Richard G
Veteran
Randy, I have very good antennae for satire and parody, but I think the photographs, as you say, and the commentary are sincere.
Why I dislike photography as art.
- Thread starter bobbyrab
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 184
- Views 80K
Randy, I have very good antennae for satire and parody, but I think the photographs, as you say, and the commentary are sincere.
zauhar
Veteran
Fair enough, I will read it again
x-ray
Veteran
I would love to be able to look Into the future and see how these images would stand up in time. Will this period in photographic art be like Beenie Babies, shag carpet, burnt orange and avacodo green or will they become the new Picasso.
peterm1
Veteran
I dont know that I would say I do not like photography as an art form particularly. In fact my own photography for better or worse I mainly regard as a form of artistic expression for myself. I don't claim its especially good but it is getting better.
I can say I am just not into other forms of photography for the most part. Those who kid themselves that they are doing something important because they are recording the times are for the most part just being wanky. Most of their images are boring and to top it off do not tell a story and are neither are they interesting or beautiful to look at.
I would concede of course that because of what it is, photography is accessible to nearly everyone, which means there are an awful lot of photographers out there making really truly awful crap "art".
But in one way this is no different to painting or any other form of art. There are a lot of bloody awful and untalented people who pick up paintbrushes as well. Its just a matter of degree. There are more photographers doing it as to the untrained and unskilled its just a matter of picking up a camera and pressing a button.
Perhaps its more fair to say that for most people, myself included photogrpaphy is just therapy that saves me having to visit a counsellor when I am stressed or anxious or depressed.
I can say I am just not into other forms of photography for the most part. Those who kid themselves that they are doing something important because they are recording the times are for the most part just being wanky. Most of their images are boring and to top it off do not tell a story and are neither are they interesting or beautiful to look at.
I would concede of course that because of what it is, photography is accessible to nearly everyone, which means there are an awful lot of photographers out there making really truly awful crap "art".
But in one way this is no different to painting or any other form of art. There are a lot of bloody awful and untalented people who pick up paintbrushes as well. Its just a matter of degree. There are more photographers doing it as to the untrained and unskilled its just a matter of picking up a camera and pressing a button.
Perhaps its more fair to say that for most people, myself included photogrpaphy is just therapy that saves me having to visit a counsellor when I am stressed or anxious or depressed.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I was with you right up to that point, Peter but then I was pulled up short by the question: just what gives any of us the right to say that someone's efforts are "truly awful crap "art""?
This, in my opinion, is the key part of the debate, the idea that, because we dislike something, it is bad. I would like, just once, to see the tablets on which are engraved the definition of "good" and "bad" art and of "talented" and "untalented" people.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Perhaps your spell checker isn't working; shouldn't that be "common in-humanity"?
teddy
Jose Morales
No, man. Not at all. I don't want to be a graphics designer. The market is saturated. I wouldn't get the money I want for the quality I aspire to produce here in Adelaide. I still have clients from 14 years ago that I design for because they love the stuff I made for their business. I thought of getting into professional photography, but I don't want to. It will be the same as graphic design. Saturated market, people don't want to pay you for what you are worth. Photography will always be a hobby for me. I'm a tiler, I work in the building industry. In an hour I get paid more than enough for half a days work at times. It is flexible, and in some ways a better job than graphics design and photography ever would. I love to paint, but all my time seems to go into photography. I'm photography mad. All my drive goes in to that, my little kid - the wife and tiling. I rejected commercial graphics and web development for the reasons this thread is all about. Art won't make me a living. If you sacrifice your blood and guts to achieve that with photography, painting, or what ever artistic talent you may have, go for it. But the reality is that tiling is a real job for me. One thing I "would like to do" is to learn the piano and compose... But I lack the drive - too many hobbies.
teddy
Jose Morales
Hey I never thought of it that way. Photography is my therapy when I'm stressed for sure. Leica M3 + Summicron 50/2 DR + Tri-X + Rodinal = HAPPINESS. Ok people, if making crappy "art" makes you FEEL good, then knock your self out. Do it!!! I'm just gonna take my camera out and shoot! Makes me happy! 😀
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Excellent! More power to your elbow 🙂
__--
Well-known
I think that this is central to the arguments in this thread. Here are a couple of quotes from The Story of Art by EH Gombrich, in my view, the best introductory book on art. The first two paragraphs are from the Introduction chapter and the last paragraph is from the end of the book, just after he's been discussing photograph, which he recognizes as an art, by the way.
There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. Once these were men who took coloured earth and roughed out the forms of a bison on the wall of a cave; today some buy their paints, and design posters for hoardings; they did and do many other things. There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. For Art with a capital A has come to be something of a bogey and a fetish. You may crush an artist by telling him that what he has just done may be quite good in its own way, only it is not 'Art'. And you may confound anyone enjoying a picture by declaring that what he liked in it was not the Art but something different.
Actually I do not think that there are any wrong reasons for liking a statue or a picture. Someone may like a landscape painting because it reminds him of home, or a portrait because it reminds him of a friend. There is nothing wrong with that. All of us, when we see a painting, are bound to be reminded of a hundred-and-one things which influence our likes and dislikes. As long as these memories help us to enjoy what we see, we need not worry. It is only when some irrelevant memory makes us prejudiced, when we instinctively turn away from a magnificent picture of an alpine scene because we dislike climbing, that we should search our mind for the reason for the aversion which spoils a pleasure we mighta work of otherwise have had. There are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art.
...What these recent developments have brought home to us again is that there are tides of taste in art no less than there are tides of fashion in clothing or decoration. It is undeniable that many of the old masters whom we admire and indeed many styles of the past failed to be appreciated by very sensitive and knowledgeable critics of former generations. This is certainly true. No critic and no historian can be entirely unbiased, but think it is wrong to draw the conclusion that artistic values are altogether relative. Granted that we rarely stop to look for the objective merits of works or styles that have failed immediately to appeal to us, this does not prove that our appreciations are entirely subjective. I still remain convinced that we can recognize mastery in art, and this recognition has little to do with our personal likes and dislikes. One reader of this book may like Raphael and dislike Rubens or the other way round, but the book would have failed in its purpose if its readers did not also recognize that both of them were towering masters.
MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Nightshots from Tristes Tropiques
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jose,
That was my point, really. If you don't feel ready to make whatever sacrifices are needed, you lack the drive.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jose,
Not all art is crappy.
Therapy for tilers (or anyone else) is great, but it is not really what art is about.
Cheers,
R.
Scrambler
Well-known
You know, I think that's even more debatable than most statements in this thread.
If Leonardo made designs for war machines, and put on garden parties that "paid for" (i.e. supported his continued patronage) his exploration of caves and sketches of "interesting" faces does that make him more or less of an artist?
If anyone takes a day job to pay for their artistic endeavours, should it be a poorly paid one so they can say they have given up income for art? When they could take a highly remunerative one (like tiling, apparently) and have more time for art, and more money as well?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Which bit is debatable? Clearly not "Not all art is crappy."
Leonardo was a polymath who earned money right, left and centre from a lot of what he was interested in. Of course his clients were sometimes a bit slow to pay. But success rarely comes overnight or to the dilettante. You have to work really hard at it. There are exceptions, of course. Lartigue springs to mind, though after visiting a Lartigue exhibition my opinion of him dropped like a stone: we normally only ever see a few dozen of his very best shots, and not all of those are good. See a few hundred and he really wasn't all that good.
If photography is the most important thing in the world to you, it's what you'll do. You won't have time for tiling. You may or may not be any good. You may or may not get paid. But most (not all) artists, including photographers, devote more time and effort to photography than to anything else. Just as writers devote more time to writing, musicians to music, etc. I spend far more time on photography than the average hobbyist: let's say, for a round number, ten times as much. People who are really serious about photography may spend ten times as much on it as I do. Until you mix with these people on a reasonably regular basis, it is impossible to understand just how much they put into it.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Sorry. I think you're in a VERY small minority, and that your viewpoint is, in fact, indefensible. As soon as there is even one brilliant artist whose work sells poorly or not at all in their lifetime, your rigid equation of art and money falls flat on its face. An example I've adduced before is Vincent Van Gogh. You dismissed him for reasons I can't quite understand. And, of course, Vincent wasn't the only one.
No-one says that great artists ought to be poor, but most will admit that some are. At which point, no, you can't equate art and money. You say "You live your life & I live mine" but you don't seem to understand that some artists -- people who are (to be blunt) far better known than you are, whether they're better or not -- create the art because the art is the important thing, not the money.
Of course it may well be that in 100 years time you are as well known as Vincent. But it still won't alter the fact that Vincent was a great artist who never earned much money. You may however take comfort from the story of George Bernard Shaw talking to Henry Ford: "Ah, well, Mr. Ford. There is the difference between us. You think only of art, and I think only of money."
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... so who would you say was the better artist a classical ballerina or a lap dancer?
Michael Markey
Veteran
Once art is touched by money it dies ... and becomes product .
Scrambler
Well-known
Roger,
I would dispute that Leonardo earned money in the modern sense. The few paid commissions he took almost invariably ended up with him having to return the advance. The Patronage system was fortunately in vogue and provided he was occasionally useful and always Leonardo he was ok for money.
I don't at all mean to slight your friends, but some means to feed and house oneself are necessities. Some may elect not to house and only irregularly feed, though their choice of art materials might be similarly restricted. Someone choosing to work a part time job to pursue their art while having a roof, meals and a family: how does this disqualify them as an artist?
After years working with drug addicts, I tend to rate abandonment of relationships, housing, food as indicators of advancing illness not artistry. I have known, know, great artists who's art is not that level of obsession. Obsession, yes. Just not above housing or relationships.
Can tilers be polymaths, if that is an allowable exception?
From my reading Leonardo was a genius and a gifted painter, sculptor and designer but not in any way an artist by your definition. He couldn't even reliably paint a picture in a way that would survive more than a few months. He lacked interest in completing any project. Yet all his contemporaries envied his ability.
Steve
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
No question: the lap dancer. I'm seriously impressed with anyone who can dance on another person's lap... :angel:
Similar threads
