Sculpture in situ. Chicago Art Institute. Fun with focus.
7 comments:
John Camp
said...
Ha. You got back to "art" which leaves me an opening. Back on one of the Chicago posts, you said, in reply to something I said, "You say that you can't just go out and poke around for art --- but isn't that exactly (EXACTLY) what Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander and Garry Winogrand did ? And they seem to have convinced many people of the value of their work. Oh, and the "darling" Alec Soth. And the irrepressibly ubiquitous Stephen Shore. Where would modern photography be without mindless wandering? I thought about that for several days (seriously) and concluded, I don't know where modern photography would be without those guys and their mindless wandering, but I don't think what they were making was art. What they were doing is documentary, and very, very few documentary photographers are making art. (Okay, call me an art snob.) Cartier-Bresson is only a marginal exception. The other guys? Nope. The problem with photography, especially street photography, is that it's taken in an instant, it's taken in reaction, which is true of most documentary photography. Serious art, on the other hand, and IMHO, takes lengthy contemplation because it's constructed, rather than "taken" or "shot." Those very common photographic words suggest something outside the creator's body, something has to exist before the photographic made. That is not true of most serious art. I don't completely rule out photography as art, but there are damn few photographs that would meet my criteria. YMMV.
in some ways I agree with your premise but... a steady diet of Joel Peter Witkin, John Paul Capinigro and Jerry Uelsmann would wear me out pretty quickly. That just leaves Richard Avedon, Irving Penn and Annie Leibovitz to fill the gap.
thanks for the response. Oh, and I don't think Stephen Shore fits the bill of documentary. He's more in the realm of just "bad artist."
I really do love "imaging," if you'll excuse that slightly stupid term. I have a large collection of painting and photo books and a small collection of very good photographs from the likes of Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Mapplethorpe, Paul Caponigro, etc.I look at them every day. But when people talk about (capital-A) Art, I usually think of that as the old traditional forms of painting, sculpture, music, dance, architecture and so on. Photography is a different form, basically unlike the others. The others are generally created by the performers of it, but photography is created outside the photographer. He/she recognizes the moment, but doesn't create it. There's a semi-famous photo which I'm sure some people on this blog will have seen, of a line of old battered worn-out cowboy/farm boots stuck on fence posts. Really neat photo. But who created it? The "sculptor" who put the boots on the posts, or the photographer who recognized it as a possible subject? Is Kirk Tuck's photo of a Chicago sculpture art, or a documentation of somebody else's art? Photography can be great stuff, and it has been one of my primary interests in life since I was a teenager. But it really is its own thing. There's a fundamental philosophical, psychological and physical difference between the traditional arts and photography. That's why when people began pressing for recognition of photography as "art" back in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was resistance. Because it is fundamentally different than the traditional arts -- I think you could make a coherent argument that that dancing is closer to painting than painting is to photography. Photography really is its own thing.
Just because the photographer doesn't physically mold the image with his two hands doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be included in the traditional forms of art. I would have a hard time believing that what an artist like Cindy Sherman or Sally Mann does falls outside of (capital-A) Art.
I’ve never achieved a satisfactory understanding of what constitutes art. I’m not even certain I can distinguish between art and craft: most forms of expression involve elements of craftsmanship that are available to anyone who has the patience to learn them.
For me, the light captured by the camera is only a starting point. I typically fiddle with various parameters in post—often minimally, in a way that may not be perceptible to the viewer, but sometimes radically.
My theory is the art quotient of an image is proportional to the time and intensity the viewer is willing to devote to looking at it. The medium is less relevant than the response.
Many old (and new) masters operated in large studios. They designed something, an end product, and apprentices or interns or employees actually do the making of the end product. Is the end product art? Are the apprentices/interns/employees a little like the lenses, shutters, photo papers or are they more like collaborators? Accepting that photography is "different" from older forms of art making, it's tempting to say, "So what?", just to hear the answer. I find myself not having a firm opinion on such matters. Why is the artiness of something affected by the tools and materials used to produce it?
7 comments:
Ha. You got back to "art" which leaves me an opening. Back on one of the Chicago posts, you said, in reply to something I said, "You say that you can't just go out and poke around for art --- but isn't that exactly (EXACTLY) what Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander and Garry Winogrand did ? And they seem to have convinced many people of the value of their work. Oh, and the "darling" Alec Soth. And the irrepressibly ubiquitous Stephen Shore. Where would modern photography be without mindless wandering?
I thought about that for several days (seriously) and concluded, I don't know where modern photography would be without those guys and their mindless wandering, but I don't think what they were making was art. What they were doing is documentary, and very, very few documentary photographers are making art. (Okay, call me an art snob.) Cartier-Bresson is only a marginal exception. The other guys? Nope. The problem with photography, especially street photography, is that it's taken in an instant, it's taken in reaction, which is true of most documentary photography. Serious art, on the other hand, and IMHO, takes lengthy contemplation because it's constructed, rather than "taken" or "shot." Those very common photographic words suggest something outside the creator's body, something has to exist before the photographic made. That is not true of most serious art. I don't completely rule out photography as art, but there are damn few photographs that would meet my criteria. YMMV.
in some ways I agree with your premise but... a steady diet of Joel Peter Witkin, John Paul Capinigro and Jerry Uelsmann would wear me out pretty quickly. That just leaves Richard Avedon, Irving Penn and Annie Leibovitz to fill the gap.
thanks for the response. Oh, and I don't think Stephen Shore fits the bill of documentary. He's more in the realm of just "bad artist."
Riposte at your leisure. Always fun and welcome.
I really do love "imaging," if you'll excuse that slightly stupid term. I have a large collection of painting and photo books and a small collection of very good photographs from the likes of Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Mapplethorpe, Paul Caponigro, etc.I look at them every day. But when people talk about (capital-A) Art, I usually think of that as the old traditional forms of painting, sculpture, music, dance, architecture and so on. Photography is a different form, basically unlike the others. The others are generally created by the performers of it, but photography is created outside the photographer. He/she recognizes the moment, but doesn't create it. There's a semi-famous photo which I'm sure some people on this blog will have seen, of a line of old battered worn-out cowboy/farm boots stuck on fence posts. Really neat photo. But who created it? The "sculptor" who put the boots on the posts, or the photographer who recognized it as a possible subject? Is Kirk Tuck's photo of a Chicago sculpture art, or a documentation of somebody else's art? Photography can be great stuff, and it has been one of my primary interests in life since I was a teenager. But it really is its own thing. There's a fundamental philosophical, psychological and physical difference between the traditional arts and photography. That's why when people began pressing for recognition of photography as "art" back in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was resistance. Because it is fundamentally different than the traditional arts -- I think you could make a coherent argument that that dancing is closer to painting than painting is to photography. Photography really is its own thing.
Just because the photographer doesn't physically mold the image with his two hands doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be included in the traditional forms of art. I would have a hard time believing that what an artist like Cindy Sherman or Sally Mann does falls outside of (capital-A) Art.
I’ve never achieved a satisfactory understanding of what constitutes art. I’m not even certain I can distinguish between art and craft: most forms of expression involve elements of craftsmanship that are available to anyone who has the patience to learn them.
For me, the light captured by the camera is only a starting point. I typically fiddle with various parameters in post—often minimally, in a way that may not be perceptible to the viewer, but sometimes radically.
My theory is the art quotient of an image is proportional to the time and intensity the viewer is willing to devote to looking at it. The medium is less relevant than the response.
Many old (and new) masters operated in large studios. They designed something, an end product, and apprentices or interns or employees actually do the making of the end product. Is the end product art? Are the apprentices/interns/employees a little like the lenses, shutters, photo papers or are they more like collaborators? Accepting that photography is "different" from older forms of art making, it's tempting to say, "So what?", just to hear the answer. I find myself not having a firm opinion on such matters. Why is the artiness of something affected by the tools and materials used to produce it?
Post a Comment