Why I dislike photography as art.

Roger Hicks said:
If photography is the most important thing in the world to you, it's what you'll do.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. It depends on the person or, if you will, the artist (or "artist" if someone might prefer scare-quotes). I would have thought there was an equally honourable tradition of people working their day jobs to support both a life (really, even "artists" are allowed to have one of those) and their art.

...Mike
 
Scrambler said:
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
Click to expand...
Dear Steve,

No argument with any of what you say, except that I think you have misread "my definition" of Leonardo as an artist. Nor was I talking exclusively about friends. Rather, in the nature of what I do (and especially in the nature of going every year to Arles) I meet more dedicated photographers than most.

The most successful artists rarely put their art above accommodation -- they can't, as they need somewhere to work -- and indeed, quite a few of the artists I know actually own the roofs over their heads. Some don't. But they are mostly happy enough with functional accommodation: they prefer spending their money on photography to spending it on new furniture, fancy decor, the usual trappings of material "success".

Many work McJobs to support their habit, and that was my point: above a certain level of commitment/obsession, art tends to be a drug of addiction, not something you choose. You try to keep it under control. You don't treat it as a hobby.

Most artists I know are not all that good at relationships, but again, some are. All generalizations are notoriously dangerous, including this one, but I stand by my assertion that few people realize just how much hard work a serious artist is likely to put in to his art. Or of course her.

Cheers,

R.
 
Scrambler said:
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
Click to expand...

Interesting. Everyone said I have talent. School kids use to tell me, "how can you draw that?", " who taught you how to paint ?". I was never proud of my paintings, I never learned to finish them. Never satisfied, I continued on and on. Was Leonardo a genius, talented? Looks like he was. But was he a consummate artist? I never was, it's something I have to learn. My thirst for creativity and stress relief through expression must come from my interest in photography, but an exposure from a lens into film stops being art right there. The image is exposed, I develop for latitude, and scan then print. I can achieve an acceptable exposure, and one tenth of the time an interesting image. But that's where it stops. There a zillion ways to expose an image, but to sculpt, sketch or paint a masterpiece takes more than 1/500 of a second. And I think it's reasonable to earn a good wage, support yourself or your family, live a somewhat balanced life and enjoy a hobby like painting or afford film and a good camera rather than being a genius - but being broke, depressed, or unfulfilled because there is no food in the fridge, or being late in paying rent all because a person may insist in persuing an artists life than cannot be realized for some reason. And if you have, well then good for you! I wish I could do that. But really, most cannot.

I'm replying to this post and others above.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Steve,

No argument with any of what you say, except that I think you have misread "my definition" of Leonardo as an artist. Nor was I talking exclusively about friends. Rather, in the nature of what I do (and especially in the nature of going every year to Arles) I meet more dedicated photographers than most.

The most successful artists rarely put their art above accommodation -- they can't, as they need somewhere to work -- and indeed, quite a few of the artists I know actually own the roofs over their heads. Some don't. But they are mostly happy enough with functional accommodation: they prefer spending their money on photography to spending it on new furniture, fancy decor, the usual trappings of material "success".

Many work McJobs to support their habit, and that was my point: above a certain level of commitment/obsession, art tends to be a drug of addiction, not something you choose. You try to keep it under control. You don't treat it as a hobby.

Most artists I know are not all that good at relationships, but again, some are. All generalizations are notoriously dangerous, including this one, but I stand by my assertion that few people realize just how much hard work a serious artist is likely to put in to his art. Or of course her.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Good points. You stole my thunder.
 
teddy said:
. . . And I think it's reasonable to earn a good wage, support yourself or your family, live a somewhat balanced life and enjoy a hobby like painting or afford film and a good camera rather than being a genius - but being broke, depressed, or unfulfilled because there is no food in the fridge, or being late in paying rent all because a person may insist in persuing an artists life than cannot be realized for some reason. And if you have, well then good for you! I wish I could do that. But really, most cannot.. .
Click to expand...
Overall: very reasonable indeed. Any sane, non-obsessed person would do exactly what you describe. Hence my highlight: I don't wish for that at all. I'm close enough to it as it is. An overly serious or obsessive regard for art is all but indistinguishable from mental illness. The only question is the meaning of "an overly serious or obsessive regard for art." The trick is to be obsessive enough (which is far more than most people realize) without being too obsessive.

Cheers,

R.
 
lots of artists spent their free time at brothels, lol.

anyhow, you'll have to explain why it's bad for art to be a commodity, what difference time makes.
 
aizan said:
lots of artists spent their free time at brothels, lol.

anyhow, you'll have to explain why it's bad for art to be a commodity, what difference time makes.
Click to expand...

Its probably a hopelessly romantic notion of mine .
I think that the great artists paid little regard to the public taste at the time they were creating and that disregard was an important factor in their creative process.

I note that these days so much is portrayed as self improvement and there is an unseemly haste to get yourself noticed.

Probably Rimbaud , John Wilmot and the like would need to be running workshops now and have an agent.

Its a curiously old fashioned view I admit but I view art as pure and as such should be left untainted by corporal concerns.

It comes from another place.

Now I must get back to my absinthe :)
 
Michael Markey said:
. . . Now I must get back to my absinthe :)
Click to expand...
Dear Michael,

From Baudelaire's Albatross. You are no doubt familiar with it, but others may not be.

Le Poète est semblable au prince des nuées
Qui hante la tempête et se rit de l'archer ;
Exilé sur le sol au milieu des huées,
Ses ailes de géant l'empêchent de marcher.

Quick off-the-cuff translation:

The poet is like the prince of the clouds
Who haunts the storm and laughs at the archer
Exiled on on the ground, amid derision
His great wings get in the way of his walking

Yes. Art does come from somewhere other than the chequebook.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Roger

Quite beautiful.

The difficulty with discussions like this is that they inevitably deal with generalisations.

Even so I would contend that even when artists do enjoy commercial success in their lifetime that success stands apart from their pursuit of artistic expression.

That success is often disregarded too.

I`m thinking here of Lucian Freud .
Freud made millions from his work but always ensured that he got rid of the money as quickly as possible.
He regarded it an potential obstacle to his vision.

Fortunately that was easy ....he had a gambling habit.

Freud had an artistic need which was as essential to him as breathing and that had nothing to do with the concerns of the market place.

So yes obsessivness and a detachment from society and its conventions .
That to me would be more common artistic traits than business acumen and a keen eye for the bottom line I would imagine.

Michael
 
Michael Markey said:
Dear Roger

Quite beautiful.

The difficulty with discussions like this is that they inevitably deal with generalisations.

Even so I would contend that even when artists do enjoy commercial success in their lifetime that success stands apart from their pursuit of artistic expression.

That success is often disregarded too.

I`m thinking here of Lucian Freud .
Freud made millions from his work but always ensured that he got rid of the money as quickly as possible.
He regarded it an potential obstacle to his vision.

Fortunately that was easy ....he had a gambling habit.

Freud had an artistic need which was as essential to him as breathing and that had nothing to do with the concerns of the market place.

So yes obsessivness and a detachment from society and its conventions .
That to me would be more common artistic traits than business acumen and a keen eye for the bottom line I would imagine.

Michael
Click to expand...

In a similar way ... I was really impressed by Tracey Emin's work for the UK's pavilion at the Venice biennale in 2008 was it ... I had to rethink lots of preconceptions about commercial motivation there ... which I still hold with regard to Hurst and many of Saatchi's Young British Artists (or the spawn of Thatcher as I like to think of them) regardless of what my daughter thinks ... nothing good comes out of Goldsmiths imo,
 
you must admit that it's really ironic that the romantic myth of the bohemian artist, at a remove from society, who shuns money, etc., is used to market and sell a lot of art.
 
aizan said:
you must admit that it's really ironic that the romantic myth of the bohemian artist, at a remove from society, who shuns money, etc., is used to market and sell a lot of art.
Click to expand...

You think the artists are to blame for the sins of Smith and Friedman then? ... consumerism hasn't perverted everything yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom