Contemporary Photography - genius or rubbish?

[Didache]

Hi all .. I am about to ramble so be warned!!

Just lately I have been musing quite a bit about some contemporary photography, especially the "fine art" segment of the market. I have noticed that many of the most regarded photographers in this field produce work that, to many eyes, seems amateurish and even poor with out of focus shots, strange compositions, etc.

For instance: http://www.cristina-saez.com/ (especially the gallery Soil of the Sensible). To be brutally honest, I would probably have thrown these shots out if I had taken them. Yet she has solo exhibitions, sells them to collectors, and has an M.A. in it!!

Another example, the work of Viggo Mortensen (the actor and photographer): http://specialrealms.com/VM/painting5.html

I have seen the same thing in some recent portraiture competitions where the "traditional" portraits are nowhere to be seen, but instead the prize winners seem strange, stilted pictures of miserable people standing in front of their house in shots that look like they might have been taken by a 14 year old with an instamatic.

All this raises some real questions for me. Is it genuinely awful? Or am I missing the point? Is "cutting edge" photography about exploring things that sharp, classically composed images cannot cope with? Am I stuck in a style which is well past its sell-by date, or is much of contemporary photography just pretentious hype?

I will be honest - I do not know. But I am trying to understand.

Some of the contemporary photographers say they are giving us an impressionistic view of the world where we (the viewer) are invited to "encounter" the subject, rather than simply observe it. Are they right?

In short, is contemporary fine art photography really a cutting edge thing that most of us can barely grasp, or is it an empty shell?

I am really and truly trying to understand all this .. the reason being that I have in mind a project which I don't think I can do except in an impressionistic manner - and I am wondering if the tools are there in a contemporary style, if only I understood it.

See? Told you I would ramble!!

Mike

[Dave Smith]

Mike ...
Is this the by-product of Photoshop?
I mean ... there are so many things that can (and are) being done with PS (and other editors) that it seems like a "straight" (unaltered) photo does not have a chance.

"Contemporary" is kinda-sort-of interesting to me, if it does not go too much to extreme.

I hear what you are saying. I have wondered myself about this same issue..

[SmartWombat]

I think it's rubbish personally.
It may be art, but it's not "fine" to me.
More like 2 year old with crayons.
Which is great if it's your 2 year old.
But may have limited appeal to others.

[Frog]

I think she must have a very savy promoter. I only looked at the sensible soil one and saw only stuff I would delete. I could just walk across the street and point my camera at any bunch of trees and get shots like this if I could remember to make sure they were out of focus.

[megan]

Hm. On the one hand, I kind of "get" Soil of the Sensible as a series, but also found most of the images annoying.

As much as I love me some [S]Aragorn[/S] Viggo, and have respected and admired the fact that his art encompasses the visual as well as performance, I have been underwhelmed by his visual art... though some of his pinhole work at Burning Man is passable.

Of both artists mentioned, they both experiment with Holgas (YAY!) but again - I'm underwhelmed by their Holga work. Both look like rejects from my contact sheets.

Not sure what the answer is... sometimes the art world loves rubbish. I do find it interesting that in a digital age where slick, hyper-saturated images are lauded, the images by both of these photographers are not (slick, focused, hyper-saturated). Then again, are cursory DOF studies (Soil of the Sensible) what I want hanging on my wall?

Hm.

I know I haven't answered your question - but thanks for bringing it up!
Megan

[bluesguy]

See my comments pertaining to PS and other image editors in the :Lens Purchase" thread. I agree with the previous posters that she has to have a very savvy agent. You must remember Madison Ave. sells us stuff that we neither want or need but we purchase it anyway to be :hip" different etc.
Remember the pet rocks? Why would any sane person pay $5.00 for a rock when they could have had as many as they wanted from any rural roadside? The same goes for Starbuck's over priced brown water that they call coffee. Like Huey Lewis and the News once said "it's hip to be square"
Seems as if non-conformity sells!!

bluesguy

[drg]

( I just got home so this is really quick and dirty )

There is promotion in the form of 'celebrity' at play in much of this type of work. Think of Jeff Bridges. He has a book of fine art photography that are nothing more than production stills and candids of movie sets. But they were made by 'Jeff Bridges'.

There were several writeups during the holiday 2007 season about Angelina Jolie buying Brad Pitt this outrageously expensive customized film camera as he had become a very serious photographer. Again, important or serious because he is Brad Pitt.

Viggo baby falls into that category as well regardless of the work he produces, unfortunately.

Photographic media fine artists are playing with many recent art trends from a resurgence of Realism, to Modern Abstraction including Color Field variations (one of my favorites), to Warholian Pop-art. The Pop art is probably not as in vogue at the moment. There's also the Traditional Silver problem. That's the whole school of art buyer and sellers who haven't figured out color and modern Inkjet printing and the collecting there of and only want photographs that look like the came from the E. Curtis to A. Adams period.

Digital photography has opened the whole process to a wider range of participants and it hasn't shaken out yet. Not unlike pre-mixed pigments did for painting.

One more quick note, and I'll leave it at that for now, Art is a big commercial industry. Slap the term Art in front of or after something and it is . . . choose your adjective!

We should probably get this moved to the Photography as Art forum.

[StormGirl_LP]

( I just got home so this is really quick and dirty )
Photographic media fine artists are playing with many recent art trends from a resurgence of Realism, to Modern Abstraction including Color Field variations (one of my favorites), to Warholian Pop-art. The Pop art is probably not as in vogue at the moment. There's also the Traditional Silver problem. That's the whole school of art buyer and sellers who haven't figured out color and modern Inkjet printing and the collecting there of and only want photographs that look like the came from the E. Curtis to A. Adams period..

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Before learning anything about modern art, I looked a Picasso painting from his Cubism period, and dismissed it within seconds. When I studied Picasso, about his life and his methods, though I was still was not a fan of his paintings, I could appreciate what made his art important.

Contemporary art is about exploring ideas. I understand the concept, but I also agree that some of what is pedaled as art is non-sensical (whether real or perceived). The post modern movement opened that door. I don't think its a bad thing, its just not as straight forward as having a clearly defined set of rules.

Here's an example of an idea I am exploring. Is it crap? Absolutely! But its also an idea worth exploring, so I'll keep exploring it. Eventually I may have something of value that someone will pay money for. And inevitably, somewhere, on some blog or forum, someone will ask why anyone would ever buy my crap.

[Wild Wassa]

It is not about fine art, it is not about having amazing technique, it isn't even about seeing and producing pretty pictures or even producing rubbish pictures.

It is all about producing a different artefact called a work of art, ... different to the work in someway to the work produced by all others out there or who were out there.

I don't agree with it, nor do I agree with how the art world values difference on all occasions, valued for difference's sake alone ... but this is what it is all about.

Making a different artefact to that of others fills in another piece in the jig-saw called world art ... and will give you a crack at immortality.

My work is collected not because I am good, or even have a clue about what I do. My work is collected because I warn artists about the pitfalls of being a long term artist ... having been an artist for a long time.

I know it is bullsh*t, to be collected for such a reason. I even hope that the curators who thought that I was worth putting under contract to our National Gallery, view it as bullsh*t ... or is it? I think that every artist should warn every other artist about being broke, living out of cars, having successful shows that are swallowed up only to pay debts and how frustrating it can be when no one values what you feel is important about your work ... but don't let that stop you.

Think of all of the artists who have 'made it', each one of them has produced a different artefact to that of others and different in some way, if not always evident. Either through their choice of media, the materials employed, themes employed, concepts employed or just because they were around doing it when no one else was. Morris Louis' work is a prime example of an art dealer telling a 'nothing' (at the time) artist Louis, what hole needed filling in art, to succeed ... so Louis did.

I hope that makes sense? ... but that is what it is all about. Being different is not necessarily being pleasing to the viewers or consumers of art ... but is powerful in itself, because it influences the progress and directions of art.

Warren.

ps, having just written this, ... I've produced another work of Art, in the eyes of the NGA. I wonder what this work will sell for this time? ... there is nothing about my Art that has get rich quick stamped on it. About influence? ... it is hard to tell. To me, good Art is in the doing not in the resulting product ... if it is good on completion, that is a bonus, if an artwork is ever completed.

[Sebastian]

Didache,

I respect you, but please allow me to be frank.

Are you missing the point? In a word, yes. You somehow confuse your chosen style as being a global litmus test for all photography.

I, for one, love Crisitina's work and found some interesting viewpoints in Viggo's work, even though I don't like some of it. But me not liking it is an aesthetic thing, not having to do with his work being inferior, I don't think it is, it's just different. They have non-traditional styles.

What many people seem to miss is that the "amateurish" look amongst others shown here is a legitimate style, one that is actually very difficult to pull off with consistently good results. Look at the American Apparel ads. Those are not girls plucked off the street and the images are not made by n00bs with instamatics. Being able to move past what is or isn't "proper", "traditional" or "non-amateurish" is the sign of soemone that truly understands the artform that they're choosing to express themselves in. These people are doing their own thing, and if I saw many of their images I'd be able to recognize them when new ones were shown to me.

Is "cutting edge" photography about exploring things that sharp, classically composed images cannot cope with?

"Sharp, classically composed" is a style that you chose to work in. Your mistake is thinking that it applies to all photography.

Am I stuck in a style which is well past its sell-by date,

Some would say yes, but in my eyes they'd be just as wrong in saying that as you are in saying the work you linked to is somehow inferior. Your idea of photography is a style that I personally despise, but I would never tell you that it was out of date or dead or obsolete or any such thing. It's simply your thing.

or is much of contemporary photography just pretentious hype?

I don't see anything hyped or pretentious about people buying what they like, so obviously I disagree.

I mean no disrespect, but honestly, the "Sharp, classically composed" world of photography is nothing more than a small bubble in the grand scheme of it all. If you use a camera to freeze a moment in time, you're a photographer. Any attempt to elevate your style or method or choice of equipment over anyone else's is simply nothing more than stroking your ego.

For every new style, for every technological advancement there was some grouch standing there shaking his head because it was "wrong" or "non traditional" or "impure" simply because he preferred to do it another way but never realized that it was just a matter of preference. If any of them had their way we'd still be wearing loin cloths, clubbing our women to woo them and expressing ourselves by smearing plant matter on cave walls.

I, for one, prefer digital cameras over film, Photoshop over stinky chemicals and a fine dinner and a play over the club.

[Sebastian]

Is this the by-product of Photoshop?

You should be asking if this is a by-product of darkrooms, then. It's very rare to see something done in PS that wasn't done for a hundred years by skilled printers in dark rooms with equally stunning results. The whole anti-PS movement is quite idiotic in my mind. People act as if Photoshop forces them to fake every moment without ever realizing that it's as little or as much as one chooses to do with it that matters.

The really funny ones are the nutjobs that think sharpening and contrast adjustments are already crossing the line. As if their choice of Velvia over some Kodak crap isn't the same exact thing in a roundabout and much more limited way.

OK, I'm done venting. You guys triggered a store of much pent-up frustration...

[Janie]

I looked at some of the trees in one of the series and they hurt my eyes! I actually have a headache - part of it was in focus and the top and bottom were not so I started trying to figure out what was appealing and got a headache, that was it. lol

I have a friend who is an artist - he creates huge contemporary pieces of paint thrown on a canvas in wacky swipes and says they are his impression of a car, or a beautiful woman. They look like someone was about to paint, but sneezed and hit the canvas. He keeps telling me that i should do contemporary architectural photography and shows me examples of things that look like crap to me. I find it annoying that someone would tell me my work is so ordinary and real looking and I should instead create crap that makes no sense!

[Dave Smith]

Seb ...
Sorry I tripped your trigger.

When I asked if this was a "by product of PS", I did not mean that PS was a "bad" thing.

I don't think that it is fair to compare the "average" PS user to a skilled dark room artist. Any boob that has $100 can get into PS. I'm one of those "boobs" in that I am trying hard to learn the limits of PS without turning out a completely garrish (over sharpened - over saturated - over processed) product.

The guys that slaved in dark rooms (for hundreds of years) to produce their work were artists (my opinion). My PS work in comparison to their dark room work is like comparing a Rembrant to "paint-by-numbers" kit.

It just seems to me that it is all too easy to generate something "unusual" and call it art. When I was much younger, I was taught that there were "rules" in art ... grass was green ... sky was blue ... bodies needed to be proportionate and to scale.

I would love to be able to create some of the projects that I have seen done in PS. Maybe in time I will get close. But in the meantime, I would be happy to create a decent realistic picture.

[Didache]

Wonderful! I hoped, even anticipated, that there might be some kind of debate on this. Clearly there are some who simply cannot see it as anything but pretentious twaddle, and others who, while not necessarily "enjoying" it, see it as valid and important artistic expression.

And, perhaps more importantly, some have prodded at what we mean by "art" in the first place - after all, any form of art which has redefined the rules (such as they are) has generated debate. This is good: it is one of the things that makes art interesting and fresh.

Allow me a more specific response to Sebastian's post. Sebastian: I think I was pretty careful to emphasise that I was not writing off Cristina's (or Viggo's) work but genuinely seeking to understand the arena in which they choose to work. Clearly (in Cristina's case anyway) her training and experience, not to mention the evident regard in which she is held, means that she cannot simply be dismissed. Nor do I. I simply find myself looking at the images and trying to grasp what it is that makes it interesting or powerful or important. In some moments I almost catch it and in other moments it eludes me completely.

Hence, at no point did I say or imply that I confuse my chosen style (in your words) "... as being a global litmus test for all photography". I don't. I am fully aware that there are styles which push the boundaries far beyond what I am comfortable with (or capable of) and it is precisely this which I am trying to understand. So I don't think I am one of the grouches you refer to, nor am I stroking my ego Indeed, I made the point at the end that I can sort of see how this style might be a way I can enter a project which "traditional" photography would struggle with. If anything (and I respect you too!!) your remark about cave men and use of the word "despise" would seem to imply that your thoughts about "traditionalists" are just as intolerant as the thoughts of those who dismiss contemporary art without understanding. Is this helpful?

But let's be honest too. Even if we accept that EVERYONE who uses a camera as a means of expression is producing "art" in some sense, that does not necessarily mean that it is good art. It is the difference I am trying to fathom.

(For the record, if we talk about celeb photographers, I MUCH prefer the work of Leonard Nimoy: http://www.leonardnimoyphotography.com/2photo.htm )

For the further record: the personal project I am thinking about is a series of images which challenges the viewer's automatic response to religious symbols by placing them in unfamiliar and even dysfunctional contexts. No doubt, if I ever get to the shooting stage, some might appear on the Critique forum.

Cheers
Mike

[Sebastian]

I think I was pretty careful to emphasise that I was not writing off Cristina's (or Viggo's) work but genuinely seeking to understand the arena in which they choose to work.

You very well may have, but I have to say I missed it if you did. Especially with calling out poeple's work in a public way like that. I'm sorry if I took it in an unintended way.

your remark about cave men and use of the word "despise" would seem to imply that your thoughts about "traditionalists" are just as intolerant as the thoughts of those who dismiss contemporary art without understanding.

I can see why it would be read that way. Honestly, I was trying to point out that although I hate the style, I don't consider it to be garbage or any other such label. I just tried to point out that not liking something and it being good or bad are two completely separate things. There's lots of terrible music and film that I thoroughly enjoy, partly because it's bad. Many poeople can't make that distinction. I apologize for lumping you into that group.

Overall I know that I probably read more into some statements here than was intended and started going off about pent-up things that are outside the scope of your initial post. I tried to keep it on subject. Obviously, I missed some things that were originally attempted to be communicated, but that's where back and forth discussion comes in to clarify those misconceptions.

at no point did I say or imply that I confuse my chosen style (in your words) "... as being a global litmus test for all photography".

Right or wrong, that's what I read in your original post. Thanks for clarifying your stance on that. As for the ego comment, it was admittedly not directed at you as much as it was at many other photographers that I have met over the years. Like I said above, your post stirred up a lot of pent-up aggression.

[Frog]

I found this explanation of the "Soil of the Sensible" shots.

"Cristina Sáez investigates the ways in which we identify and relate to our environment, with particular attention to the interplay between sensory experience, memory and myth in the perception of the landscape. In this new series of large format colour photographs she re-examines the myth of the forest in the Western imagination in relation to traditional notions of landscape, the picturesque and the sublime. The project is largely inspired by Tim Ingold’s work on the weather and the temporality of the landscape where he states we cannot see unless we are immersed from the start in what Maurice Merleau-Ponty calls ‘the soil of the sensible’: that is, in a ground of being in which self and world are initially commingled.
Cristina completed an MA in Photography and Urban Cultures at Goldsmiths in 2006 following a BA in Psychology at the Universidad de Deusto, Spain and moving to London in 2001. She was one of the first participants in Creative Connection run by Photofusion, London Printworks Trust and Raw Material."

The photos are still not anything I'm attracted to or that I would get a 'message' from but it does put the photos into a relevant context.
Does having to explaing what they are about make them somehow failed for their purpose?
Of course, I know some may get a feeling/emotion/insight from the shots that I do not perceive.
If the perception they get are not what the photographer wanted to express are they a failure?
Just random thoughts.

The sight which I quoted from: http://www.artrabbit.com/events/even...f_the_sensible

[Didache]

frog - and good questions they are too. Nor are they ones I have any answer to. Something occurred to me though while reading your post: the paragraph of explanation sounds, dare I say it, a little on the pretentious side. "the temporality of the landscape where he states we cannot see unless we are immersed from the start in what Maurice Merleau-Ponty calls ‘the soil of the sensible’: that is, in a ground of being in which self and world are initially commingled." People, I think, will (at least partly) judge a picture by its explanation and if the explanation comes across as pretentious then they might view the picture in the same way. Maybe that's not fair, but people respond to jargon like that.

Sebastian .. I chose them simply because they provided good illustrations, no more than that. However, good to know we understand one another (sort of!) Also, nice to meet another fan of awful films I don't know if you would remember, but some years ago I posted my own little tribute to the B-movie by making up some mock posters.

Threads were:

Tribute to B-movies - just for fun

and

B-movie Tribute - two more!

and

B-movie tribute .. final two offerings

Cheers
Mike

[moschika]

I think she must have a very savy promoter.

this is true for any artist. we've all seen stuff that makes us think "i could do that", but we don't and stuff that makes us think "I wouldn't put that on display" but they do.

[Asylum Steve]

Just lately I have been musing quite a bit about some contemporary photography, especially the "fine art" segment of the market...

Good topic, Mike! Boy, I wish it were in the Art Forum. We sure could use some lively debate over there...

I can't say that I disagree with what anyone's posted here so far. And that's the thing about art, and something I'm very tolerant of: Everyone has their own perception and idea of what it is, both good and bad.

So, with that in mind I can't find much to argue about. What I can do is make a few observations about my own experiences as a photo artist, and the art world (and market) in general.

One, at any given time, the anti-art movement can be as large or larger than the "conventional" art movement. Much like punk is to music, many individuals get fed up with the traditional rules that go into what makes art "great" and what makes it marketable to the art-buying public.

And so, they break those rules, sometimes in a violent way. Often it's a sincere attempt to think outside the box. Often it's just a way to try to get noticed. But genuine art movements have been started by rogue artists in all media that were initally shunned when they tried to take their work in a new direction...

As you might imagine, these things tend to go in cycles. Much like folks occasionally get fed up with restrictions, rules, and formality in art, they also eventually tire of a lack of these things and want the tradition or structure back again...

Two, art is a money-making industry that is often completely seperate from the cultural or scholarly aspect of skilled and intensely creative individuals at work. This means there is a whole network of businesses whose sole purpose is to loosen people's pocketbooks by convincing them that they need and want "art" in all shapes and forms, regardless of how "legit" it is or how it fits into our collective history.

To them art is simply a product, and these are often the ones who write the press releases or bios or gallery or web site blurbs for artists and their work that the rest of us shake our heads at.

Finally, remember, life as an artist is a journey with many stops along the way, and someone who is promoting themselves as an artist (and their work) needs to be viewed with a wide lens.

A current group of images may be only a tiny snapshot (no pun intended) of their larger body of work, and over the years an individual artist's vision can change dramatically.

In the case of photography, one may have started learning in a very strict and traditional way (oh, say 8x10 view camera). Beautiful detail, eveything sharp and in focus, perfect lighting and composition.

Then one day they may get hit with creative lighting and find they are suddenly fed up with what they perceive as bogus restrictions of large format gear and technique. They start using a toy camera, and fall in love with the freedom and spontaneity of shooting in a totallly "unconventional" manner. Turns out this may actually be a much more satisfying way for them to channel their passion and creativity.

Naturally, the new images will appear to be highly "flawed" by the old standards. Does that make the photos less artistic? Or the same exact person suddenly less skilled? Not in my book...

Now, as far as Ms. Saez is concerned, I agree that much of her work appears to be unimaginative: almost a straight-forward exercise in simply recording scenes and then trying to pass them off as somehow profound because they'e in nice groupings.

But then I see the Brixton Weeds series, and find it to be very beautiful, stylish and full of imagination. So that in turn makes me look at her other work with more interest, and I think more of the person trying to explore things visually, rather than just photos that need to stand alone.

As for Viggo (one of my favorite actors, btw), I completely agree with Megan. His is simply an example of gaining fame and using it to draw attention to what seems to be a hobby...

[Didache]

Thanks Steve for your considered and thoughful post. I think I agree with your general argument (agree too about Viggo!)

Interestingly, Amateur Photographer (the main weekly photo mag here) had a debate on this issue a year or so ago. The winners of a major portraiture competition were mostly from the "new wave" - the mag got two writers, one very trad and the other very contemporary, to comment on the work. I must admit two things: first, my sympathies were largely with the trad commentator. However, second, when the avant gard commentator talked about the images I really and truly did see more in them than I would have seen purely through my more conventional eyes. At this point I felt that, just maybe, there was something in it, even if I still find it hard to see it sometimes.

Cheers
Mike

[Frog]

Steve, I can, with a stretch of my imagination, see why you might think the Brixton Weeds is full of imagination BUT, what if one of these were posted by someone in our critique forum. It would be torn apart, in a nice way of course, but many of us would have to think hard to find the positives to say.
I can find no redeeming value in the Still Alive gallery. Am I just too cretin? I'd honestly like to hear from anyone who can give me some positve things to see there.

I also think about our own Don Schaeffer. I had to see a lot of his photos before I grew to really appreciate them for what they are and now I love all of them.
Does art grow on us over time? I don't know. Just more observations.

[megan]

Well... I'm not sure if it's a hobby for Viggo - after all, he is a creative, this is another aspect of his expression. I don't want to take that from him. And he has been photographing for quite awhile - I knew of his photographs years before his big LOTR fame. That said - if I may emphatically reassess my absolute fence-sitting - I do dig the whole low-tech movement (who me?) but that doesn't mean that I like everything that's put out and called art. Then again, art is so subjective - it's about what moves you. The depth-of-field trees don't move me on a visual level, so no amount of 5-syllable wording will convince me otherwise. I might understand and respect the artist's thought process a bit better, but that's really it. So yes! Much respect, but it doesn't move me. It obviously moves other people, good for her and Viggo.

[Xia_Ke]

It took a while to find it but, I remembered what someone said in a thread long ago that I think sums things up perfectly...

...you got a "love it" and a "hate it" in 2 replies, you can now call this art, frame it and hang it in a gallery :P

[Wild Wassa]

I went to the sites of Saez and Viggo and looked at the Art. Well, it was very interesting.

The first concept, Saez work, is cool. So cool in its elitist and pretentiously cool way, the photographs remind me of one of the quotes that I've not lost the perspective of, and can sum up her concept and work succinctly, "Lose touch with nature, lose touch with yourself," wrote Goethe. The concept of not walking more than 5 metres from a car to be in tune with nature and take nature photograph, makes a lot of sense.

... but unfortunately Goethe didn't mean touching one's self in that way, I hope.

Viggo, now his work is most interesting ... so interesting that his work leaves me speechless, I'm finding the English language is short of words. Maybe that is the hidden concept, to render the viewer speechless and shutout from their vocabulary, despite there being 50,000+ commonly used words in the language.

I tried to look at their Art but my sensibilities felt abused, I had to leave, with only inappropriate words for posting on the World Wide Web coming to mind. I thought that I'd been around the industry long enough not to be horrified by anything, well I was WRONG!! ... not even the work of Weegee shut me out, like these two "Artists" did. I think I now like it, ... works from the Shutout School of Photography.

There was a chap in the Artworld called Robert Hughes, not the critic but the dealer in Contempory Art. When he was around we sometimes chatted and Robert once said to me, "Just when I think the level of an Artist's work has dropped to the lowest taste imaginable and I'm thinking of dropping them, there is always someone, often a curator who comes along and buys the work." Too true.

Robert when he was alive, set the trend for collecting and selling bad art. He sold the rubbish to all the major galleries (and yuppies). The thing that I notice is, that those he supported initially, have all come and gone ... thinking that money can be made out of bad Art disappoints many.

Having talked to gallery currators and conservationists, they say assessment time happens often to the Contemporary Artists in their collections. If a contemporary artist doesn't grow, influence others and stay prolific in their production, "We just sell off their work." Major galleries can't afford to collect failed artists.

You might do something different once, but if you can't sustain the production of total rubbish ... well it is only we long haulers, who are too dumb not to get it and our ranks are shrinking.

Trying to be an academic artist, when not actually an artist, might get you the odd residency, but failed academic artists do better to become gallery curators ... the bad art industry continually needs a fresh supply of patrons.

Warren.

[jkriminger]

Contrary to popular belief, I did not fail a test asking for my opinion...which...I think, says much about art in general.