Last week I posted on a photography forum (artshow _photo@yahoogroups.com) about an interesting article I had read about a new Photography exhibit at the Getty Museum in LA. All hell broke loose! So I am copying here what I said there.
Let's take a little look at photography as art. Taking photos of the Red Rock Canyon vs. heading to the studio to create something no one else has seen to photograph what is in your "mind's eye." This is what elevates photography to art. Visit this article about a new exhibit at the Getty Museum about the "Provocative Photographic Work of Artist Jo Ann Callis." The images Callis creates are mainly studio pieces from sets she has created. Her themes are mostly domestic explorations using many processes including black and white, Ektacolor and dye transfer, Cibachromes and recent digitals. Read about the exhibit at: www.artknowledgenews.com and be inspired. NO MORE RED ROCK CANYONS! What do you think? Is this incendiary?
No Connie. You shouldn't leave. Nor should anyone, artist or non-artist, in a forum-dialogue format, choose to call you out at any level. One of our failings as human beings. We should be able to discuss without becoming insulting.
That said, when I first read it and responded, I felt two major issues. One, that as a Promoter, you should have clarified if this was you posting as an non-promoter individual, or whether this represents opinions and views that will effectively permeate your jury process. In which case, the take-home message, in respect and fairness to your artist base, is "if you don't meet THIS criteria, probably in your best interest to save your money and not apply to this show I am involved with, or any show I am involved with." If that reflects the kinds of jurors you will choose or seek to be on your jury, that will render that same kind of decision, then a lot of artforms and expression modes will not be fairly juried because of an inherent jury bias.
Second, that saying studio work is inherently more artistic and the flip side that photographs taken outdoors are not artistic or somehow less so is wrong. Or because work is done purely in the studio where everything is 'put together' by the mind of the artist, or that merely that act of 'putting things together in such ways not ever seen' elevates anything to be "art", or worthy of being in a show, is nonsensical and borderline insulting. I can see where many might feel insulted by such a view, while it is entirely yours to have and to hold.
Now, THAT being said, I think a component of what you said, intentionally or unintentionally I do support. That being, of someone who goes out to take a picture of Red Rock Canyons merely because they saw somebody else do it, and they want to duplicate it (aka: copy it). If taking their image is not inspired to become an expression of that person's vision and creativity but merely copy, let them go take it and expend their resources doing so. If it is not better than what has been done before or you conclude it was done merely to copy something that person thought would be successful, ignore it. Don't acknowledge it as art, or artistic, or having artistic merit. And jury it out of your show if you feel the need to. For on that basis, of a lack of creativity, they could be and should be excluded from consideration of anything: a spot in your show, your respect or appreciation. And if they went out, inspired by what they saw, and didn't invest the time and energy and vision to come back with something as good or better, same response.
Re. the comment "NO MORE RED ROCK CANYONS!" am I to assume that whoever posted that comment would look down upon someone like Ansel Adams, whose work I saw yesterday at the Norton Museum of Art? Did he not make a name for himself as an artist by photographing canyons and such?
As a non-artist, I think of photographers as artists because they have an "eye" and visual perspective on the world that I may not.
I have read and heard resentment against photographers because they have the ability to make copies of their work and sell them at art festivals that 3d artists do not and that painters and water colorists can't at "originals only" shows.
Combine that with everyone having a camera these days and increased sensitivity by photograhpers is even more understandable.
While I did not find your comments incendiary and actually made me pause to reflect on another topic "What are the definitions for Art vrs. Craft". If you were attacked it may relate to your comment "This is what elevates photography to art." suggesting to some, photography can not be considered an art form.
Nonetheless, felt personally attacked, (I suppose for good reason, considering the group), until Larry called me. I believe he got it even worse that day from someone else.
This is the second time I have been called out by name on that forum and basically told to get lost, so maybe I will.
Since I enjoy both AFI and the Yahoo group, I wanted to respond. Incendiary? Nah, probably not, discussions of artistic merit can be wonderful. I think you touched a nerve with your "no more red rock canyons" remark. Remember, caps are the equivalent of shouting when online, and you were shouting to a group of photographers who sell their work at art shows, a very specific audience. As a veteran of art shows, I can tell you that Callis wouldn't make much money at a typical art show. Not meaning to be critical of your remarks, but this was the wrong forum to make such a statement.
Comments
That said, when I first read it and responded, I felt two major issues. One, that as a Promoter, you should have clarified if this was you posting as an non-promoter individual, or whether this represents opinions and views that will effectively permeate your jury process. In which case, the take-home message, in respect and fairness to your artist base, is "if you don't meet THIS criteria, probably in your best interest to save your money and not apply to this show I am involved with, or any show I am involved with." If that reflects the kinds of jurors you will choose or seek to be on your jury, that will render that same kind of decision, then a lot of artforms and expression modes will not be fairly juried because of an inherent jury bias.
Second, that saying studio work is inherently more artistic and the flip side that photographs taken outdoors are not artistic or somehow less so is wrong. Or because work is done purely in the studio where everything is 'put together' by the mind of the artist, or that merely that act of 'putting things together in such ways not ever seen' elevates anything to be "art", or worthy of being in a show, is nonsensical and borderline insulting. I can see where many might feel insulted by such a view, while it is entirely yours to have and to hold.
Now, THAT being said, I think a component of what you said, intentionally or unintentionally I do support. That being, of someone who goes out to take a picture of Red Rock Canyons merely because they saw somebody else do it, and they want to duplicate it (aka: copy it). If taking their image is not inspired to become an expression of that person's vision and creativity but merely copy, let them go take it and expend their resources doing so. If it is not better than what has been done before or you conclude it was done merely to copy something that person thought would be successful, ignore it. Don't acknowledge it as art, or artistic, or having artistic merit. And jury it out of your show if you feel the need to. For on that basis, of a lack of creativity, they could be and should be excluded from consideration of anything: a spot in your show, your respect or appreciation. And if they went out, inspired by what they saw, and didn't invest the time and energy and vision to come back with something as good or better, same response.
I have read and heard resentment against photographers because they have the ability to make copies of their work and sell them at art festivals that 3d artists do not and that painters and water colorists can't at "originals only" shows.
Combine that with everyone having a camera these days and increased sensitivity by photograhpers is even more understandable.
While I did not find your comments incendiary and actually made me pause to reflect on another topic "What are the definitions for Art vrs. Craft". If you were attacked it may relate to your comment "This is what elevates photography to art." suggesting to some, photography can not be considered an art form.
Nonetheless, felt personally attacked, (I suppose for good reason, considering the group), until Larry called me. I believe he got it even worse that day from someone else.
This is the second time I have been called out by name on that forum and basically told to get lost, so maybe I will.