Why is Art Distrusted?

>And, Thomas, you might want to see someone about that persecution >complex you've built up. Both the views you've espoused and the work >you've shown are pedestrian--hardly the stuff that elicits hatred.

 

Attack, attack, attack. My but you are a sweet talker.

 

Yes, the general public is wary of the stuff that artist try to push off on them as art. Pedestrian, how elitist of you to say and yes the conversation has been hateful, even if you want to pretend it hasn't.

 

I'll stick to pedestrian, at least it's honest.

 

There's a reason the general public distrust artists and unfortunately artist don't want to see that the general public sees right through the phoney artsy attitude. But many artists like to wear a mantel of the enigmatic persona.

 

As far as my art, I don't want to photograph like what I see others doing, so I have no intention on changing because someone such as you thinks it's in my best interest to do so. I like what I'm doing even if it doesn't meet with your approval. Isn't that what's important?

 

Maybe I can go to your site and give you my evaluation of your work, would you'd like that? You won't like what I have to say. Does that make you valid and me invalid because you approve of your work and not mine.

 

Maybe you can spend time answering the original question? I'd love to read what you have to say about why the distrust.

Well, let's just conclude that Thomas alone is the unwashed mass he is so enamoured of, and his imaginary line is simply a circle around himself; anyone outside the circle is an elitist.

 

Anyone wanna get a Latte and blow farts at the working man?

No way, dude. I don't want to get into a farting contest with the working man. The working man -knows- how to fart--I don't think anyone will dispute that.

 

Thomas, I don't claim to be an artist--that's not really my decision. If you want to present a scathing review of my work, please do. Maybe it will inspire others to go see how bad it is.

 

I never told you to change your work--you've obviously found a loving audience. As for your art not looking like what other people do, well, it bears a resemblance to my folks' vacation pictures. Not that any of it's bad, but, as I said before, it's not the sort of art that inspires the kind of hatred you seem to think you're facing.

 

And, as I said before, I think people should distrust artists. Artists make up all sorts of crazy stories, draw attention to unsettling stuff, drink too much wine when they should be preparing those final pieces by tomorrow morning--they're simply not to be trusted. One guy I knew would actually take money out of your wallet if you gave him half a chance. Don't trust their motives, don't trust their methods, don't trust their words. They're out to get you.

"They're out to get you."

 

I like it when a person shows themselves to be an irrational person. At least that way I know which door not to look behind. The harder you try to denigrate me, the more you condemn and expose yourself.

 

But the distrust of artists has nothing to do with monetary theft or your need to commit hateful behavior. The distrust has to do with the need of today's photographic artist's to create overly manipulated, overly staturated eye candy. And these photographic examples are being offered up today as lying examples of headache causing fine art. The publics onto this and shake their head is disbelief that people call this stuff art.

 

Your's and a couple of other's conversation towards me is quite typical of the art world and the distain they have for the general public and those that think differently then they do. The distrust is not only well earned but bolstered by comments such as what you and others have made here. You bring disrespect upon yourself and the art world with your insults and you do nothing to breed goodwill among those looking at artists for visual stimulus they can bring into their home.

 

I'll stick with my pedestrian, snapshot style of photography as you choose to describe it. Why? Because it's an honest art. I could easily change my style (mimicry) and become just another phoney. My art's not a phoned up art that's been so manipulated that you don't know what you're looking at anymore. It's not an art with zoom mask adds, narrow FOV or color oversaturation that leaves you wanting more as you peel yourself off the back of your chair from the effects of the overmanipulation. I see these images and they give me a headache because they are so unbelievable in their nature.

 

Comments were made about not everything is pretty. Yes, they're right. People and life are ugly, just as you're an ugly person inside. But I won't go about photographing with the intent of exposing this uglyness as there so much of it around, pretty and pleseant is all I want to photograph.

 

I and those that I photograph for want a respite from the uglyness and the hate that's bantered about as thoughtful daily conversation. I want, in my imagery for there to be a place where a person can go visually to relax. I want my photography to offer the viewer a window of escape from the mundane, hateful world that we have around us.

 

So there's a reason I photograph the way I do and there's a reason the masses have a distrust of those like you, photographically speaking of course.

 

Maybe you can increase your distain for me by increasing the intensity of your choice of words. Why not come right out and speak your mind, without reservation. Let's see how hateful you can become because my converstaion disagrees with how you think things should be.

"They're out to get you."

 

I like it when a person shows themselves to be an irrational person. At least that way I know which door not to look behind. The harder you try to denigrate me, the more you condemn and expose yourself.

 

But the distrust of artists has nothing to do with monetary theft or your need to commit hateful behavior. The distrust has to do with the need of today's photographic artist's to create overly manipulated, overly staturated eye candy. And these photographic examples are being offered up today as lying examples of headache causing fine art. The public's onto this and shake their head in disbelief that people call this stuff art.

 

Your's and a couple of other's conversation towards me is quite typical of the art world and the distain they have for the general public and those that think differently then they do. The distrust is not only well earned but bolstered by comments such as what you and others have made here. You bring disrespect upon yourself and the art world with your insults and you do nothing to breed goodwill among those looking at artists for visual stimulus they can bring into their home.

 

I'll stick with my pedestrian, snapshot style of photography as you choose to describe it. Why? Because it's an honest art. I could easily change my style (mimicry) and become just another phoney. My art's not a phoned up art that's been so manipulated that you don't know what you're looking at anymore. It's not an art with zoom mask adds, narrow FOV or color oversaturation that leaves you wanting less as you peel yourself off the back of your chair from the effects of the overmanipulation hitting you full in the face like a visual baseball bat. I see these images and they give me a headache because they are so unbelievable in their nature.

 

Comments were made about not everything is pretty. Yes, they're right. People and life are ugly, just as you're an ugly person inside. But I won't go about photographing with the intent of exposing this uglyness as there's so much of it around; pretty and pleseant is all I want to photograph.

 

I and those that I photograph for want a respite from the uglyness and the hate that's bantered about as thoughtful daily conversation. I want, in my imagery, for there to be a place where a person can go visually to relax. I want my photography to offer the viewer a window of escape from the mundane, hateful world that we have around us.

 

So there's a reason I photograph the way I do and there's a reason the masses have a distrust of those like you, photographically speaking of course.

 

Maybe you can be a bit more honest in your distain for me by increasing the intensity of your choice of words. Why not come right out and speak your mind, without reservation. Let's see how hateful you can become because my converstaion disagrees with how you think things should be.

 

Today's artists are being dishonest and they're the ones that don't want to see it.

I don't think there is a distrust of art. There is however a distrust of people who want to tell us what is art. In Britain we have so called "Brit art", which features things like <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10904281114,00.html"> this </a> from Damien Hurst (more famous for sharks and sheep in tanks of formaldehyde) and Tracy Emin - famous for an unmade bed as art. <p>

When people produce something which is not nice to look at, evokes no emotion in the viewer and can only be "understood" by people who see the king's new clothes then normal reaction is - that's not art that's rubbish. The labels "art" and "artist" have been hi-jacked, and anyone who lays claim to them is to be viewed with suspicion. <p>

You get conversations like this<br>

Viewer: "This looks like an out of focus picture of paving slabs and feet, and the exposure is a bit off. Was it shot when the film was being loaded ?"<br>

Photographer: "You wouldn't understand: it's art"<br>

Viewer: "Try me"<br>

Photographer: "It's called shoes. It depicts the strugle between humanity and the planet, I would have thought that was obvious"<br>

Viewer: "No. Go on"<br>

Photographer: "It's about how we can not walk on the plannet without shoes and because we wear shoes we can not walk on dirt paths so we have to pave walkways". <br>

Viewer: "So it is a lot of feet then"<br>

Photographer: "The feet are symbolic". <br>

Viewer: "and out of focus"<br>

Photographer: "The fact that you think it should be in focus shows you know nothing about art"<br>

Viewer: "What makes it art ?"<br>

Photographer: "If an artist creates it then it's art".<br>

Viewer: "And who says that a person is an artist"<br>

Photographer: "If they beleive they are, then they are"

<p>

And so on.

"And so on."

 

Bravo! Bravo!

 

The arrogance, deception and distain in the art world is incredible.

 

Thank you for your honest comments on your observations.

 

And to the detractors..... yes I'm pleased as punch because I do agree with the person's comments.

 

Another tactic they like to employ is to discount those that don't think like they do. "Oh." "You're sooooo, pedestrian." :) So much for independent thought.

 

Thank you again for your comment. I thought I was the only one on this forum thinking these people are pulling a sham over our eyes. And the fact people stay so quiet, out of politeness I'm sure, emboldens their behavior.

 

To decry an art piece, as you described, is to make one a target of redicule. That's the artist's way of protecting themselves from the truth. "Why, I'm not turning out trash." "I'm turning out art." "You're just not capable of understanding it."

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

 

Thank you one more time:-)

I looked at your picture. It's very nice, but to me it lacks the Art-ness (to coin a word) of say the work of Mark Klett who also does landscapes.

 

I did a search and checked out some of his images. Nope. Want nothing to do with his sort of art. If you like this sort of art, that's fine but I wouldn't consider going in that direction, should I have the same Mark Klett images in front of me, in a bizillion years. I work purposefully, hard, to not create images such as what I saw.

 

http://www.doubletakemagazine.org/photo/html/klett/

 

It's okay that my images don't work for you, I hope you don't mind if Mark's images don't work for me:)

 

An example of what does work for me.

Thomas,

 

One last question from me today before I go off to the relative's house for the Thursday feast.

 

The last time you were in a museum were there any photographs you saw that you liked, or did you feel everything there was a fraud just put on the walls to prove that the curators and artists were better, more high-minded, than the public? I ask this not to inflame you, but to sincerely find out if anything accepted as Art by the "Art Ruling Class" is interesting to you.

 

Also, I really think you ought to read Wolfe's book, "The Painted Word". In many ways it supports your point of view.

 

My only comment on your view of Klett's work, is you don't seem to want to go beyond the surface of an image and that images must be pretty and/or easily accessible to be satisfying. His re-photographing of the West is an on-going project where he shoots from the exact locations where 19th century photographers stood and then documents the change in the landscape. To me, very interesting. Also, what you can't see on the web site is his prints are very beutiful. But your dislike of the images is certainly OK, because there are some people who don't like Monet, or who love Picasso. There's plenty of stuff for all tastes. It's your, and other's, blanket rejection of Art as labled by the Art world I don't understand. Sure there are some pieces that are confusing and some that are junk. Not everything a curator says is Art is necessarily good. But I enjoy being challenged by new things and try to look at Art on a piece by piece basis instead of simply damning everything.

 

Later... :>}

Caveat: I believe the Art world (whatever you take that to be) is populated by sincere 'artists' (ditto for definition) and chancers of modest ability who attain fame through patronage/luck/gimmicks/shock value.

 

That said. My two cents worth..

 

Who says Art (big A) and Artists have any responsibility toward the general public? The use of taxpayers dollars to fund Art buys the public the right to a viewpoint. However, a civilised society should support artistic endeavour in practical ways even if the work of 'Artists' is at odds with public taste. I would go further and say that it is more important to support Art that challenges public taste. Why? Because tolerance of dissent is the essence of a free society.

 

My personal dislike of what I see on some gallery walls doesn't diminish my willingness to see tax dollars supporting Art.

 

Many posts here seem to equate Art Galleries with Art per se. Isn't what goes on private and public gallery walls merely reflecting a loose consensus among curators as to what constitutes Art. Any institional 'agreements' about what constitutes 'Art' are no more than a socio-historic consensus, periodically redrawn in the name of 'progress' or 'praxis' (depending on your inclinations) by the current generation to reflect contemporary concerns.

 

Is it Art that the public distrusts? I think not. Maybe they are a little suspicious of what they don't fully understand. NOT because they are dumb, but because the concerns of Art are far removed from their usual frames of reference.

 

To allow that suspicion to descend into ridicule and, worse, censorship (via law or funding) puts us on a slippery slope as democratic societies.

 

On a lighter note:

 

This discussion reminds me of my first visit to the Tate Gallery in Liverpool.

 

Two old ladies were bemused by a cast iron scuplture and asked the attendant: "Where is the label explaining this one?" "It has no label love, it's a radiator", he laughed.

 

On my way out I saw them again staring at a large Rothko painting (large purple square with minor colour change on one edge): "That lad's laughing all the way to the bank." one said.

 

Who says the 'unwashed masses' are dumb!

<i>Maybe you can be a bit more honest in your distain for me by

increasing the intensity of your choice of words. Why not come

right out and speak your mind, without reservation. Let's see

how hateful you can become because my converstaion

disagrees with how you think things should be. </i><P>

Fine. Here, without reservation, are my comments:<P>

I am not being hateful, though I am poking fun at the

seriousness with which you seem to take yourself. My comment

on " how things should be" is that people shouldn't trust artists. I

think one job of an artist is to challenge people's perspectives

rather than simply reaffirming what they want to believe. I think

it's incredibly ironic that you're blasting me with all these

accusations that have nothing to do with what I've actually said or

the kind of photographic work I actually do. And I find it

especially ironic that you repeatedly accuse me of hatefully

attacking you when even a cursory look at the posts in this

thread will quickly reveal whose posts are most filled with anger,

denigration, and hatred.

Hi Jake.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful question.

 

The last time you were in a museum were there any photographs you saw that you liked, or did you feel everything there was a fraud just put on the walls to prove that the curators and artists were better, more high-minded, than the public? I ask this not to inflame you, but to sincerely find out if anything accepted as Art by the "Art Ruling Class" is interesting to you.

 

---------------------

 

We don't have much in the way of photographic art in this area. South Bay Area, San Jose, Calif, USA. I do stop in galleries but photography is pretty much ignored. The last photographic exhibition I saw was in the Mexican Heritage Plaza and it was of jazz, nightclub entertainers. Tame compared to that what we see here.

 

Most photography leaves me cold and empty. The images give me nothing. I see lots of images of hate, dirt and scandal. Nothing to refresh the soul, just more soul draining images. Oh, joy, oh joy, death, destruction, hate and abuse, I think I'll go shoot myself:)

 

I want images of something that will want to make me live and enjoy life. Something to engage me in the world, give me hope or give me a place to go relax. I don't want images of something that turns me off to life. Great, another distorted, B&W image of a circus performer. How original. Oh boy, another B&W of trash cans and losers in life. Oh, here honey, here's a pic of a dead junkie. Now there's an image I can get into. How uplifting. Not! Oh boy, here's a shot of protesters burning a flag. Gee, I've never seen that before:) Oh looky honey, two exhibitionist making out with each other. Gee, I didn't know people could do that:) No, I'll pass, the photography that's passed off as art, is a bit too unimaginative and dispressing for my tastes. If I wanted depressing images of social decay, urban blight or pictures of drug infested losers, all I have to do is go downtown and I can see it in person, for myself. It doesn't take a genius to capture these sorts of trite images. The problem, the art world doesn't realize how trite and unimaginative these images are or have become.

 

Here's a photographer that I admire.

 

http://www.imagesofnaturewebstore.com/

 

----------------------------

 

Also, I really think you ought to read Wolfe's book, "The Painted Word". In many ways it supports your point of view.

 

----------------------------

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out.

 

-----------------

 

My only comment on your view of Klett's work, is you don't seem to want to go beyond the surface of an image and that images must be pretty and/or easily accessible to be satisfying.

 

-------------------

 

And why, if I find the images yucky, do I need to pursue them any further? So I can understand his intent and give him approval for his efforts? Even after your explaination, they're still yuck. I work hard not to do images of this kind, so why would I admire something that I purposefully try to avoid? I have this sort of imagery around me on a minute by minute basis. I see this sort of stuff daily. Yuck! Great; uninteresting landscapes and a chainlink fence complete with utility lines:) Yipee! If he wants to do that sort of stuff, cool. I don't find that sort of imagery original, refreshing or interesting.

 

-------------------------

 

His re-photographing of the West is an on-going project where he shoots from the exact locations where 19th century photographers stood and then documents the change in the landscape. To me, very interesting. Also, what you can't see on the web site is his prints are very beautiful. But your dislike of the images is certainly OK, because there are some people who don't like Monet, or who love Picasso.

 

--------------------

 

To me, it's unoriginal, uninteresting, unimaginative and not uplifting in the least. Oh boy, I know, I'll go out and copy other people's work and document the changes, socially that have occured. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

 

I'm sorry that you see my images in such a superficial way. I've worked very hard to lose the teachings of my formal photographic schooling. Only artists accuse my images of having no soul or meaning to them but the general public is very connected with what I do. That's the distrust and disconnect that I write about. Artists don't see this disconnect because they're the trees in the forest as they go around saying, "What forest?".

 

-------------------------

 

There's plenty of stuff for all tastes. It's your, and other's, blanket rejection of Art as labled by the Art world I don't understand.

 

--------------------------

 

Sorry for that confusion. There's no blanket rejection of "Art". There's a saying, "Don't pee on my leg and try telling me it's raining." and that's what many artists have been doing.

 

Some guy recreating somebody else's work to document the changes that have taken place, no disrespect but big woop. Not original thinking. Change is inevitable. Come back in 50-80k years and the Sierra's won't exist, neither will the San Fransisco Bay from erosional silting.

 

Many artists are so out there that they don't know they've gone over the edge. And when someone says, "Wow!", "That person's nuts." Their response is to put the individual down as opposed to trying to understand why somebody would say that in the first place. When someone slams me, I don't discount their attack as I try to evaluate and understand the reasoning of their attack. How else can I know if it's valid or invalid?

 

-------------------------

 

Sure there are some pieces that are confusing and some that are junk. Not everything a curator says is Art is necessarily good. But I enjoy being challenged by new things and try to look at Art on a piece by piece basis instead of simply damning everything.

 

----------------------

 

Nobody is "damning everything". The question revolved around the reasonable distrust but at no time is there a wholesale condemnation going on. Maplethorpe and the cross in the urine? Yes that is rightfully condemned for what it is; hate. Why? He only went after one religious symbol and therein lies the hate and deception. The hate, he focused on one religion, the deception, he stated he was only trying to create controversy.

 

Another disconnect, is this need to be challenged as allowing the viewer to enjoy. I'm challenged each and everyday in all that I do and see, why can't I find a safe harbor to enjoy? Why if someone doesn't want to be challenged, does the artist find a need to insult them by calling them mindless or lazy? What's wrong in making nice and easy your photographic purpose?

 

Two images, same author, me.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1931371&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1915720&size=lg

 

Totally different but the intent is the same, a place for the eyes to go to and relax. One more artsy then the other but the intent and purpose is the same.

 

Hope the above helps clarify any misunderstandings that might have occured and hope you have a pleasent holiday outing.

 

And I find it especially ironic that you repeatedly accuse me of hatefully attacking you when even a cursory look at the posts in this thread will quickly reveal whose posts are most filled with anger, denigration, and hatred.

 

----------------------

 

We'll leave that on the table and you as the final word on your above.

Something I observe generally in art discussions is that modern artist who claim total freedom for the way they express themselves are far more intolerant to those who defend a more traditional way of expression, than vice versa.

 

Again, reason of distrust lies in the fact that Art today is often not done with the mindset of service, but for selfexhibition.

If people today could see working artist doing their work in a way that shows dedication for the course of positive inspiration, then the general public would have more trust.

This has kept my mind ticking over for some hours.

Not all photography, or even all good photography is "artistic", because art is not just about the craft aspects of making a picture (as in painting), but it is about interpreting the world, telling us how the artist sees it, not simply recording it. <br>

Some of the photos Thomas dislikes appear to me to be reportage, not art. OK we know Cartier Bresson's pictures blur the edge, but you can see great pictures in the newspaper which are not art. Interestingly the criticism of his pictures appears to based on the same thing - it is not interpretting but just recording - isn't that the criticism that "just a snap" carries. ?<br>

Art and beauty are not synonyms. Most people would agree that Picaso's Guernica was art. Few people would call it beautiful, but it does connect with people, move them and it does have an artists interpretation.<br>

I don't see anything wrong with a picture which needs explanation to get the maximum effect. Guernica being a case in point. For another example do a google image search for rossetti beatrix - and you'll get D.G. Rossetti's painting Beata Beatrix. It looks fantastic (and the last time I went to a Gallery I saw one of the versions of it) - but if you know what the sundial means, why the red bird is there and what the flower is about, who the figures in the background are etc you get more out of it.<br>

Art expresses the artist's take on the world, but it's not complete until it connects with the viewer - the idea of the artist <i>Serving</i> the viewer is wrong, but if the work it doesn't connect that then it has failed in its purpose as art. The Mark Klett stuff is a case in point. If you don't know why he took some of the photos for that project they're just rubbish. If you understnad what his project is about it may be worthwhile but it's doesn't have anything in and of itself which connects with people.

James

 

You're beautiful. Why? Your below.

 

-------------------

 

Some of the photos Thomas dislikes appear to me to be reportage, not art. OK we know Cartier Bresson's pictures blur the edge, but you can see great pictures in the newspaper which are not art. Interestingly the criticism of his pictures appears to based on the same thing - it is not interpretting but just recording - isn't that the criticism that "just a snap" carries. ?

 

---------------------

 

My below is a thank-you to you and at no time do my comments reflect on you as I muse in a general fashion. You have been the most honest person I've met in the art world. You've lifted a weighty burden from my chest as I had no idea these people were so lost. So please my following comments are not directed at you but only at those these words apply to.

 

Wow! I had no idea, after forty years of photography that I was such a law breaker. Smiling as I write. I've shot weddings, done portraits and landscapes all these years and had no clue the photographic community had become so jaded and closed minded that failing to interpret (obfuscate) what's clearly in front of you had become criminal behavior deserving of redicule.

 

Oooooh myyyyy God!

 

The general public has good reason to distrust art based upon what I just read. What I read was that if the artistic photographer isn't being a phony, then they're not a "real" artist.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No wonder the general public doesn't trust artists, they're lying throught their teeth to the public. If you're not obfuscating the subject matter, then you're not an artist. What a load of psudeo intellectual disengenouous cr@P.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

 

We're talking insecurity of the highest degree. If I don't hide, I'm not real.

 

You phonies are soooooo busted.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

 

Well there's the distrust folks, in a nut shell.

 

Hope ya all have a wonderful Thanksgiving, where ever you are.

 

James, again..... A huge Thank-You!<div></div>

This has turned into quite the contentious conflict but I would like to insert a couple of comments that kind of go back to the original post. I think the biggest problem for most people is the inability to define art in terms satisfying even to themselves. I had an art professor in college that I thought had a pretty good definition of art: "Art is art for art's sake and that alone." In other words it is a creation soley meaningful unto itself, lacking any and all function and purpose other than to present itself. Yes, it sounds very ambiguous but that is the nature of art as is demonstrated by the number of people who argue over whether something is "art". But people in general can't come to terms with an adequate definition of "art" which I believe leaves most people indifferent and ultimately distrustful particularly when an enormous price tag is attached to said art.

 

As far as "dumbing down of society" as a cause, what makes you believe this distrust just started? Artists have fought this distrust and disbelief from the beginning of time. If people at some point understood and "trusted" art and artists then the very idea of the "struggling artist" would be an invention of recent event. No, dumbing down hasn't gone on, it had always been there: a basic misunderstanding of what art is....and a general lack of interest in general to come to any undertanding.

"Art is art for art's sake and that alone."

 

Not to be agumentative but your prof knows that you can't define a word by use of the word. I expect better from a professor:-)

Regarding "...tolerance of dissent is the essence of a free society."

 

I would not say it is the essence, but certainly a hallmark of a free society.

 

-Promotion- of dissent, however, is not. That is what happens when tax dollars pay for dung in the exhibition halls of my (and your) museums. You can have your dung. You can exhibit your dung. But not on my dime. The government does not exist to promote dissent or, for that matter, blatant offensiveness.

 

If government is going to support the arts (and we can argue the importance of that in another thread), then I expect it to support art that sticks to generally accepted standards of decency. Everyone reading this thread knows that dung in plexiglass doesn't fit that definition. If you want to offend or disgust me, do it on your own money, and leave mine out of it.

 

I just had an idea: An opt-in checkbox on the yearly 1040 form indicating whether or not you support the funding of the NEA, much like the presidential campaign checkbox. Congress could establish a "per-capita" NEA tax amount. The number of checked NEA boxes multiplied by the per-capita value would be the NEA's budget for the year.

 

And if it worked, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting could be next...

Firstly, what do we mean by the term 'art'? Art, to most people, means Michelangelo, da Vinci or Titian. This is what they have been told is art. But is it? The Sistine Chapel is stupendous, but it was a commission by the then Pope for his ultimate self-glorification. Renaissance 'art' was directed to towards the glorification of priests and princes. In the final analysis, Micehlangelo was simply painting the Pope's ceiling. However, that being said, it has a significance in light of the cultural, social and economic milieu of the day.

 

Every year in Britain this is an eruption of bile at the awarding of the Turner Prize. The tabloid press have a field day with shrieking headlines and much self-righteous harrumphing. The problem is now that 'art' has become a self-referential world inaccessible to the general public. It is a private joke known only to those in the charmed circle.

 

The gallery system and the major collectors compound this problem. An artist is identified as being the potential 'next-big-thing'. His or her work is promoted by the galleries and collectors are advised to invest. They do and the work then becomes 'collectable' because a 'big name in the art world' has spent money. Others then jump on the band-wagon and the band-wagon starts rolling. The galleries, collectors and 'artists' conspire, as they must, to keep the band-wagon rolling and prices rising to protect the investment.

 

Photography is often dismissed by many, even some art critics, as being 'not art'. This is a narrow view and demonstrates that for many there is still confusion between 'art' and craft. The former is often thought to arise epiphenomenally from the latter. To people who so think I recommend a reading of Clarence John Laughlin's thoughts on the nature of photography. There is as much craft in photography as in painting, sculpture or music. But craft in itself, though necessary, is not sufficient. The level of craft must be sufficient to the image - that is sufficient to its purpose, to the message it is to convey. But craft alone may well be sterile.

 

However, craft is not to be dismissed. The practise of craft, even for its own sake, is a perfectly valid expression of photography. Edward Weston's pepper is such an example, as indeed is the work of Sudek. The subject matter is mundane, its rendering sublime. It is, as much as anything, a celebration of the medium of photography.

 

Perhaps we should define 'art' as anything which is produced for its own sake. The nature of 'art' and photography's place in it is is a contentious issue which will continue to rage back and forth. As Wittgenstein said, "The purpose of philosopy is not to give answers but to clarify questions". By reflecting on these issues the content and substance of our photography should benefit.

Everybody know what art is. If they didn't, it couldn't be created.

 

Art is anything that's made by a person to stimulate the visual.

 

Now if someone wants to expand upon that concept that's fine. If they want to create subcategories, such as preforming art, cool.

 

But everybody knows that art is the creation of something visual to stimulate the mind. Just because people have purposefully blurred the lines, doesn't mean that the intent and purpose doesn't exist.

 

It's sort of the pornography defense. "I can't define it but I sure know it when I see it." Everybody knows what pornogoraphy is but nobody wants to define it because then pictures of naked ladies will have had boundries put on them, sensibilities, and the little perves won't be able to make their sick, hateful images of women anymore, a la Larry Flynt.

 

Art's the same way. If you define art, then the social anarchists won't be able to push their bastarizations off on the unsuspecting public. This desire for a lack of boundries is why art won't be defined: not can't but won't. It can easily be defined but once you do, then it has boundries and we can't have that. I'm not drawing a moral conclusion here, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

Watch the art world scream bloody murder when someone decries a work such as the hateful Maplethorpe putting crucifixes into urine. When people do art for hateful and selfish reasons, it loses the protective mantle of art and becomes, to me, nothing more then hate speech; just in a visual form. But the anarchist applaudes this in your face behavior. To me, it's not art, it's hate, clear, pure and simple. I expect to be slamed because I don't defend this sort of behavior and decry this behavior as an affrontery and it's an invalid use of the term art. That's my opinion and remember, decent is a two way street.

 

This lack of a willingness to define art is so artistic anarchy can prevail. Nothing more and hence more obfuscation and distrust is the by product of this childish, don't hem me in behavior.

 

So since artists think peeing on someone's leg, the viewer, who they want (viewers are needed or don't show your work) but claim they don't serve, is applauded, this disengenuous behavior rightfully gains both earned disrespect and distrust.

 

Artists behavior is not enigmatic.

 

The viewing public, isn't stupid and they know when they're being conned. Many artists, not all, on the other hand are so egotistical that they won't acknowledge that they've been busted for their BS and so they go on pretending that they're "all that", when all they're doing is living a lie and a life of denial.

check your facts, kid.

Why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

Ask 100 people for their definition of art and you'll likely get 100 different answers. Somebody has to define it for the masses and that's where critics, curators and scholars come in. It's those that are the most serious about art that stand up to espouse their definitions the most and often it's way over the head of the average, or even above-average person. We tend to distrust what we are incapable of understanding.

If there's something that I've said that is wrong, then why the subterfuge. Just put the correction on the table for all, including me to see.

 

How I see your behavior below;

 

Why put a correction out on the table when I can create discourse by holding the correction next to my chest so I can look smarter then the next person.

 

Your behavior is not unique and is not original in it's intent; it's childish.

 

Yes I have read about Maplethorpe and only live a few miles from San Francisco. And it's expected to have my comments dismissed as a rant because that's the best you can do. Why? Because if you were to explore Maplethorpe's behavior/lifestyle was, it is patently clear what his intent was, otherwise he wouldn't have gone there. His behavior dovetailed nicely into his lifestyle of social anarchy and the social values of where he lived.

 

Maplethorpe, his world and the controversy he used his noteriety to stir up, was very understandable. Why allow social sensibilities stand in his way. Let's crush the value system so his values could prevail. I understand what he was doing as do millions and millions who don't stand in lock step with the art world.

 

So no, my comments aren't in error as I freely acknowledge the genesis of his imagery. But now the game is to decry the critic because he doesn't agree with you so the pushing of social boundries can be further moved, so more people won't have values instilled on them. Next we have NAMBLA, bank robbers and family group sex advocates demanding their acceptance. We have the junkies and prostitues that want their day of unabashed behavior acceptance as the beat goes on. Sort of like the ending scene in "White Mischief"

 

And your decrying of my comments states clearly how one way the art world wants things to be. No give and take. No acceptance of countering views. It's either the art world's way or the highway.

 

Yepper, the art world's an enigma all right.

 

This all dovetails neatly into the distrust of the art world and why.

 

I'll be looking forward to reading your post correcting me on how I'm wrong about Maplethorpe's hateful behavior.