Is photo-art really in dire peril?

Alot has been written on here about the death of photographic art

and in some cases I can only describe what I read as hysteria,

especially those who envision a conspiracy. But is this really the

case and if yes why are people not doing anything about it other

than complaining? Rather than dredge up material from other people's

opinions in numerous essays I'd rather just describe how I see it

myself.

 

Personally I see no great conspiracy to stagnate art, especially

photographic art. Number one, conspiracies amongst people

geographically and temporally separated is impossible. It's hard

enough to have a few people keep a secret let alone thousands.

 

You also have to look at the fact that art is the area that is

allegedly under control. Anybody who has looked at art even

superficially will realize that art is, by it's nature, all about

freedom of expression. Most artists I know are almost paranoid about

being controlled and especially by large organizations or

institutions.

 

Finally, we are in an age of unprecedented accessibility to media.

The internet and digital printing has provided the means for people

to get their work out without relying on galleries or museums. It

has also provided a fast, expansive network for people of the same

ideology to meet and organize. Artists no longer need toil in

isolation. So, for me, if anybody is really that worried about the

art world then they should be using what is available to them to do

something about it. To change the face of art to what their own

vision. I don't see this happening. The internet has also allowed us

to have a good look out there at what galleries are actually showing

and what I see is a huge mixture of styles and genres. I don't see

the conceptualists taking over as some believe. I see a mix of

everything. I think the photoart world is better than ever.

Paranoia. That is the answer. Currently photography is in a golden age. The technology is mature, and the social side of photography (and many other interest areas) are creating prospering communtites that were unimagineable 20 years ago. The internet has made it possible to form communties based upon interest without regard for geography. This is creating more communities with diverse interests than were once imagined. Those who worry about the death of creativity need to put down their beers, pick up their remotes, and turn off their idiot boxes and think for themselves a wee bit.

 

just one opinion,

 

Sean

In 1984 Weston Naef, on behalf of the Getty Museum, made the single largest purchase of photographic images in the history of the medium. That purchase rocketed photography, as art, into he consciousness of the main stream. Since then , the medium has moved far beyond it�s traditional beginnings. Although, visionaries such as Sam Wagstaff (former curator of 20th Century Art at the Detroit Institute of Arts and Robert Mapplethorpe�s partner) were building major photography collections, photography was not a true part of the art world. Since then, photography in all it�s forms has advanced in content and technology by leaps and bounds.

 

More people/artists than ever are using photographic tools to create their visions. The Internet has allowed for the greatest access to photographic images in history...certainly inspiring many to pick up a camera. If one searches the net, or goes to galleries and museums, they will see a plethora of breakthrough original and inspiring images. That, of course, assumes an open mind.

 

I�m tired of hearing criticism and a damning of the medium because someone is offended by "Piss Christ", or because today�s Avant-garde doesn�t coincide with their narrow vision of what makes for an acceptable image.

 

While there is a small world or galleries and museums that wield influence over what is seen, to think there is a conspiracy to exclude is ridiculous. It�s a market that lives on fresh talent.

 

If one doesn�t want to be part of that world, then fine.

Do what you want. But, if one is upset because they�re excluded, then perhaps they have to look at their work in a more objective way.

 

I have been involved with creative people for most of my adult life. Generally, what I have found is real talent rises to the top whether it�s a writer, an artist, an actor, whatever. Are there visionaries who are ahead of the curve and lead a frustrated existence? Sure. But they are a minority.

 

To end this mini-diatribe, I think there has never been a more exciting time for photography. Creativity is running rampant. What could be better?

Very well put Jake. No matter how hard some try to embitter my opinion I get excited every time I go gallery hopping, look up one of the many internet lists, or buy another photography book. It's a great time to be involved in this area.

My own assessment concurs with Andy's. The local "art scene"

in Nashville is flourishing, and local artists are very supportive of

one another (even across disciplines and genres).

Andy wrote just the other day to Thomas G: "I think you should just put down the books, quit worrying about the art world and go out and enjoy the wonderfulness of photography. Have some fun with photography why don't you. I know I do".

 

So why are you worried about it? according to the advice you gave Thomas G you should go out and have fun and forget it. Photography will be around as long as people enjoy it and do it. Really it's more like are humans going to be around? Will we evolve properly and make the proper strides forward peacefully before we all reach destruction ourselves at the hands of megalomaniacs. If we're gone photography is gone. Just a thought, not trying to start a rant on politics or arguments on non-photo.net issues.

Annie L. of ring-lit portrait fame put a (bad, in my opinion) book

out a while ago about the olympics, in it she printed a bit of

humorous advice from her teacher:

"Shut your snapper and Snap your shutter!"

 

We're in no danger here, mediocrity speaks for itself. Besides,

unless you're a poser, you're doing this for the love of it.

 

The only contention I'll bring to this discussion is my

unhappiness with the gradual dumbing-down of the medium. As

you observe, digital media has quickened the pace, reduced the

amount of work involved by leaps and bounds, and allowed work

to be seen on line that would never reach a gallery, but is that a

good thing? This isn't a war of attrition, what's the hurry?

The only comparison I can make is to Watercolor:

One can produce a finished painting in just minutes, but unless

the brush is in the hands of a seasoned master or a natural

genius, the result is no more than a colorful place-mat.

Since anyone with $5000 to throw at digital equipment is now

a 'photographic artist', there's a lot more place-mats out there.

They don't pose any danger to serious work, but they do subtly

lower the bar.<div></div>

"I think the photoart world is better than ever."

 

I agree 100%. Oh, happy day!

That has got to be one of the funniest pictures I've ever seen.

Yeah, I love that pic too. Whose is it?

I can't believe our favorite curmudgeon has not yet weighed in on this thread. But, it's still early.

Um, who's your favourite curmudgeon?

Harvey, if you've got a few hours to kill see the following thread, which is still going strong into it's fourth day:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Oo9

Well, from the responses I see on here there appears to be no problem. The majority of the people here realize how good we have it. I'm sure at least a few people will say that we are brainwashed, blind or stupid but I don't believe you need to be a brain surgeon to see how things really are.

 

PS when I stated in another thread to just go out and have fun etc. it was 100% sarcasm. It was directed at a well-known curmudgeon.

yes.... go home everybody ... there's nothing to see ... go home to your families ... :o

I am at home. Turned on my computer so's I could feast my eyes on bunnies with pancake hats. LOL! Alex beat me to the watercolour analogy. Just think of the marvellous botanical studies done by Beatrix Potter, better known for cutesie bunny pictures and stories. At the time, her plant portraits were not taken seriously because she was a woman. It's all a matter of fad opinion. We're currently bombarded with new technology which many people are taking advantage of, and all showing off what they're doing with it. The good images, the true "art" will survive no matter how they're made.

i agree... photographic art is fine.

Well the prevailing opinion is that photo-art is doing just fine.

whats photo art?

Ye Ol' Flap Jack Rabbit!

Hey Is there anyway you could send me a print of that?

Here's a link: this guy in Japan evidently really got off putting

thing on his rabbits head. No text, just ???????'s

 

http://sokaisha.hp.infoseek.co.jp/020820/020820.htm

The advent of online photo art galleries has certainly "leveled the playing field" for photographers who are unknown versus those photographers who have well established gallery connections. For example, one of my own images <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1586004">Closeup of Flower of the "Air Plant" (Tillandsia)

</a> has been viewed almost three thousand times in the past year on photo.net. I don't believe that, had the image been on display in a venue such as an art gallery, that so many people would have taken the trouble of examining it.

I think that the photo-art which you are discussing is indeed in peril, primarily because it is stale and outdated. As Generations change, people want to see something different and more contemporary. Visiting galleries that smell and where the framing of the image is often more important than the image itself is passe.

John Falkenstine what would you suggest to please the new generations? Hopefully it's not going to be like Hollywood, which just increases the 'flash' of their movies in order to hide the same old, lame stories.

What, and would you rather see yet one more boring severely grainy 20x30 platinum print of a leaf where it is called fine are for the printing process and the grain (and perhaps the fancy frame).

 

Whereas, I think some of the finest compositional work in the world comes out the the "flash factory" (and a lot of junk too). But when it comes to a refined and idealized viewpoint I have never noted the work of a single photographer that can compare with what comes out of Hollywood. Albeit, some of that magic of cinematography comes from the choreographing of many people through a symphony of clean and idealized compositions that cannot be achieved in stills. And the marriage of story and image that "Hollywood" achieves is something that I have never noted photographers achieving either. There are many great things a photographer could learn from "Hollywood" without mimicing it. There are many narrative techniques that cinema has pioneered and created as recognizable visual cues in the collective conscious that would not work without captions if cinema had not driven them home many times.

 

But this is not to say everything "Hollywood" cranks out is great. But it is not all trash and flash either.

 

As for older genres dying, that happens when the people who lived in the world where those iconic styles had visual meaning begin dying off. The world evolves. The only constant in nature is change.