The vacuum?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by samstevens, Sep 8, 2021.

  1. The question really was not about whether you like Eggleston or not, but thanks for the asshole opinion. :):):)
     
  2. "The big cheese curator John Szarkowski made him."
    I would think Szarkowski would point out that it was Eggleston's work that made him - and John's job and special talent was to recognize the vision as significant.
    As for being in a position of being the big cheese at MOMA (as were his predecessors) allowing him to bring that vision to so many... well, that is kind of how it works for many artists. Any artist of renown has a pivotal point if not a few. And the show at MOMA certainly plays as pivotal in the history of Eggleston. And it is a big one but not his first exhibit and notable contact. We should keep in mind that friends urged Eggleston to go to Szarkowski. ...his friends Winogrand, Friedlander and Arbus also benefited by the New Documents 67 show at MOMA and felt Eggleston was a fit for Szarkowski.
    There is also a long list that give credit to Eggleston as an influence on their work.
     
    samstevens likes this.
  3. Yes.

    And that is in harmony with Eggleston’s work itself. One doesn’t cancel the other out but rather the work and the pivotal moments support each other.
     
  4. It strikes me that opinions and taste are not the problem. It’s when an opinion gets supported or accompanied by situational matters external to the art itself that things can more easily go awry.

    I think opinions can be stated as a matter of taste and left at that and they can also be accompanied by subjective reasons which can flesh out the opinion. But when we accompany those opinions with various and especially unsubstantiated narratives or downright conspiracies external to the art, the opinions become more suspect as perhaps being less genuine and more agenda driven. This can mirror some of the problems with criticism itself. Criticism can be more or less genuine and more or less agenda driven as well.

    A negative opinion of Eggleston can be both stated and accepted at face value. No problem. But, to then accompany that opinion with claims that it was not his work that was responsible for his success seems to be wanting to tie that opinion to a narrative as some kind of justification for either the opinion, the narrative, or both.
     
  5. " Art is about human reactions. How history views it, how curators, critics, and gallery owners view." Sam

    The operative words are "how curators, critics, and gallery owners view" The Omega and Alpha.

    Art is investment, for those who have the financial means. That Art ,will always be a good investment, and will always be, as the establishment will ensure so.

    What has joe public got to do with it, other than to told that it's Art.
     
  6. There is art. And there is art appreciation.
    Both have a lot to do with Joe Public. No worries there.
    In both fields, as in just about any field of human activity, there are far too may would-be's trying to peddle their own misconceptions to others as if those and they were something other people should take note of.
    And as in just about any field of human activity, there are also people who spent a lot of their time and effort trying to understand what is going on. The depth of knowledge and understanding most (granted: not all) curators, critics and gallery owners (and yes: artists too) have is way beyond the imagination of those would-be's.
    You rarely see or hear anything in fora like this one from one of those in the know. It, however, is far from uncommon to encounter those who misconceive themselves as more expert than the experts.

    But hey! Let's not allow some 'matters outside art itself' turn things awry!
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2021
    Allen Herbert likes this.
  7. Ha ha.

    Entertaining
     
  8. Thank you. I wasn’t aware of the reference to the film world that you mentioned, but certainly makes sense. What you said - Among the collective works from an artist, there can be those that are masterpieces, and there are those that may not qualify as the best, but certainly inform on the principal aspects of the artist’s approach and philosophy. I once visited an exhibition on Rembrandt at LACMA, which had a lot of half finished, sometimes hastily drawn drafts of sketches on display, but mostly chronologically arranged, which shows how the artist’s approach evolved over time. They were not much standing alone, but helpful for understanding the formal finished works in relation to the stage of the artist’s life when they were created.


    Nice to refer to the standing ovation. A spontaneous collective reaction to the ecstatic emotion felt at the end of a performance has a great deal of positive energy and genuineness attached to it, as opposed to the herd mentality that I was referring to.
     
  9. I agree, but at the same time, it depends on the artist’s persona too, i think. I read somewhere that negative criticism of his work (including those coming from his own brother) was devastating to Van Gogh, who suffered from lifelong depression and positive encouragement mattered to him. On the other hand, there are artists who are rebels for whom, derision and criticism would serve as badges of honor, as you mentioned.
     
  10. that’s the spirit, to be able to recognize something as art, even though you don’t reconcile with the style. That requires a certain degree of maturity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2021
  11. Herd mentality in reviewing seems a negative, just as it does in academia, science, and surely in politics, where masses have allowed themselves to follow like sheep the most evil of evil men.

    What do you think about herd mentality among art viewers and audiences? Here, I’m honestly wondering.

    Take a pop star or very popular artist who you don’t like and you think has become popular via a herd mentality that’s taken over more critical sophistication. I still wonder if the actual experience of the fans isn’t significant and in many ways art-like, the passion and even sometimes ecstasy with which fans respond? Those feelings are real, and even transformative, even if they’re stimulated more because of group-think than individual taste or understanding. And it’s still the music or the painting or the photograph that’s being attended to, whether because someone chose it themselves or went along with the crowd. So, there’s an object, a recipient, emotion, and thrill. What’s bad? Sure, many of us want more, a deeper experience. But for those who allow themselves to be led to something and are enjoying the experience of being part of something and aren’t hurting anyone or being hurt themselves, can a herd function in a positive way?

    Any thoughts on this are welcome.
     
  12. Right, herd mentality, the phrase itself carries a negative connotation to it, so it don’t wish to describe all communal experiences using it. When I used the term, I was specifically referring to art reviews, rather than the audience. Since I have seen this phenomenon in other fields, I felt that the art world would be no exception. However, I also think that those who really deal with art would know the most trusted and highly regarded experts and reviewers.

    When it comes to a fan following or a frenzy associated with a star performer or artist, I agree that it’s different than herd mentality. It’s more of a shared experience, to be in a state of mind to enjoy something, even if induced by or led by someone else. I feel it’s different. Herd mentality many times involves supplanting one’s own lack of originality, vision or indecision with mimicry or fake show of confidence in a field, which is shallower than the shared communal experience of an art or an artist’s performance.

    I just want to mention that some members on PN dismiss art that they don’t like by explaining them away saying that their popularity must be the product of opportunistic reviewers. Even if there was really herd mentality involved in some art reviews, I don’t share their viewpoint, which seems too simplistic and self-serving to me.
     
    samstevens likes this.
  13. "I just want to mention that some members on PN dismiss art that they don’t like by explaining them away saying that their popularity must be the product of opportunistic reviewers. Even if there was really herd mentality involved in some art reviews" Supriyo

    Suprriyo.

    The Art or Photography is all about what works or not.

    The reality is the Art or photograph, that does not work, requires a t least a thousands words.
     
  14. Here’s where all your b.s. comes to a head. Requires is your strawman. It’s your false rationale for speaking nonsense.

    Szarkowski and others didn’t think Eggleston’s work required a thousand words. He thought Eggleston’s work inspired those words and thought his photos worthy of complex discussion.

    I have a sense you’ve never read Szarkowski and wouldn’t understand him if you did. Yes, that’s only a guess, but is based on what you’ve repeated merely by platitude in these discussions for decades.
     
  15. "Here’s where all your b.s. comes to a head. Requires is your strawman. It’s your false rationale for speaking nonsense." Sam

    When someone resorts to name calling, and angst, it really means one thing...guess.

    Personally ,I avoid such silliness, it offers little in construct conservation, other a red face bloke, in a Hawaii tee-shirt, declaring there's a fly in my soup. I suggest a nice cup of tea, with a chocolate biscuit. Very cheery for folks with angst.

    Chill.

    The Art or Photography is all about what works or not.

    The reality is the Art or photograph, that does not work, requires a t least a thousands words.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  16. Not that you cannot use your imagination to offer your thoughts on a photograph.

    But, remember, you are not the photographer, just a third party person, offering their thoughts.

    That's it.

    Photographic thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  17. The Art of prose, is the Art of prose.

    The Art of photography is the Art of the photograph.

    Neither, need each other, as the both stand alone in their Art.
     
  18. I don’t have to guess. I know what it means: that I’m fed up with your b.s., your constantly talking about photos requiring a thousand words when neither I nor any of the critics I reference think or say photos require words. It’s your intellectual dishonesty that leads to the charge of b.s. and I stand by that charge. You just did it again, by the way, when you say “neither need each other.” No one said they did yet you pretend that’s what’s being said here. Critics are inspired to write words about art. They find art worthy of complex discussion. It’s pure foolishness to say that means they think art needs words. It’s time you get over putting words in people’s mouth to make a point at their expense. THIS IS NOT ABOUT NEED. Never was. b.s.
     
  19. I had taken you off but I’m putting you back on ignore. Too toxic and it’s not fair to all who read these insipid exchanges. My own failing. I can’t take it. Don’t expect any more responses.
     

Share This Page