the sort of work featured in the aperture contest. The horizons broadened by reading, learning, understanding, being challenged or surprised, tend to stay with me. The vacuous emanations of critics tend to evaporate quite quickly for lack of substance in my experience.

To me, it is about the validity of things that are unpretentious, simple and honest being undermined by conceptual work (that is supported either by weak novel concepts or nonsensical BS) of little substance and which I suspect will end up in the dustbin of time. It is about the demand for (pseudo)complexity and novelty at the expense of honesty and substance. I am not suggesting that the art world in inherently dishonest, but I am suggesting that it does not attribute much value to the genuine or substantial and this is IMHO relevant to photography as a medium. It is a shame that a medium that, while very flexible, can be used to show things either literally or close to literally, is being relegated to the 'concept support role' where the photograph itself has lost almost all, if not all, of its inherent value as a stand alone 'thing.' I rather think of it as removing the identity of the medium, its history, its strengths, and IMHO, its wonder.
Click to expand...


I would say authoritatively the less you worry about it, the better. And stop reading "Aperture".

Your post above is indecipherable.
 
Turtle said:
I don't think the discussion is about whether 'it is hard' or even about 'how to do it' but about whether photography is being claimed by the 'art scene' with the consequence that it is being changed in an 'undesirable way'. As others have pointed out, this all too frequently (IMO) means making the images subordinate to, or in support of, a fairly lame 'concept' that I would not have found terribly stimulating intellectually as a developing teenager never mind now. Personally, if I want that kind of revelation, I read a book, which can deliver far more, far more effectively, than the sort of work featured in the aperture contest. The horizons broadened by reading, learning, understanding, being challenged or surprised, tend to stay with me. The vacuous emanations of critics tend to evaporate quite quickly for lack of substance in my experience.

To me, it is about the validity of things that are unpretentious, simple and honest being undermined by conceptual work (that is supported either by weak novel concepts or nonsensical BS) of little substance and which I suspect will end up in the dustbin of time. It is about the demand for (pseudo)complexity and novelty at the expense of honesty and substance. I am not suggesting that the art world in inherently dishonest, but I am suggesting that it does not attribute much value to the genuine or substantial and this is IMHO relevant to photography as a medium. It is a shame that a medium that, while very flexible, can be used to show things either literally or close to literally, is being relegated to the 'concept support role' where the photograph itself has lost almost all, if not all, of its inherent value as a stand alone 'thing.' I rather think of it as removing the identity of the medium, its history, its strengths, and IMHO, its wonder.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Well said!
 
During 1943, Shaver wrote a letter to Amazing magazine. He claimed to have discovered an ancient language he called "Mantong," a sort of Proto-World language which was the source of all Earthly language. In Mantong, each sound had a hidden meaning, and by applying this formula to any word in any language, one could decode a secret meaning to any word, name or phrase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharpe_Shaver
 
EntarteteKunstCov400pxh.jpg


lf_ruddbanksystory_narrowweb__300x368,0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Andy Kibber said:
He wants people to make photos that look like what they look like. And he wants the art ivory tower folks to value such photos as much as he does.

You'd think there's enough room out there for people to like different things about photography or use it in different ways, but that ain't the case. It must be just one thing.
Click to expand...

Well that's fine then. Would you like to elaborate? An explanation as to why those "art ivory tower folks" should be of any relevance to us plebs?

I agree there is room for "people to like different things" but I fail to see why some insestuas urban elite should be allowed to codify how or why Art is what it is for the rest of humanity, perhaps you would explain?
 
Sparrow said:
Well that's fine then. Would you like to elaborate? An explanation as to why those "art ivory tower folks" should be of any relevance to us plebs?
Click to expand...
Critics, commentators, etc. are as relevant as you care to make them. As I said earlier in this thread, I'll read criticism, artists' statements and the like if interest strikes me. If I come to the conclusion that they're peddling bunk, I move on to something else.


Sparrow said:
I agree there is room for "people to like different things" but I fail to see why some insestuas urban elite should be allowed to codify how or why Art is what it is for the rest of humanity, perhaps you would explain?
Click to expand...
You completely misunderstand me. My point is that people can determine for themselves what they want from photography or want to do with photography. The only way the incestuous, urban elites can codify “how or why Art is what it is for the rest of humanity” is if humanity listens to them and blindly accepts what they say. Most of humanity doesn’t give a hoot about those incestuous, urban elites that some folks on RFF are so concerned about.

Perhaps if you're trying to get published in Aperture or get a show at a hip gallery, then those incestuous, urban elites are an occupational hazard. The rest of us pay attention to them or ignore them at our leisure.
 
Andy Kibber said:
Critics, commentators, etc. are as relevant as you care to make them. As I said earlier in this thread, I'll read criticism, artists' statements and the like if interest strikes me. If I come to the conclusion that they're peddling bunk, I move on to something else.




You completely misunderstand me. My point is that people can determine for themselves what they want from photography or want to do with photography. The only way the incestuous, urban elites can codify “how or why Art is what it is for the rest of humanity” is if humanity listens to them and blindly accepts what they say. Most of humanity doesn’t give a hoot about those incestuous, urban elites that some folks on RFF are so concerned about.

Perhaps if you're trying to get published in Aperture or get a show at a hip gallery, then those incestuous, urban elites are an occupational hazard. The rest of us pay attention to them or ignore them at our leisure.
Click to expand...

No! it is you who are misunderstand; I am simply rejecting the legitimacy of any elite to dictate any hieratical value to art. To do other would be barring my children or anyone who lacked the sophistication of that elite and, I am sure you would agree, would be wrong
 
George9 said:
I understand less and less in this thread.

Do you really believe that that some incestuous, urban critic in an ivory tower is preventing your children from producing or appreciating art?
Click to expand...

Dear George,

Why do you understand less and less? Can it be that you are refusing to try to understand, as you accuse others of refusing?

An influential claque is certainly making it difficult to appreciate why that influential claque appreciates art (if they do).

Fortunately, no-one can stop anyone actually producing art.

Cheers,

R.
 
George9 said:
I understand less and less in this thread.

Do you really believe that that some incestuous, urban critic in an ivory tower is preventing your children from producing or appreciating art?
Click to expand...

Well ... no; that is not what I said.

In the context of the graphic arts I reject their verbose, obtuse and sycophantic editorial expressed defining beauty in this form advanced to the advantage of some vested interest.

If you are not understanding this thread perhaps you should not be contributing?
 
Last edited:
great read! turtle, sparrow, roger and some others have expressed views identical to mine on this topic far more eloquently than i could do. thanks all. imo, too many artist's statements and art reviews (perhaps mistakenly referred to as criticism in this thread) purposefully and disingenuously use unclear language to baffle rather than explain, and perhaps to mask/hide shortcomings of the work itself, the concept behind it, or the lack of understanding of either by the reviewer.
 
George9 said:
What I don't understand is why folks are getting so upset about the way certain professionals are going about their task.

Oncologists could piss me off with their BS talk, but I don't go on and on complaining about them. I simply ignore them and continue enjoying my supermarket bought table wine.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you mean oenologists, specialists in wine, rather than oncologists, specialists in cancer. This sort of typing error does nothing to promote your struggle against imprecision and laziness in language.

Cheers,

R.
 
George9 said:
What I don't understand is why folks are getting so upset about the way certain professionals are going about their task.

Oncologists could piss me off with their BS talk, but I don't go on and on complaining about them. I simply ignore them and continue enjoying my supermarket bought table wine.
Click to expand...

You're doing that "quoting out of context" thing again, I am and have been a "professional" all my working life,
 
Last edited:
Sparrow said:
To do other would be barring my children or anyone who lacked the sophistication of that elite and, I am sure you would agree, would be wrong
Click to expand...

I might agree if I knew what the elite were barring your children from. Is it the incestuous club for urban elite ivory tower art critics? To misquote Marx (Groucho, not Karl): "I would not join any club that would not have someone like me for a member."
 
Someone mentioned a key word to understanding why they write like this earlier - BMattock I think; "parasites".

The critics and the reviewers, some curators and the people who write these texts are not artists themselves but live off the work of artists. They are not creative people, they do not know how they are made, but hope that they can jump on the bandwagon with the 'why'.

They validate their parasitic position by inflating the writing in the ways that have been paradied on this thread....the remora fish wiggles his tail a wee bit as the shark cruises...

Not all of course - but the 'speak' we are discussing here is an indicator of an Art Parasite.

(It also amuses me to discover in books on art history and critisim how little some world experts know about the artist's side of things - I have an authority on Leonardo in a dense treatise on the man's works saying that Leonardo must have painted with tiny hair like brushes - becasue he couldnt see any brush strokes in his paintings! This man obviously hadn't felt any need to learn anything about how people painted in the 1500's, but felt confident enough writing a scholarly work on Leonardo Da vinci because he could use 'modern art crit speak.")
 
Andy Kibber said:
I might agree if I knew what the elite were barring your children from. Is it the incestuous club for urban elite ivory tower art critics? To misquote Marx (Groucho, not Karl): "I would not join any club that would not have someone like me for a member."
Click to expand...

you seem to be a little behind the curve, I had thought I'd answered that one

appropriate regarding Marx (Groucho)... you would seem the type of chap who would quote a comedian in support of his argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom