imajypsee
no expiration date
I found this article very timely:
"Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibition"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/arts/design/04clic.html?ref=arts
and, here's the homepage for the exhibit, where you can see all the "picks"
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/
Mary in SW Florida
"Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibition"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/arts/design/04clic.html?ref=arts
and, here's the homepage for the exhibit, where you can see all the "picks"
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/
Mary in SW Florida
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks Mary... very interesting.
R
ruben
Guest
The NYT article is amazing both by the info about the exhibition and by the evaluative judgements it forwards.
If I do understand correctly what it says, from low to high the world of quality artistic photography is divided as follows:
A (lowest rank) Selling Art by popular high ranking well known photographers, who while not being worse than the average amateur, their sin is in that their quality output does not match their popularity.
B (mid level) Anonimous photographers filtered by the selection of the common photographer crowd (like picks of the week at RFF or Flickr, etc)
C (highest artistic rank) Even more anonimous photographers working against the visual mainstream, experimenting with new elements, whose work will only be appreciated by the "discerning, well informed individuals", which to my understanding of the writer's intention - these selected group is not the gallery owners, but deep in the underground.
Well, great article Mary, with a lot of headaches for some of our friends.
Cheers,
Ruben
If I do understand correctly what it says, from low to high the world of quality artistic photography is divided as follows:
A (lowest rank) Selling Art by popular high ranking well known photographers, who while not being worse than the average amateur, their sin is in that their quality output does not match their popularity.
B (mid level) Anonimous photographers filtered by the selection of the common photographer crowd (like picks of the week at RFF or Flickr, etc)
C (highest artistic rank) Even more anonimous photographers working against the visual mainstream, experimenting with new elements, whose work will only be appreciated by the "discerning, well informed individuals", which to my understanding of the writer's intention - these selected group is not the gallery owners, but deep in the underground.
Well, great article Mary, with a lot of headaches for some of our friends.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
craygc
Well-known
Looking at the virtual tour it would appear that the organisers have introduced a substantial degree of bias through their choice of print sizes. The one that is alluded to a "top ranked" shot of the girls on the roller coaster is noticeably by far the largest print in the exhibition. Through the personal closeness of the shot and print size it does deliver impact - would it do so as a 5x7 ???
retnull
Well-known
Consider this part of the article:
"What if you favor exhibitions designed to appeal not to crowds but mainly to discerning, well-informed individuals? What if you go to museums to learn from experts who have devoted long, deep and careful study to certain subjects? What if one of the things you value most in contemporary art is its resistance to mainstream taste, its willingness to forgo popularity in pursuit of ideas and experiences that few have already had?"
I like the idea of art that is egalitarian and pleasing to the community. But the "ideas and experiences that few have already had" are immensely valuable things. I don't think it's elitist or unfair to give these things a bit of privilege. Without special consideration (government subsidy, institutional support), they will wither away. And all we'd be left with is 40 million hours of YouTube video of someone's cat.
"What if you favor exhibitions designed to appeal not to crowds but mainly to discerning, well-informed individuals? What if you go to museums to learn from experts who have devoted long, deep and careful study to certain subjects? What if one of the things you value most in contemporary art is its resistance to mainstream taste, its willingness to forgo popularity in pursuit of ideas and experiences that few have already had?"
I like the idea of art that is egalitarian and pleasing to the community. But the "ideas and experiences that few have already had" are immensely valuable things. I don't think it's elitist or unfair to give these things a bit of privilege. Without special consideration (government subsidy, institutional support), they will wither away. And all we'd be left with is 40 million hours of YouTube video of someone's cat.
retnull
Well-known
This exhibition reminds me of a famous art project from the '90s: Komar + Melamid's "Most Wanted Painting" project.
http://www.diacenter.org/km/
These Russian artists gave a survey to thousands of people from different countries, to determine the qualities of what their favorite painting would be. Then they produced painting to fit the profile. For example, the USA painting is a landscape the size of a dishwasher, containing George Washington, a family on vacation, and some deer.
The point of the project is perhaps to question "the wisdom of crowds" that is the topic of this article.
http://www.diacenter.org/km/
These Russian artists gave a survey to thousands of people from different countries, to determine the qualities of what their favorite painting would be. Then they produced painting to fit the profile. For example, the USA painting is a landscape the size of a dishwasher, containing George Washington, a family on vacation, and some deer.
The point of the project is perhaps to question "the wisdom of crowds" that is the topic of this article.
R
ruben
Guest
There are crowds and crowds. The crowds that voted for Abraham Lincoln for presidency had a lot of historical wisdom.
The crowds that voted for Adolf Hitler brought a cathastrophe to themselves.
RFF members are a certain crowd too. Its Weekly Picks reflect the picks of its "crowd".
A "crowd" can be enligthened and constructive, or barbarian and destructive. It depends a lot on its top.
The same applyies to small "artisistic milieu".
Small numbers or big numbers are not a pre-condition of quality. Eash thing shuld be judged concretely.
But in my opinion the photo of those reflections of the coffee shop brought to my mind immediately one of the best female photographers of our forum. A great shot.
Last edited by a moderator:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Well, if you look at the most successful Hollywood movies, the crowd dictates what pictures will be made and how much money they will make.
The masses desire (and pay to see) vividly colorful, loud, violent, mindless action movies created with computer animation effects.
If the crowds dictated everything, which they will soon, we'll be in a cultural wasteland.
The masses desire (and pay to see) vividly colorful, loud, violent, mindless action movies created with computer animation effects.
If the crowds dictated everything, which they will soon, we'll be in a cultural wasteland.
R
ruben
Guest
I think that the term 'THE CROWDS" should be de-mistyficated first of all.
According to the hystorical situation and context the term is abused in all senses. My point is that there is a concept manipulation behind it.
Note that at my post here #7 I have made a judgement according to my viewpoint, that could be contested, at least regardiing Lincoln.
When majority vote chooses something we do not like, we use the term "the crowds".
But when majority vote chooses something we do like, we call it "democracy".
Now, when it comes to Art the issue becomes really complex. Because if we count the real people whose life is connected in some way or another to the Art industry, then we arrive to a sizable "crowd".
A rather monster crowd extending from underpaid textile workers to high nose magazine editors.
Art has become a commercial commodity that sells. With the help of "propaganda".
Propaganda - another term that the people involved will gladly turn into "promotion", or some other elegant judgement concept.
If I was to judge the arena of Hollywood movies, I think that my concept of the crowds tastes will be contradictory and not one sided.
It seems to me that if sex, violence and digital effect were the wining formula, you may have saved Hollywood producers a lot of money.
Cheers,
Ruben
According to the hystorical situation and context the term is abused in all senses. My point is that there is a concept manipulation behind it.
Note that at my post here #7 I have made a judgement according to my viewpoint, that could be contested, at least regardiing Lincoln.
When majority vote chooses something we do not like, we use the term "the crowds".
But when majority vote chooses something we do like, we call it "democracy".
Now, when it comes to Art the issue becomes really complex. Because if we count the real people whose life is connected in some way or another to the Art industry, then we arrive to a sizable "crowd".
A rather monster crowd extending from underpaid textile workers to high nose magazine editors.
Art has become a commercial commodity that sells. With the help of "propaganda".
Propaganda - another term that the people involved will gladly turn into "promotion", or some other elegant judgement concept.
If I was to judge the arena of Hollywood movies, I think that my concept of the crowds tastes will be contradictory and not one sided.
It seems to me that if sex, violence and digital effect were the wining formula, you may have saved Hollywood producers a lot of money.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
MV you always pull yer punches... we are in a cultural wasteland anchored by 'reality' TV.
BTW I'm surprised I didn't see pix of cats in this one. More cats 'is mo bettah'
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks Mary, that is an interesting tour.
imajypsee
no expiration date
I made a comment in the blog
I made a comment in the blog
about the "gaming" of the submissions.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/bloggers/2008/06/04/gaming-click/#comments
Frankly, I found the whole thing sort of silly. Perhaps the creators of the exhibit have no experience in the world of social networking photo sites. Oh, well. It was interesting on levels having nothing to do with the photos.
I have to say that I didn't look at every submission (the teeny tiny thumbnails aren't terribly inviting) but of the 78 that were "selected" I found only a few to be compelling
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=388&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=45&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=86&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=116&t=gallery
Mary in SW Florida
I made a comment in the blog
about the "gaming" of the submissions.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/bloggers/2008/06/04/gaming-click/#comments
Frankly, I found the whole thing sort of silly. Perhaps the creators of the exhibit have no experience in the world of social networking photo sites. Oh, well. It was interesting on levels having nothing to do with the photos.
I have to say that I didn't look at every submission (the teeny tiny thumbnails aren't terribly inviting) but of the 78 that were "selected" I found only a few to be compelling
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=388&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=45&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=86&t=gallery
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/click/highlight.php?id=116&t=gallery
Mary in SW Florida