Contemporary Photography - genius or rubbish?

[reverberation]

I read the artists statement for the sensible series and it did inspire me to think about how I would use photography to de-mytholigize the forest in a photographic series. When I see what I have just written I think that the fact that I did not find the pictures visually appealing is of secondary importance. An artist has expressed themselves and made me think of something I would not have thought about if they had not expresssed themselves. I don't think there is bad art. Of all the things that I see going on in this world, art has to be the best. I am grateful to both of these people for sharing their art and think the world would be a better place if more people did the same. So its all good for me, just in different ways. I won't be buying any prints from either of them, but thats cool cause I am sure plenty of other folks will. I don't find any of the work I saw to be genius, and feel art cannot be rubbish. I would not put either artist at the top of the fine art world, and I don't think they would put themselves there either. Top fine art photographers sell their work for considerably more money than 300 pounds.

[freygr]

The problem is the new artistes given the project to paint, sculpture, or do a classical B&W or color photographic portrait can't do it. They were not trained to produced that kind of work before they were trained for the modern art since.

[StormGirl_LP]

The problem is the new artistes given the project to paint, sculpture, or do a classical B&W or color photographic portrait can't do it. They were not trained to produced that kind of work before they were trained for the modern art since.

I was going to make the same point. IMO, there is such a thing as amaturish art which has little value as art because it was not produced on purpose by someone with skill and talent. I could probably "reporduce" images that look like the urban landscapes I see here. And to my eye, I may feel as if I did okay at it; but I bet I wouldn't pull the wool over a trained eye.

On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes highly trained, skilled artists may produce works of art which may mask their actual skill level. That's where its important to understand why the artist did what they did. If the answer is, "well, hmmph," followed by lots of head-scratching, then probably its okay to dismiss it.

[danic]

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.

I have to agree with you Frog. I thought to myself "Why is he posting these photo's which are grainy, over sharpened, over-saturated?"

Now, I appreciate this is his style and critique-ing him should be relevant to his style (IMO).

It's an interesting topic and something I have thought about in a similar style, regarding the thread "Define your style".

[artbob]

My xti is my paintbrush.

[photophorous]

I can't respond to a thread like this without rambling too, so here goes...

My initial thoughts after seeing those photos was, rubbish, but after consideration, here is the conclusion I've come to. What makes those kind of photos art, as opposed to amateur snapshots, is the explanation that is given. It is not just a pretty picture but a concept and a line of thinking that the artist is trying to portray. We're judging this art from a photographic standpoint, when I'm beginning to think it should be considered multimedia since the explanation is a required component. Purely as a photograph, I'd probably call each of these a failure, because I just don't get it. But when considered as a whole, along with the explanation, it takes on new meaning. But, the venue is also important. A gallery presentation can often be a completely different experience, and the internet is probably not what this artist would consider ideal. So, I'm not sure I've really seen it yet.

This is a very interesting thread and hits on something I've often pondered. How exactly should we define art? My definition is simple. It's any form of expression that's not simply straightforward communication. The harder thing to define is what makes good art. A lot of people seem to judge art by popularity, and I guess reaching a wider audience can be considered a success most of the time. But true success is really dependant on the artists intentions. How does profoundly affecting a small number of people compare to more casually impressing a huge number of people? And what if the artists work is lauded by those who have no understanding of the artists intent, but considered a failure by those who do? It's such a personal thing that trying to judge it is pointless. So, what is good art? Our answers to that question are as varying as our tastes, which drives me to the conclusion that good art is whatever you like.

Mike, here's my advice. Use the visual tools that work best for you. Experimenting is good. But don't force the use of a foreign style just because it has meaning for others. If you can learn to find the meaning in it for yourself, that's great. It's always good to consider the perspective of your intended audience, but you should also consider what might get lost in translation.

Paul

[Wild Wassa]

" ...because I just don't get it."

... because Sir, there is nothing to get. Saez work is not good art it is twee. Tilting a back or front panel on a large format camera to give a limited depth of field is nothing new and when given the excuse for why she did what she did, her excuse is as equally shallow. This person wouldn't know a forest if they got lost in one.

Take for example the forests she has been in? They are as depauperate a forest, for forests, as one will find. She should have said, "These are crummy forests. These forests are sterile. Probably only feral animals live in them, but I'll pretent they are myth buster symbols." If anything she should have writen about the forests' 'missing' understories ... they have always been the forgotten story and equally tragic.

"... 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."

Well you will not see that soil in those forests.

Saez didn't say how commingled she has ever been, I'd like to see her out there and dirty, fighting off ticks and leeches. If she had been truly commingled she would absolutely horrified at what we have done to our prime forests, the old growth forests. Being out there protesting, not being precious about how she understands more than the average john.

I'd like to take her on a walk in a prime forest, maybe into the Queen's Pound in the Wadbilliga Wilderness, photos don't even exist of this place, if she wanted to be original. Then she could caption her work, "After John Ruskin," if she still felt artistic ... She would then give up on her deluded fantasy that she has about myth and mystique and other's lack of understanding of what has raped our prime landscapes.

If looking at Saez's photos busts myths for anyone out there ... could I say? You would do better to be in your underwear, sitting on the lounge getting drunk, watching Nat Geo TV with the front and back doors open, at least you might feel a breeze. Pretentious and shallow academic art is everywhere.

Warren.

[reverberation]

I just visited Christina's site again and looked at her photographs. In doing so I noticed that she is selling inkjet prints for 300 pounds, which I find to be a fair deal. If I had a house built in a modernist style with tall ceilings and large open, light filled spaces I could see hanging #13 on a wall. It is obvious to me that her use of dof is how she is telling her story. By keeping the ground in focus and blowing out the tops of the trees and by highlighting "the spaces between" she is communicating a transitional state, an impermanence that matches her statement quite effectively. I don't have a problem with it, and if I did, I would do my own series on the same or a similar topic. I will say I disagreed with the way her shots were hung in the one gallery photo. It may be that her protest was voiced by thumb-tacking the photos to the wall, but I would rather have seen them framed properly.

[Greg McCary]

Sometimes I think there as many definitions of the word "Art" as they are people. Just like religion. Everyone has their point of view and personal taste.
mtbrian's holga shots are much better than the ones linked to here. Now that's art. No kidding.

[jgredline]

Well, I will go with that ole saying...
''beauty is in the eye of the beholder''