Why is it????????????

[peterm1]

"One of the greatest obstables art photography has to overcome when presented to a general audience, is the burden of the assumption that the photograph is a picture "of something."

I don't think a photo must necessarily be representative of something (which I think this what is meant by this quote.) I frequently enjoy taking photos and then post processing them into abstracts that look nothing like the original. Those photos no longer represent the object that originally existed in the real world but instead have become something quite different in their own right. Something with an interesting pattern of light and dark or colors that attract the eye and excite the mind. (I hope)

Thats fair enough. Such photos could be said to be pictures that are not "of something." And I think that's valid.

The important thing is that they excite interest.

The only thing about Crewdson's photo of the snowy street scene (which truly is a photo that is not of something in the sense that it never existed in the real world) that I do not like, is that I find it dull and uninteresting. (my opinion.)

Plus, not a bit overblown and self important, in the "this cost a lot of money to make so it must be wonderful school of thought."

I have no objection to any form of photography so long as it produces good and interesting art.

 

[Chris101]

...

The only thing about Crewdson's photo of the snowy street scene (which truly is a photo that is not of something in the sense that it never existed in the real world) that I do not like, is that I find it dull and uninteresting. (my opinion.)

...

If the tiny web representation is all you have ever seen of Crewdson's images, then you'd be correct. An actual Crewdson is about 3 feet by 5 feet or larger. The colors are deep, complex and saturated. The detail in his photos is astounding - he uses 8x10 slow speed film as his capture medium.

In short, Crewdson's pictures are a clean example of the adage that one must see the work in person before deciding on it's value as a piece of art. You;d need to closely examine quite a number of them before finding his work dull.

 

[hteasley]

Plus, not a bit overblown and self important, in the "this cost a lot of money to make so it must be wonderful school of thought."

This is the second time I've detected what appears to me to be an animus toward nothing that has been declared about either photos that have been put forth in this thread. No one has said that the gas station photo is brilliant because it is by Eggleston, and no one has said that the Crewdson photo is brilliant because it was so expensive to make.

What this ultimately sounds like, to me, is jealousy, that what appear to be ordinary photographs get consideration because of the reputation of the photographers, while unknown photographers who make similar pictures don't get any notice at all.

Yeah. That happens.

 

[peterm1]

This is the second time I've detected what appears to me to be an animus toward nothing that has been declared about either photos that have been put forth in this thread. No one has said that the gas station photo is brilliant because it is by Eggleston, and no one has said that the Crewdson photo is brilliant because it was so expensive to make.

What this ultimately sounds like, to me, is jealousy, that what appear to be ordinary photographs get consideration because of the reputation of the photographers, while unknown photographers who make similar pictures don't get any notice at all.

Yeah. That happens.

Nope.........no animus, no jealousy. I just plumb don't like the photos and think they are both silly.

To the contrary though I will say that I think I have, however, detected in some posts at least a vague hint of "But these are great photographers - how dare you question their work!!"

And as to your assertion that I feel aggrieved that these photographers get consideration because they are famous - while unknown photographers who make similar photos do not. Its not really close either.... I would say that if an unknown photographer made photos like these I might offer advice on how to do better. :^)

 

[Sparrow]

I quite like the idea of "cognitive art" like the Crewdson stuff, and clearly it's a legitimate form most of the 20th century's **isms used similar ideas. All children go through the same stage before they develop their figurative understanding, and clearly is a proper area for artistic investigation.

I take what Chris said on board and will reserve judgement on Crewdson's work until I've seen it in the flesh, but on the web and in that documentary on the Beeb it does seem to lack content and narrative

 

[Sparrow]

Quote:Originally Posted by williams473

One of the greatest obstables art photography has to overcome when presented to a general audience, is the burden of the assumption that the photograph is a picture "of something."

So very true.

So you would suggest the problem is simply the lack of education in the general audience, that if I think heretically I'm simply one of the plebs who should keep his opinions to himself until the elite gets round to re-educating him?

 

[jsrockit]

So you would suggest the problem is simply the lack of education in the general audience, that if I think heretically I'm simply one of the plebs who should keep his opinions to himself until the elite gets round to re-educating him?

Why take it so personal? It wasn't an attack on you.

Art is never really easy to decipher and is very easy to ignore.... we all do it. My thought is that the general public expects a photo to be of something or have a centralized subject. However, sometimes the subject is the entire photo... all elements combined, not just one element. Sometimes a photograph that is simply of "nothing" works... and that is hard for non-photographers to accept. I'm not saying they have to care... no not at all. I'm just saying that some art photography seems to be made with artists in mind and isn't really catering to the calendar photo fan. Nothing wrong with either, to each his own.

Now, don't get this confused with opinion. I truly believe that it is fine not to like established art. We all hate some well known artists. However, I think it is important to think about why that person is well known. Generally, whether we like it or not, there is a good reason why they are well known even if you and I don't understand why. You can blame it on the Art world being BS or you can try to understand it within the context of what has happened before. Or you can just ignore it and go about your own business.

The one thing I will say is that many of Eggleston's well known photos are 30-40 years old now... and he and a a handful of other were the only ones to make, in the public's eye, these type of color photos at the time. It may appear easy to do it now, but it is always easier once something becomes part of the visual vocabulary of photography.

 

[Sparrow]

Why take it so personal? It wasn't an attack on you.

Art is never really easy to decipher and is very easy to ignore.... we all do it. My thought is that the general public expects a photo to be of something or have a centralized subject. However, sometimes the subject is the entire photo... all elements combined, not just one element. Sometimes a photograph that is simply of "nothing" works... and that is hard for non-photographers to accept. I'm not saying they have to care... no not at all. I'm just saying that some art photography seems to be made with artists in mind and isn't really catering to the calendar photo fan. Nothing wrong with either, to each his own.

Now, don't get this confused with opinion. I truly believe that it is fine not to like established art. We all hate some well known artists. However, I think it is important to think about why that person is well known. Generally, whether we like it or not, there is a good reason why they are well known even if you and I don't understand why. You can blame it on the Art world being BS or you can try to understand it within the context of what has happened before. Or you can just ignore it and go about your own business.

The one thing I will say is that many of Eggleston's well known photos are 30-40 years old now... and he and a a handful of other were the only ones to make, in the public's eye, these type of color photos at the time. It may appear easy to do it now, but it is always easier once something becomes part of the visual vocabulary of photography.

I wasn't taking it personally, I was replying on behalf of the General Audience. My opinions are corrupted by my education and career so I lack the spontaneous reaction the General Audience may hold; (my daughter is in the first year of her degree so I'm doing a lot of Art History for the second time, albeit more contemporary than last time)

I hold a fundamental (fundamental in it's proper understanding) distrust of anything that puts the onus of appreciation onto the viewer, Art that requires explanation has to be questioned I believe. If not it is only available to an elite, or by the pretence of being part of that elite, and that is most definitely not the function of art.

I don't get bogged down with like or dislike, I'm perfectly able to like poor art, and dislike great art, art it there to explain the world to humanity and little to do with like and dislike . Specific to Eggleston's stuff, it's contemporary to my life I've been aware of it for 40 years and, while it may well be relevant in the US, it seems to have little to offer in illuminating the human condition to the rest of us.

 

[jsrockit]

...and, while it may well be relevant in the US, it seems to have little to offer in illuminating the human condition to the rest of us.

Does all Art have to illuminate the "human condition?" I would argue that Art functions on many levels and is never only one thing. How boring it would be if all Art was done for one reason.

Also, artists from outside of the US have certainly been influenced by Eggleston.

None of us can speak for any group as a whole and it's all just opinion.

 

[Sparrow]

Does all Art have to illuminate the "human condition?" I would argue that Art functions on many levels and is never only one thing. How boring it would be if all Art was done for one reason.

Also, artists from outside of the US have certainly been influenced by Eggleston.

None of us can speak for any group as a whole and it's all just opinion.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I speak for myself only.

If art is not the artisan's medium of expression to his contemporaries what is it's purpose?

 

[jsrockit]

If art is not the artisan's medium of expression to his contemporaries what is it's purpose?

Well, the key word was illuminate...

Many pieces of Art deal with unadulterated self-promotion, propaganda, exploitation, shocking the masses, dissing religion, or just commenting on previous art. Not all of it is illuminating IMO. I'm not saying I like the aforementioned things... but Art is made for many reasons we may or may not agree with.

 

[benlees]

Well, the key word was illuminate...

Many pieces of Art deal with unadulterated self-promotion, propaganda, exploitation, shocking the masses, dissing religion, or just commenting on previous art. Not all of it is illuminating IMO. I'm not saying I like the aforementioned things... but Art is made for many reasons we may or may not agree with.

That is not a bad description of the "human condition". Wait a second...🙂

 

[Sparrow]

... well with respect illuminate is a little imprecise as a key, I happen to know what it's original artistic definition is; figurative decoration used in a religious manuscript that includes gold or silver leaf I'm aware that the definition has shifted over the last 500 years but not to the point of becoming a touchstone for the validity of an artwork I would suggest

 

[GSNfan]

These days everything is art, and everyone is an artist. We just have to live with it.

 

[Sparrow]

Art for art's sake, money for god's sake?