Cliché

<p>Serrano has been described by a person who knows him as a "horse-hair shirt wearing Catholic."</p>

<p> Scientifically, information theory wise and quantitavely, we are a subset of the universe, not the other way around. If the universe is within us, in a scientific sense, Cosmologists are wasting boatloads of money looking outwardly when they could just study one of us etherized upon a table. Energy-wise, we're not made of Dark Energy nor Dark Matter, which comprise the better part of the universe (90+%). The only thing I can think of that fits your claim would be the notion of the sometimes simple equations that are reiterated to form very complex fractal forms. Many Cosmologists suspect that the universe we are in is of a fractal nature. In that construct, Phylo's statement would be correct.</p>

<p> Phylo may not see any sacrilege in that picture, but a lot of people have. I was born into a Catholic family, and it is easy for me to understand why it was deemed sacrilegious.</p>

<p> I also think the title is an integral part of this picture. I think I understand what you are typing, even if it differs from my own thoughts.</p>

<p> Serrano's overall strategies are quite sophisticated, his tactics less so, but from the work, and what I know of Serrano, I would not say his intentions were "lowly".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Serrano examples are interesting. The discus thrower and cross can be considered clichés, but the treatment (media approach) is original. Even the young student of the Ontario College of Art, arrested 5 or so years ago for vomiting on a painting in the museum collection, was reacting to cliché approaches in art in what he no doubt considered an original manner. Cosmology, theories of the universe (scientific or not), energy versus matter - none of that is really very important in our human imagination and choice of what is cliché and what is not.</p>

<p>"reaction" is deceit. <br>

Serrano is just one more in the centuries-old line of anti-Catholic hacks... he pushed the right publicity buttons, having connected effectively with powers-that-be in NEA. North American galleries that periodically display "Hispanic art" almost always hang work more trenchant than Serrano's...it's a tradition, like Velvet Elvis.</p>

<p>... incidentally, I don't mean to defend Catholicism...I don't like religion in any form. But Serrano is a boring pissant :-) (play on words...a piss ant is a miniscule ant)<br>

Various giants have taken on the church over the centuries, Mark Twain, James Joyce and Salvador Dali are obvious examples. Serrano is a nobody who happens to have amused a certain crowd from a certain era.</p>

<p>Shakespeare:<br>

Sonnet 59 LIX<br>

<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p > If there be nothing new, but that which is<br /> Hath been before, how are our brains beguil'd,<br /> Which labouring for invention bear amiss<br /> The second burthen of a former child.<br /> Oh that record could with a backward look,<br /> Even of five hundred courses of the sun,<br /> Show me your image in some antique book,<br /> Since mind at first in character was done,<br /> That I might see what the old world could say<br /> To this composed wonder of your frame;<br /> Whether we are mended, or where better they,<br /> Or whether revolution be the same. <br /> Oh sure I am the wits of former days,<br /> To subjects worse have given admiring praise.</p>

<p> </p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" width="612">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2"><em><br /> </em></td>

<td width="3%"> </td>

<td width="43%"><br /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<div></div>

<p>Arthur: Sorry to have taken a little detour about a particular point that Phylo made that wasn't entirely on-topic, but was important in a Philosophy of Photography forum.</p>

<p>Phylo: I ran across this comment by Serrano, which sheds light on his intention.</p>

<p>"I have always felt that my work is religious, not sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it. The best place for <em>Piss Christ</em> is in a church. In fact, I recently had a show in Marseilles in an actual church that also functions as an exhibition space, and the work looked great there. I think if the Vatican is smart, someday they'll collect my work. "</p>

<p> One thing that I have always found interesting about his work is that the <em>Piss Madonna and Child </em> never got any attention. Hmm.</p>

<p> Serrano is a successful provocateur. Prints of Piss Christ have sold for over $200,000 USD. Serrano's work is in practically every major contemporary Art Museum in the world, and in several top private collections. He's had more than 100 international solo shows, including a recent retrospective that traveled throughout Europe and the USA for two years. He's had scores of articles written about him in major magazines. Like him or not, he is a success by any tangible measure.</p>

<p> "Nobody" ? "Pissant" ? Anti-Catholic hack? Not in the real world. What would that make the more successful PN members by comparison? How many have ever sold a print for $200,000? How many have ever made that from their art photography in a year? Or have works in dozens of the world's top museum collections? Had articles in all the major art magazines? </p>

<p>My guess is a big, fat <em>zero. </em> Denigrating others is cheap and easy. Walking the walk a little harder.</p>

<p>Back to cliche's. Here's a guy who has taken the "decisive moment" cliche' to a new place conceptually by digitally collaging behavioral typologies of many subjects and integrating them into one frame:</p>

<p>http://www.peterfunch.com/series.html?XMLload=xml/BABELTALES.xml&first_img=0&win_name=BABELTALES</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But Luis. I hope you understand that Mr Serrano has never sold any of his so called artworks for mentioned amount of money in literal sense. In the history of art there are number of examples of artists could not sell any of their work during the life only to become very well known, popular and, well, expencive ones late on.</p>

<p>Thanks Luis for the text, I saw a documentary about Serrano a couple of years ago, much of his work comes from his religious thinking / contemplating and yes, it's obvious that in his " Piss Christ " photograph Serrano isn't making any anti-religious statement, nor necessarily a pro-religious one but if he was completely non-religious he wouldn't have made such a photograph, wouldn't even have considered it. The power of the photograph as an image however gets lost in the " controversy " that was / maybe still is around it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Cosmology, theories of the universe (scientific or not), energy versus matter - none of that is really very important in our human imagination and choice of what is cliché and what is not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is very and extremely important to me, you know, me being a consciousness in that universe and vice versa. Cliché's are not something that can be picked up and taken into a closed room or put into a box.</p>

<p>Sorry for the small confusion, Phylo, but my remark related to "photographic clichés". It was not related to the science of physics and chemistry, cosmology or to other philosophical questions and subjects that are mainly related to phenomena other than photography.</p>

<p>Ilia claimed: "... Mr Serrano has never sold any of his so called artworks for mentioned amount of money in literal sense."</p>

<p>Prove it.</p>

<p>You obviously are clueless as to how well arts sales are documented. You should subscribe to any of a number of sites that give you detailed sales records. Many living photographers do quite well (and make a decent living) through print sales. Mr. Serrano's morgue series have recently sold in the range of $ 16,000 to $37,000. The lowest recorded sales prices I see for him run about $1500. And Serrano is not the only living photographer to draw these numbers.</p>

<p>Cindy Sherman sold a single print for two <em>million twenty-two thousand USD </em> at auction @ Christie's in 2007<em>. </em> Ten years ago, she was averaging $30,000/print.</p>

<p>William Eggleston has sold in the $37,000-158,000 range @ auction in the past two years.</p>

<p>Loretta Lux brings down around $9,000 for the 11x11's, $225,000 for the 20x20's and larger.</p>

<p>Contrary to what you might hear, some living artists are eking a living off their work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, attacking those who recognize Serrano's hack knock-off commerciality, which you transparently admire at every level, is a little to obvious as a tactic.<br>

Serrano has never said or done anything new. If you think otherwise "prove it." Alleged prices aren't enough.</p>

<p>Arthur, yes I understand.Still, for me, I can't logically seperate the act / concept of photography or the viewing of it to anything related outside of photography. I can't detach it from other phenomena, with the biggest of those phenomena perhaps being the universe we're in and the strangely inspiring ( and yes sometimes completely useless ) questions / answers that it evokes since mankind. So also strictly in context with photography ( with all of it's cliché's and everything ) those other philosophical questions and phenomena seem unavoidable to me, inescapable. They are "very important" like breathing is "very important" even though we mostly aren't aware of it, until we really start thinking about it. If photography does anything at all, it's that it makes me start thinking about it, feeling even more surrounded with all those phenomena other than photography itself. And isn't that what photography is all about, to deal with those phenomena, outward and inward ? The photographic cliché, the icon, the universal symbol, helps us to reveal ( conceal ? ) those phenomena even further. </p>

<p>No, Luis. I can't prove it and by same token you can't prove it otherwise.</p>

<p>Common understanding of finacial aspects of practice in Western world is enough to figure out that no artist can sell his work independently for more then some 1200USD or the equivalent amount with legal bookkeeping record and money transfer. In reality the art market trade has been done by dealers who own the objects legaly. It means they have it previously acquire from artist on agreed conditions. The fact that someboby at public auction indicated he will pay mentioned price does not necessery means the actual transaction shell be completed. And even it will the artist has no part in this business at all.</p>

<p>What makes you think I am clueless in this mattes? Your statment is unfounded and impolite. Aren't you trying to pose as the one and ony who know how these things are?</p>

<p> Ilia, you claim a vast, world-wide conspiracy of fraud of major dimensions involving tens of thousands of people operating in synchrony exists, but haven't put forth one shred of proof of any kind. I mean <em>nothing</em> except for your own typing.</p>

<p> There have been frauds at auction of selling fakes; stolen works; on many internet sites/auctions for not delivering work; price-fixing upwards (on reserves) by major auction houses, etc. But I don't see sales price fraud, not on the overstated side, since they have to pay <em>taxes on those figures, and the buyers, commissions.</em> Appraisers may overstate prices, but auction sales bring them back in line.</p>

<p> The point is precisely that I am <em>not </em> the only one who knows how these things are. Tons of people do. This is not privileged information, but open and common knowledge. Records, statements, reviews exist in the real world. What is not extant is support for your position.</p>

<p>Where are the other people (John doesn't count) supporting your position?</p>

<p> Perhaps one of you ought to start a "Serrano Sucks" thread? This is my last comment on this sideboard.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis. Please realise I do not claim anything on this thread.<br>

Conspiracy? Fraud?<br>

Since when you started to measure people in tons?<br>

People do not pay taxes on figures they do on actual incomes or act of purchase.<br>

What makes you assume I hold any position in this case?<br>

I have nothing against your presumed admiration for mentioned artist as well.</p>

<p>It's interesting to see how obsessed some of us are with money, equating it to worth.</p>

<p>Studies have been done repeatedly, confirming that poor people think coins are physically larger than middle class people think...obsession with his alleged prices probably explains why some of us think Serrano is less of a hack than the marginally surviving Mexican artists he emulates.</p>

 

<p>The word</p>

<h1>'Cliché'</h1>

<p>(klee-shay)<br>

is itself clichéd.<br>

The word 'cliche'<br>

(klich-ee) is not.<br>

At least, not yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=408763"><em>Randall Ellis</em></a><em> </em><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 06, 2009; 12:37 p.m.</em></p>

<em></em>

<p><em>My personal policy on this is, well, this: I don't try to duplicate the ideas of others, but if my own vision covers subjects that the vision of others have already covered, so long as I am working in my own vision I don't give a rats you-know-what.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Randall, that sums it up for me. Also, sometimes the cliche IS the point.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 12, 2009; 01:03 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Just to throw in a terrible cliché: if you can't see it, you can't take a photo of it....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, infrared films will solve that dilemma, as will an infrared filter or the removal of the IR blocker in the digital body.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em></p>

<p>Inspiration makes clichés as well as "novel" interesting. The inspired artist does so. We all need to be or feel inspired. I didn't read the whole thread, Fred, simply the beginning. Just wanted to say thanks for making us think. I don't know whether somebody has already quoted that famous sentence from Picasso: " Il y en a qui cherchent, moi je trouve". I often think about that sentence.</p>

<p>Today's (Sunday Sept 6) New York Times "Arts & Leisure" page 1 & 4 regarding Jude Law, actor (Hamlet on Broadway) re Shakespears "cliches" :<br>

"When you're faced with "To be or not to be, in the first rehersal, there's a sense of "Oh, God, I'm stepping into the world's greatest cliche."<br>

"Without sounding like a naff old actor, I'm Hamlet, and what a great way to question life and death...the reason they're so famous is because they're beautifully written and inncredibly powerful pieces of dialog. Never underestimate the power of those lines. "<br>

"Our language is littered with words and phrases from this play, and we use them because we have not, in 400years, founda a better way of putting things."<br>

He does use "our language," which neatly covers most of America as well as the British commonwealth (which includes India). Lots of people.<br>

IMO the only comparable writer to Shakespeare may be James Joyce, and I don't think any philosopher, mystic, or academic is comparably clued-in to human experience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Today's (Sunday Sept 6) New York Times "Arts & Leisure" page 1 & 4 regarding <strong>Jude Law, actor (Hamlet on Broadway) re Shakespear's "cliches" :</strong></p>

<p>"When you're faced with "To be or not to be, in the first rehersal, there's a sense of "Oh, God, I'm stepping into the <strong>world's greatest cliche."</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

"Without sounding like a naff old actor, <strong>I'm Hamlet</strong>, and what a great way to question life and death...the reason they're so famous is because they're beautifully written and incredibly powerful pieces of dialogue. Never underestimate the power of those lines. "<br>

<strong>"Our language is littered with words and phrases from this play, and we use them because we have not, in 400years, found a a better way of putting things."</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

He does use "our language," which neatly covers most of America as well as the British commonwealth (which includes India). Lots of people.</p>

<p>IMO the only comparable writer to Shakespeare may be James Joyce, and <strong>I don't think any philosopher, mystic, or academic is comparably clued-in to human experience.</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>It all begins, for the mind, in repetition.</p>

<p>From repetition, slowly, patterns emerge, are formed, are registered. Eventually, we have memories.</p>

<p>A cliche is a memory you're tired of having.</p>

<p>A cliche is always ... you.</p>

<p>Creativity comes from within, not without. Instead of trying to be something else, trying to find out who you are perhaps works better. There is no cliche, there's only you.</p>