Why I dislike photography as art.

bobbyrab said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you find tedious, the article or the art? I've not read the article but it seems quite clear to me that the single photographs are not really representative of the artists' work. I suspect that your exception of Joel Sternfeld and Gillian Wearing is just a result of you being familiar with their work. Are you familiar with David Goldblatt's work? I would've assumed that even someone who is more into 'traditional' documentary photography could muster up quite a bit of respect for his work. The same goes for some of the other artists.
 
Peter_wrote: said:
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"
Click to expand...

Good photography just like a good movie often works with what there isn't (in the frame).
It makes us think outside the frame and stimulates the viewers phantasy.

Also many of todays great photojournalist work work because of what is called the cultural memory. The piata is often chosen in depicting mothers with childs in war torn countries as far as photographs are concerned they are mediocre but because of the cultural memory they become much more important in our minds. Our mind constantly references and counterreferences scenes so we see what isn't there as well as what is there. I know what kracauer meant and what you mean but one shouldn't forget were Kracauer is coming from he was a sociologist and philosopher and had very much a sociologist view on photography. I still prefer him to many others
 
To be honest I thought it was an interesting article and thought it might be of interest to link for others to read, I don't have any major axe to grind with art photography, I simply added that often it doesn't interest me personally. I was not setting out to convince anyone else of anything. Some work I like and it says something to me, others don't and I dislike their elevation, but not asking anyone else to care what I think.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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?
Click to expand...

I fully agree with Roger here. Besides, the OP makes it sound like being an artist is some sort of welfare scheme where one can just 'tick boxes' of curators and automatically the money flows, when, in fact, the number of people who can live off their art (either publically or privately funded) is so small it's almost negligable. Most artists end up getting day jobs to fund their art. As Roger says, there's a lot of luck involved. All those artist at some point had to compete with hundreds or even thousands of other artists and through one way or another their work gained significance while the others' didn't.

By the way, if one were to mix that museum photo by Thomas Struth with 100 random images from the minilab it would surely stand out like a sore thumb. It's rather big...
 
I have particularly enjoyed the white sheet of paper - at least there was no crappy picture on it to look at.
When I see words "Fine Art" it brings up in my mind some association, like "plastic bread".
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

So true, even today ... they'll be telling us typing can produce literature next ... the buggers
 
That's an interesting piece of *curating* the state of modern photography. The only thing that I don't get is the "subtle tonality of the two buckets"... but other than that, those looks like some interesting photo projects.
 
I'm sitting here wondering why the medium that is used has one thing to do w/ the art work? It doesn't. I can make a piece of art out of a piece of cardboard and some glue and sand. Or, I can make a mess. It's about the maker, not the materials. I sure wish a lot of people would just spend more time making their stuff rather than criticizing what other people do w/ their own time.
 
Steve M. said:
. . . I sure wish a lot of people would just spend more time making their stuff rather than criticizing what other people do w/ their own time.
Click to expand...
Dear Steve,

My immediate response was that I agree completely. But then I thought, well, at least really bad criticism is rarely as bad as really bad art. It wastes fewer resources; doesn't clutter the place up as badly; and rarely lasts as long. Of course there are exceptions, such as John Ruskin.

Cheers,

R.
 
People can call whatever they like 'art' but we can all disagree with them if we like.

Perhaps if we could read the artist's thoughts, we'd understand better what they were trying to achieve. Or perhaps it would just confirm it was tripe.

Good or bad art, or whether it's art at all, can only ever be a matter of opinion. The fact that people get all riled up about good/bad art says more about how resistant we are to contrary opinions than it does about the art itself.
 
I agree about the commentary, but some photos are fine art whether we like the commentary or not. I don't have a preference for commercial photography (?) and I would throw documentary in with art, fine or coarse, but the talking is so boring. I skimmed a couple sentences but mainly just looked at the pictures. I do like Joel Sternfeld. Some more...

http://www.google.com/images?q=%22Joel+Sternfeld%22&btnG=Search&lr=&hl=en-US&tbm=isch
 
Bill Clark said:
Dean Collins said and I subscribe to that, "beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."

It's true, at least for me.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you're the judge, being the guy who points the camera? There are very many things worth doing and creating that cannot me made to be profitable. More than those that can, imo.
 
I've always liked that Joel Sternfeld image, but the writer failed to realize that the house was put on fire on purpose for a test and there is no neglect by the fireman.
 
god this thread is boring. i'll just move along...
Click to expand...

Bye, bye. :angel:

So true, even today ... they'll be telling us typing can produce literature next ... the buggers
Click to expand...

It isn't literature unless written on fine cotton rag paper with a quill pen that you've sliced yourself. Even then, it may be mere revelation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom