Why I dislike photography as art.

lynnb said:
...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.
Click to expand...
Sparrow said:
... his politics seem sound, but the art? ... I've seen better at my daughter's foundation year exhibition
Click to expand...

bobbyrab said:
...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.
Click to expand...
My reaction was similar to bobbyrab's, i.e., I like Schmidt's previous work on Berlin more. And I like the build-up of the impact of those earlier books. But, then, I became interested in who has won previous Pictet prizes and the reasons they won.

On this Pictet prize web page, you can see the themes of the competions of the last five years. If you click on one of the various themes (Consumption - Power - Growth - Earth - Water) you can see the portfolio submitted by the winner and the shortlist winners for each year; you can also read the artist's statement by each of the photographers, as well as lists of the jury and the nominators. The prize is 100,000 Swiss francs.

I haven't looked at enough of these portfolios to reach any conclusions, but I find it interesting to see what photographers submit for a competition at this level. I'd be interested in your reactions.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Nightshots from Tristes Tropiques
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio
 
Bill Clark said:
Let me see, I'm going to make some crappy photographs, put them up on a web site so as the wonderful critique people can have at it. It will make them feel good. Maybe make them feel important.

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...
Dear Bill,

And as I've pointed out before, reducing art to money is nonsense.

Cheers,

R.
 
Bill Clark said:
Perhaps. However, in my case, it's during the initial interview process where a potential client checks things out, including me, that determines if I get hired. I can have a "head start" with the first meeting when the people contact me because of a good recommendation.

Once I get hired it's up to the team that includes me, to produce what the client desires.

If photography is a hobby then it can be another story.



Could be. But it's nice, at least in my world, to enjoy the fruits of the life I've created with and for my wife and family.

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. Appreciate reading your views as I'm here to learn.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

"The client" is not necessarily anything whatsoever to do with art. Why do you persist in drawing this parallel?

Cheers,

R.
 
I do not consider photography art. I never will. That's because it isn't. It's a craft. Before getting all defensive over this categorizaiton -- calling photography a craft is in no way denegrating photography -- at all. A craft can certainly evoke emotion and be highly engaging. Art, however, it is not. Never was, never will be.
 
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...
Dear Teddy,

Then why didn't you?

Cheers,

R.
 
NickTrop said:
I do not consider photography art. I never will. That's because it isn't. It's a craft. Before getting all defensive over this categorizaiton -- calling photography a craft is in no way denegrating photography -- at all. A craft can certainly evoke emotion and be highly engaging. Art, however, it is not. Never was, never will be.
Click to expand...
Dear Nick,

Exactly like writing, then?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
...And as I've pointed out before, reducing art to money is nonsense...
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The most famous and expensive French painter in the 19th was Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier. His paintings commanded such high prices that in 1846 he was able to buy a huge mansion, while painters like Van Gogh, Gaugain and Cezanne were barely able to sell. Who cares about Messionier today?

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Nightshots from Tristes Tropiques
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio
 
NickTrop said:
I do not consider photography art. I never will. That's because it isn't. It's a craft. Before getting all defensive over this categorizaiton -- calling photography a craft is in no way denegrating photography -- at all. A craft can certainly evoke emotion and be highly engaging. Art, however, it is not. Never was, never will be.
Click to expand...

Nick, I respect the 'craft' category, but I also think that people do themselves a disservice. A furniture maker constructs a magnificent table and says 'aw shucks it's just my craft', but I do not see why it is not also a work of art, any more than a sculpture on exhibit. Sacred art also has an element of utility, but no one considers it less as art.

Randy
 
NickTrop said:
I do not consider photography art. I never will. That's because it isn't. It's a craft. Before getting all defensive over this categorizaiton -- calling photography a craft is in no way denegrating photography -- at all. A craft can certainly evoke emotion and be highly engaging. Art, however, it is not. Never was, never will be.
Click to expand...

I doesn't really matter if we any of us think something is or isn't art, it's such a personal opinion that there is no debate to be had, it's a pointless exercise.

I started this thread with the observation that I personally often find photographs that are aiming to be art works are often disappointing both as art and as photographs, but I think it's possible for photography to be art. I take sugar in my coffee but not in my tea, which as a statement is just about as useful to make.
 
It seems to me that many consider Art a bad word, so they like to say Craft instead...
Click to expand...

Exactly. A word has both meaning(s) and connotations. Art is a word with negative connotations for many people. Some of those connotations are that artists are grifters, critics are poseurs and collectors are fools. I make no judgement as to the accuracy of such beliefs but merely draw attention to their existence.
 
The above two "the word 'art' has negative connotations" was not a consideration when I made my claim. Nary a thought. I do not consider the word "art" to have negative connotations. This is a foreign notion to me.
 
Photography???

Photography???

Hi, thanks for sharing this article.

I saw it, the author quotes many very intersting and important artists such as Alfredo Jaar.

But i see no relation between their work and a reflection on photography itself, what i see are artists who use photography as a given media for their work.
In oppositon to that HCB did use photography as a media for photogropahy (Tautologia)
Instead Alfredo Jaar uses concepts and then embodies these concepts in differnt medias...i shouldn´t ever see AJ as a photgrapher...i don´t know how the author does this link.

BTW, very interesting the work of Saidou Dicko

Bye.
 
One of the problems I have with "artists" like Struth is I expect something beyond the ordinary but often I'm let down. What I've seen of Struth's work shows only slightly above average technique and totally fails when it comes to creativity.

My wife and I have a nice collection of contemporary and traditional photography that we've purchased over the past forty plus years. One of our most recent acquisitions is a Maggie Taylor image. It's based on a photo but heavily manipulated but it shows exceptional creativity and skill. It's way beyond the norm of what most of us could do. Of course we didn't pay in the six figures but i would not hang a Struth in its place if Struth personally gave one of his prints to me and offered to hang it for me.
 
I'll revise my statement after thinking. Yes I'd take one of his prints and the first thing I'd do after it was delivered is call Sotheby's and Christies to place it in the next art auction. $$$$$$
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom