Why I dislike photography as art.

Are comics art? Digital photography is as art as comics to me.
And wet prints are closer to the art for my taste.
 
That was freaking hilarious. Didn't have time to read it the whole way through, but he is a very funny writer, and as a picture editor, I'm sure he's seen it all.

Best,
-Tim
 
Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps you are defining "art" too narrowly.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

You may well be right, although I think trying to define art is a pointless exercise as we all have our unique take on what it means.

Although my title is rather flippant, I do often find that that which sets out to be fine art photography is often the work i find least engaging. This article with the exception of Joel Sternfeld and Gillian Wearing, is a good illustration of why I more often than not find it so tedious. Some of these images would hardly register were it not for the accompanying puff piece.
I also find it mildly irritating that works such as Gillian Wearing's are included under the catch all of photography, she's an artist who has used photography to present some of the concepts which are her art, as photographs. She's also used welding to create some work, but you wouldn't call her an art welder if you see what I mean.
I don't have a problem with photography being art, but for me it's often a poor fit and negates a lot of photography's strengths.
 
Photography as art is a tiny fraction of its uses. Science, engineering, security, police, military... It's a big list and gets bigger all the time.

I suspect the ratio between photographs made as "art" and photographs made for other purposes is of the order of a million but it could be higher. Just think how many photographs are taken daily for ID cards, passports and driving licences. ;)
 
This is the best advice on the subject I've ever read:

"Pursue art and you lose the subject. Pursue the subject and you find art."

-- Lisette Model
 
"Art is what you can get away with"
Andy Warhol

Why get hung up on any definition that you don't agree with or doesn't see fit for your preferences of art?
If someone pays for it and likes it, so be it.
 
Until the 18th to 19th century painting wasn't considered an art either but a craft. Da Vinci was a master craftsman not an artist but today he is called an artist and genius. Many scientifi disciplines still prefer drawn illustrations to photographs. Painting, drawing and photography can be art but they don't have to be.
 
bobbyrab said:
You may well be right, although I think trying to define art is a pointless exercise as we all have our unique take on what it means.

Although my title is rather flippant, I do often find that that which sets out to be fine art photography is often the work i find least engaging. This article with the exception of Joel Sternfeld and Gillian Wearing, is a good illustration of why I more often than not find it so tedious. Some of these images would hardly register were it not for the accompanying puff piece.
I also find it mildly irritating that works such as Gillian Wearing's are included under the catch all of photography, she's an artist who has used photography to present some of the concepts which are her art, as photographs. She's also used welding to create some work, but you wouldn't call her an art welder if you see what I mean.
I don't have a problem with photography being art, but for me it's often a poor fit and negates a lot of photography's strengths.
Click to expand...
I fully see your point, but from my point of view, I'd suggest that anything CAN be fine art, including hard-core pornography: Google Laurent Benaim. Or Raphael Dallporta's pictures of anti-personnel bombs as works of art -- http://www.instituteartist.com/filter/Raphael-Dallaporta/feature-Antipersonnel-Raphael-Dallaporta . What you're saying, surely, is that there are some kinds of fine art photography you don't like -- which would be true for all of us.

As for "art welder", no (though come to think of it, I rather like "fine art welder"), but I'd call her a sculptor. I used to be married to one of the same; a friend who lives nearby is one too; and the son of another friend earns a living at it. What REALLY annoys me is people who say "I am an artist who uses photography" instead of "photographer". Show me your pictures and I'll form my own opinion of whether you're an artist. Same with your welding.

Cheers,

R.
 
hasn't siegfried kracauer thought, that a medium is best used within its own characteristics and therefor photography is best used for documentation? what doesn't mean, that the photographer doesnt have to compose though.
photography only good as anti-art?
 
icebear said:
"Art is what you can get away with"
Andy Warhol

Why get hung up on any definition that you don't agree with or doesn't see fit for your preferences of art?
If someone pays for it and likes it, so be it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really getting hung up on what is defined as art, what I do have issue with I suppose is that now more than ever there exists an art infrastructure that directly or indirectly is publicly financed, that allows artists to have a career in art without having to appeal to any size of audience. As long as you tick the boxes of the curators and critics with the power, the money will follow. Of the images in the linked article, were I to mix the images from Thomas Struth, Peter Frazer or Anna Fox with 100 random images from the average mini lab, would anyone be able to pick those out as works of art? I seriously doubt it.

To some extent I think art curation should be somewhat elitist, as bad as that sounds, otherwise the National gallery would be full of pretty watercolours, but this is the other side of the coin where we have work that needs all the written support it can get as it just doesn't stand up in isolation.
 
DominikDUK said:
This is a fallacy that stems from the believe that photography depicts reality which it quiet really does not.
Click to expand...


kracauer didnt thought that at all. he even thought, that photography distorts reality and people gain an illusionary feeling of being informed.
nevertheless he thought, photography should only used to show "what there is"
 
bobbyrab said:
I'm not really getting hung up on what is defined as art, what I do have issue with I suppose is that now more than ever there exists an art infrastructure that directly or indirectly is publicly financed, that allows artists to have a career in art without having to appeal to any size of audience. As long as you tick the boxes of the curators and critics with the power, the money will follow. Of the images in the linked article, were I to mix the images from Thomas Struth, Peter Frazer or Anna Fox with 100 random images from the average mini lab, would anyone be able to pick those out as works of art? I seriously doubt it.

To some extent I think art curation should be somewhat elitist, as bad as that sounds, otherwise the National gallery would be full of pretty watercolours, but this is the other side of the coin where we have work that needs all the written support it can get as it just doesn't stand up in isolation.
Click to expand...
Highlight: not necessarily, and even if it does, not for a long time. There is no monolithic Art Establishment, nor yet an "an art infrastructure that directly or indirectly is publicly financed". There's a lot of luck, and self-promotion, and friends-of-friends, but 'twas ever thus. What do you see as the alternatives?

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom