Why I dislike photography as art.

Bizarrely I'm now about to leap to the defence [not for the first time] of Andreas Gursky, who's work i personally love.
I haven't seen this particular image in the flesh, but I have seen a few others, and while he uses a camera to take the initial image, it's just the start of a process which culminates in a print unlike any others i've seen.
Really you have to see the prints up close to have any understanding of what sets them apart. Online they are robbed of almost everything that is special about them.
 
bobbyrab said:
Bizarrely I'm now about to leap to the defence [not for the first time] of Andreas Gursky, who's work i personally love.
I haven't seen this particular image in the flesh, but I have seen a few others, and while he uses a camera to take the initial image, it's just the start of a process which culminates in a print unlike any others i've seen.
Really you have to see the prints up close to have any understanding of what sets them apart. Online they are robbed of almost everything that is special about them.
Click to expand...

I like his photographs too! But is it art, or just the result of pressing a shutter button? The million dollar question.
Yes, there's nothing like seeing a photo print on paper. A good feeling.
 
teddy said:
Yes, I think it sounds rather simplistic on the surface. But when stuff like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
sells for 4 million, and realizing that you or perhaps 99% of everyone in this forum could have done same or better. Apart from gathering gear, looking for a location and knowing certain connections, it would have taken him perhaps 1/500 of a sec to make this image. While Michael Angelo took years to complete one of his alfrescos. Is this good art or bad art? ;) I'm sure some photographs take far more effort.

Anyway, these sorts of topics are interesting to me, and not to others. It's ok to rant here and there sometimes.
Click to expand...

well aside from Gursky being postmodern yes I see that. But to dismiss, say, Stanley Spencer because you dislike Picasso's Guernica without ever seeing Shipbuilding on the Clyde seems unreasonable
 
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...

You nailed it.

A good friend and I drive to Atlanta a few years ago to hear a talk by Struth and the director of MOMA. At the end of the hour listening to the director of MOMA gush over Struth and his work and Struth explaining exactly how he works I felt like throwing up. It was like a joke they were pulling on the audience.

Struth went into great detail how he would go to the location and study in depth the light and the flow of people. He explained how he would spend a great deal of time contemplating the photo. What it came down to was scouting a location like any commercial photographer would do before a shoot. Struth presented his "scouting" as something special like it had never been do e before.

At the end of the lecture we all filed into the gallery at the High Museum and viewed his massive prints. I can honestly say, just my opinion, I have never been more disappointed in my life. The images were nothing more than snapshots made on 8x10 film. There was nothing impressive other than the lab did a very good job making huge prints from available light negs under poor light. Scale was the only thing that differentiated these prints from images that go through walmarts color lab ever day.

I keep thinking they're just trying to pull a joke on everyone but unfortunately after hearing the director of MOMA gush for thirty minutes they're dead serious.

I know this is all subjective but after traveling a great deal to see photo exhibitions like this from many modern photographic "artists" I still come away wondering why I waisted my time and gasoline to see this stuff.
 
Sparrow said:
well aside from Gursky being postmodern yes I see that. But to dismiss, say, Stanley Spencer because you dislike Picasso's Guernica without ever seeing Shipbuilding on the Clyde seems unreasonable
Click to expand...

Hey, coming from a graphics design background - the technique Spencer is using is amazing and I can appreciate that for sure. Not the prettiest in my palette, but he is putting amazing effort into his technique and graphic imagery. I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I think what I'm trying to say is that art of excellence should provide not just genius, but substantial proof of knowledge, skill, finesse, craftsmanship, masterful technique and consistency in all of these traits that can take years to grasp than just - oh look I chucked a bucket of red paint on a canvas - look, it reminds me of someone who got run over by a truck, interesting, great... Now I am an artist!... Same thing with photography. Many artist have a genius for raising eyebrows, but does it mean that it's good art?

I can't remember what this thread was about anymore! :eek:
 
x-ray said:
You nailed it.

A good friend and I drive to Atlanta a few years ago to hear a talk by Struth and the director of MOMA. At the end of the hour listening to the director of MOMA gush over Struth and his work and Struth explaining exactly how he works I felt like throwing up. It was like a joke they were pulling on the audience.

Struth went into great detail how he would go to the location and study in depth the light and the flow of people. He explained how he would spend a great deal of time contemplating the photo. What it came down to was scouting a location like any commercial photographer would do before a shoot. Struth presented his "scouting" as something special like it had never been do e before.

At the end of the lecture we all filed into the gallery at the High Museum and viewed his massive prints. I can honestly say, just my opinion, I have never been more disappointed in my life. The images were nothing more than snapshots made on 8x10 film. There was nothing impressive other than the lab did a very good job making huge prints from available light negs under poor light. Scale was the only thing that differentiated these prints from images that go through walmarts color lab ever day.

I keep thinking they're just trying to pull a joke on everyone but unfortunately after hearing the director of MOMA gush for thirty minutes they're dead serious.

I know this is all subjective but after traveling a great deal to see photo exhibitions like this from many modern photographic "artists" I still come away wondering why I waisted my time and gasoline to see this stuff.
Click to expand...

I second that! Oh man this is what I'm talking about!!!
 
The one thing I concluded from hearing the MOMA director talk is who Struth studied with was almost as important as Struth's work. I've found many times it's more about the person who make the "art" than the "art" itself.

More power to these guys. If they feel they're producing important cutting edge art and the curators feel the same and folks are willing to shell out millions to impress their friends with their good taste then let the money flow. If I were offered a million for one of my images I guess I could swallow my pride and convince myself I'm a great "artist" too.
 
x-ray said:
The one thing I concluded from hearing the MOMA director talk is who Struth studied with was almost as important as Struth's work. I've found many times it's more about the person who make the "art" than the "art" itself.

More power to these guys. If they feel they're producing important cutting edge art and the curators feel the same and folks are willing to shell out millions to impress their friends with their good taste then let the money flow. If I were offered a million for one of my images I guess I could swallow my pride and convince myself I'm a great "artist" too.
Click to expand...

I think many of us would take the money and the "career". But I think overtime I would get sick of it and during my spare time, I would try to achieve what "artistic goals" I want to master. I guess true artists are renegades.
 
Most times I go to a photography gallery I find the work displayed is all about the narrative, and that the photographs are only there to support the narrative. Exhibition catalogues gush about the narrative and how the photographer "explored" this and "investigated" that and "discovered" the other, often followed by the phrase "relationship between" (insert themes of choice). Most often the photographs do nothing at all for me, and I think they would be meaningless without the narrative.

Narratives that tend to get gallery space usually revolve around popular cultural themes; in Australia those often concern (indigenous) reconciliation, migrant experience, women, and environment.

Generally I walk away feeling disappointed. I see brave attempts to create discussion, but hardly anything I'd call art.
 
x-ray said:
You nailed it.

A good friend and I drive to Atlanta a few years ago to hear a talk by Struth and the director of MOMA. At the end of the hour listening to the director of MOMA gush over Struth and his work and Struth explaining exactly how he works I felt like throwing up. It was like a joke they were pulling on the audience.

Struth went into great detail how he would go to the location and study in depth the light and the flow of people. He explained how he would spend a great deal of time contemplating the photo. What it came down to was scouting a location like any commercial photographer would do before a shoot. Struth presented his "scouting" as something special like it had never been do e before.

At the end of the lecture we all filed into the gallery at the High Museum and viewed his massive prints. I can honestly say, just my opinion, I have never been more disappointed in my life. The images were nothing more than snapshots made on 8x10 film. There was nothing impressive other than the lab did a very good job making huge prints from available light negs under poor light. Scale was the only thing that differentiated these prints from images that go through walmarts color lab ever day.

I keep thinking they're just trying to pull a joke on everyone but unfortunately after hearing the director of MOMA gush for thirty minutes they're dead serious.

I know this is all subjective but after traveling a great deal to see photo exhibitions like this from many modern photographic "artists" I still come away wondering why I waisted my time and gasoline to see this stuff.
Click to expand...


It is indeed subjective. I think what many fail to realize is that often the theoretical explanation why something is good or meaningful comes after the recognition of the quality of the work. In other words, the director of MOMA who gushed for thirty minutes probably saw some ideas reflected in the work of Struth that he himself found interesting. It's probably not like somebody told him why it's interesting and then he just decided it must be good (which is what many people seem to think). Rather, he probably liked the work and then tried to put in words why he liked it.

Sometimes I read a philosophical text about something and as a result I will look at the world and photographs in different ways and I will find interest in things that I previously found utterly boring. And my interest will be genuine, not fake. The problem is that it is very hard to convince someone to share one's fascination. For example, I like photographs that are on the brink of boringness. Images that continuously fail to satisfy any of what I think makes a good picture but nonetheless want to keep looking at them. Or e.g. I like pictures that irritate me up to the point where I want to stop looking at them but then I keep going back to them to see what irritated me in the first place. Basically I like pictures that create an internal conflict in my own sense of what is aesthetically pleasing.
Of course, as soon as I try to put this in words it sounds like theoretical horse**** especially when it's accompanied by said images, but the fact is that the feelings I have about those images are very visceral and so any attempt to put them in words will automatically result in a failure of some sort because I'm trying to find a way to verbally express something non-verbal.
 
lynnb said:
Most times I go to a photography gallery I find the work displayed is all about the narrative, and that the photographs are only there to support the narrative. Exhibition catalogues gush about the narrative and how the photographer "explored" this and "investigated" that and "discovered" the other, often followed by the phrase "relationship between" (insert themes of choice). Most often the photographs do nothing at all for me, and I think they would be meaningless without the narrative.

Narratives that tend to get gallery space usually revolve around popular cultural themes; in Australia those often concern (indigenous) reconciliation, migrant experience, women, and environment.

Generally I walk away feeling disappointed. I see brave attempts to create discussion, but hardly anything I'd call art.
Click to expand...

Lynn, I understand and agree with your point. In a similar way, the article the OP points to is more about the discourse surrounding the photos, than the images themselves.

And that article could have been lifted straight out of the Onion (I wasn't familiar with the photogs and had to look them up to make sure they really exist).

Speaking of the Onion, I have passed on several articles from that zine to share a joke, only to be perplexed when the recipient clearly took it seriously. What a weird moment in history we inhabit.

Randy
 
thanks Mitch, yes, I found it very interesting.
The point is that, by buying them, we do not just consume a product – we simultaneously do something meaningful, show our caring selves and our global awareness and participate in a large collective project.
Click to expand...
My wife has observed that people seem increasingly concerned with conspicuous appearance, which fits in with the commodification of life mentioned in the article. Buy this or that product, associate with this or that mantra, and bask in the halo effect.

Or from a gallery's perspective: promote the work of artists who are at the forefront of popular opinion, and the sales will follow.
 
I did spend a bit of time looking through it, thank you for the link. Although this particular project left me somewhat underwhelmed I did think some of his earlier works were far more interesting, particularly the way he documented Berlin.

He's as good an example as i've seen of where this slightly disengaged analytical aesthetic that is contemporary art photography, comes from, and it does seem to be predominantly German in origin.
 
How many artists or photographers have we liked, only to be turned off after hearing them at a lecture or reading a statement/philosophy of their work? It's happened to me many times.
 
x-ray said:
You nailed it.

A good friend and I drive to Atlanta a few years ago to hear a talk by Struth and the director of MOMA. At the end of the hour listening to the director of MOMA gush over Struth and his work and Struth explaining exactly how he works I felt like throwing up. It was like a joke they were pulling on the audience.

Struth went into great detail how he would go to the location and study in depth the light and the flow of people. He explained how he would spend a great deal of time contemplating the photo. What it came down to was scouting a location like any commercial photographer would do before a shoot. Struth presented his "scouting" as something special like it had never been do e before.

At the end of the lecture we all filed into the gallery at the High Museum and viewed his massive prints. I can honestly say, just my opinion, I have never been more disappointed in my life. The images were nothing more than snapshots made on 8x10 film. There was nothing impressive other than the lab did a very good job making huge prints from available light negs under poor light. Scale was the only thing that differentiated these prints from images that go through walmarts color lab ever day.

I keep thinking they're just trying to pull a joke on everyone but unfortunately after hearing the director of MOMA gush for thirty minutes they're dead serious.

I know this is all subjective but after traveling a great deal to see photo exhibitions like this from many modern photographic "artists" I still come away wondering why I waisted my time and gasoline to see this stuff.
Click to expand...


This is how I felt after going to a Jeff Wall lecture.
 
No one has a reaction to, or interest in, the work of Michael Schmidt, winner of this year's Pictet prize, referred to in my post no. 58 above?
Click to expand...

Competent work, no more nor less interesting than any brochure photography. I genuinely cannot see why anyone would award a prize for it. Still. I suppose it's art, so I am supremely unqualified to judge it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom