Jump to content

Why is Art Distrusted?


Recommended Posts

A thread in the General Photography Forum triggered this question

minus a financial component brought up in that discussion and that

is; why do people generally distrust things labeled Art and more

specific to this discussion, photography that is labeled Art?

 

I realize these are generalizations, but a couple of observations:

I�ve noticed in many Photo.net, threads, a frequent rejection of Art

photography as opposed to images that are so-called real /

legitimate / street / unadulterated / straight, or whatever

adjective you�d like to add. But, that may have more to do with a

traditional view of photographs and semantics and therefore may not

be pertinent to the question. Perhaps more meaningful is both on

and away from this site, I often see an appreciation for

things �pretty� (paintings, drawings, photos whatever), but a

rejection of challenging or provocative pictures. In essence, there

seems to be an unwillingness to accept images requiring intellectual

consideration...often a component in things labeled Art.

 

At the risk of answering my own question, is it because the average

viewer has virtually no Art context in which to place images that

might be more challenging than pictures seen on calendars? A few

years ago, a museum did a survey and discovered the average person

(American) could only name 5 artists and they were all dead. I

think they were: Michelangelo, Picasso, Monet, Rembrandt and

DiVinci. No matter. The point is, their collective body of work

has long been accepted and has become part of western culture's

iconography. Has it become accepted because over the years the

intellectual components have been wrung out?

 

There is yet another issue that was raised by Tom Wolfe in his

book, �The Painted Word�. His argument is whatever is considered

Art is decided by an elite few who run the major museums and

galleries around the world. As a side issue, he rejects abstract

and other work he deems not requiring �high skill�. Read that as

anything not immediately identifiable. BTW, no matter what your

point of view is, his book is a wonderful and quick read.

 

So what raises this distrust: is it laziness; a lack of context;

distrust of the Art establishment; a dumbing down of the society;

the feeling of being excluded; something else?

 

As someone who is always looking at Art and searches out thought

provoking images, I realize my possible answers are in some ways

prejudiced. None-the-less, I still think it's an interesting

question.

 

What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<em>there seems to be an unwillingness to accept images requiring intellectual consideration</em>

<p>

Can't this be equally applied to other areas of life such as reading, politics, education? The vast majority of people don't want to think. It hurts their brains. Why do you think TV is so popular? Why do people read "People" magazine rather than, say, "New Republic"?

<p>

It's no surprise that anything out of the ordinary or which requires some thought is dismissed by "most people".

<p>

I'm amazed the average person knew 5 artists. I believe on a Geography quiz quite a surprising fraction couldn't find the USA on a map!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Some more questions for you...

 

"a frequent rejection of Art photography as opposed to images that are so-called real / legitimate / street / unadulterated / straight, or whatever adjective you�d like to add"

 

Do these descriptors necessarily mean that the photographs they are describing are not fine art? What is fine art photography. Edward Weston and Ansel Adams (among many) created photographs considered "straight" by most yet were they? Did not Adams do quite a bit of darkroom magic in creating his prints? Were Bresson's street photographs not art? While August Sander was first and foremost a documentarian, were the photographs in his 20th century series not art?

 

Anyone who has dealt with a gallery, and been rejected in favor of lesser work, (all of us?) has a distrust for those who have that kind of power over us. I do. I was brought up around and looking at art constantly, I trained at a school for fine art photography, I have been looking at photographs for a very long time. My own work aside, I have seen some terrible things at galleries, many times in place of much more worthy work by others. Does this breed mistrust? I think so.

 

"unwillingness to accept images requiring intellectual consideration"

Can you say Maplethorpe? Everybody has something (usually bad) to say about his photographs of the seamier side of life, but how many have looked at his photographs of flowers, or his most incredible portraits?

 

Just some more questions to add to your list.

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will,

 

You bring up some interesting points. I'm not saying pretty pictures can't be Art. Okeef's flowers are both Art and beautiful, but they add the tangable element of interpretation. Interestingly, I find Maplethorpe's flowers his least compelling work. Adams has always left me cold. Nice prints, but nothing more. As a collector, I've have work by Friedlander, Frank, Winnogrand and others who are considered "street" photographers. All the work was purchased at so-called fine art photography galleries. Perhaps their work ends up in certain galleries,as does HCB's, because they all brought a new fresh view to photography even though their work is part of the continuum of what came before it.

 

What really interests me is the (negative) reaction, or worse, the blank stares elicited by the work of The Starn Twins, Cincy Sherman, the Bechers or the austere work of Robert Adams, to name a few, all of whom are or have been on the cutting edge of photographic art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fazal's question provides a perfect context for this discussion. During the last two decades there have been several orgasms of outrage by ignorant political opportunists seeking to gut the National Endowment for the Arts by waxing hysterical about works of art that, taken in isolation, are vulnerable. Cans of excrement, crucifix in urine, Maplethorpe piss fetish photographs all weathered withering attacks.

 

It is often true that Art is not in the eye of the beholder but rather in the eye of the snotty gallery owner or curator. It is bound to be that some curators are idiots. These curators were not the witch-hunters or the witches in these examples, though. The witch-hunters were congressmen and senators hell-bent on disembowelling the big "liberal" government institutions, including those associated with the "welfare state" and those of the liberal intellectual elite.

 

When you have spent your life studying art and nurturing artists, you have no defense against a cowboy with a velvet elvis in his living room.

 

I am really frightened of the deep anti-intellectual current in america today. Whether we talk about the environment, the arts, economics, international relations, or history, the message seems to be that studying something PREVENTS you from understanding it. It is not just that people have no time for study anymore, or even that they have lost interest, but rather that they are damn proud of their ignorance.

 

To answer your question, then: I believe art is distrusted for the same reason that science, history, philosophy and other high-minded persuits are distrusted: because intellectual activity estranges you from the common man, clouds and confuses your thinking, makes you believe excrement is art, the oceans are dying, flat taxes are unfair, and bush is a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good laugh, Fazal.

 

The problem is not that some people consider it art, they do have the right to like it; the problem is that they pay those huge amounts for canned sh|t and still consider it reasonably cheap. There would be so many things that cash could have been spent on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

 

I agree that Maplethorp's flowers are his least compelling, but they are still quite beautiful. The street photographers I think while we look at them now as having brought a fresh view to photography, weren't necesarily thinking that way as they were working. Many I think have found "art" in the motions and interractions of people on the street. Not all of them were shooting "mainstream art" at the time... after all Weegee shot prostitutes and dead people.

 

I also find the reactions (positive or negative) and the blank stares interesting. Many dissmiss Sherman as derivative and/or silly. I would agree with those sentiments if it were just fulfilling a school assignment or some such. But when it's done with such intensity and careful thought over so many years the artistic intent becomes (should) clear.

 

Adams I feel, was purely about art. Conservation efforts aside, warm or cold about the pictures, he talked about the print being the performance. That is art.

 

Don't even get me started on polititians and the NEA!

 

I completely agree with Ward's fears about the dumbing of America. Unfortunately I feel his paragraph is dead on. Just watch what happens when talk show hosts go out into the streets to ask people simple questions. Frightening. I think also it goes with the other major current trend in America today... Not taking responsibility for our own actions. Logic and common sense are gone. Isn't it interesting that our country's focus is on education at the expense of art and the arts, physical conditioning, and even funding public libraries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Dallas Museum of Fine Art, there hangs a canvas about 8'x4', top half black, bottom half white (or maybe reversed, it's been a while). That is "art".

 

Out on the courtyard, there sits a piece of steel plate rolled to a radius. Typical of that used on tanks every day. It is "art".

 

In both cases, if I or any "normal" person had created these pieces of art, the art would be considered so much trash. Presumably some big name in the art world is associated with these pieces, so they sit in a museum.

 

I recall a while back, a van Gogh was discovered. Value before it was determined to be by van Gogh was about $100. Value afterward, as I recall, was about $400,000. Of course, the painting didn't change in the process.

 

It's easy to talk about understanding the art and the dumbing of America. In these cases, it is obvious that the "experts" in the art world can't tell treasure from trash unless the art is associated with a well known name. So consider me skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand today ART has become a label to signify a particular object / action.

 

I believe that in the times of Michelangelo and da Vinci the attitude was more to be in the service of some inspiration and what the artist did was basically to use his craft.

 

In contrast today the term ART is used in a possesive way.

Some piece of work gets declared as ART not because it is good or bad, but because of abstract arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

 

I certainly respect your skepticism. And, it's what prompts my question, because I think your reaction is not un-typical. I'm not sure who the artists were who you looked at, but if the pieces you saw were viewed in isolation, without knowledge of the artists previous work, or how they referenced the work of other artists, then I think I might have had the exact same reaction.

 

Much Art, especially contemporary Art, requires the viewer to do more than just look at the single work in front of them. In a museum what you often see is the culmination of years of work. The curved piece of steel may one of a hundred or a thousand sculptures made my that artist. How did he or she get to that point? Is it a refinement from a previous work and a work before that? In many ways, Art is like jazz. If you go to a jazz club and hear a contemporary muscian the music may sound disjunct...out of sorts with what you're used to. Assuming you're curious, you might have to go back again and again to begin to hear beyond your first impressions. You might buy some of the musicians earlier work to find out how he evolved to what you heard at the club to gain a knowledge of the context. The same is true of Art. Appreciation often takes some effort on the part of the viewer. Someone else might look at the room around the steel sculpture and see how the space has been changed by it. This might sound like mumbo jumbo, but looking beyond the surface is part of the viewing process. What was the artist's intention?

 

You're absolutely right when you say if you, or I, created that steel sculpture it would likely not be accepted. That's because it would have come out of nowhere, but it's unlikely either of us would have been able to create it without the process that came before it. We would be making a valueless copy.

 

If you're familiar with the photographer Richard Misrach you might look at his Sky pictures and be dissatisfied with them. They are very minimalistic. Howerver, if you know his Desert Cantos work along with his Star pictures you/we might have a better understanding of how he got to the Sky pics.

 

As far as the Van Gogh is concerned, there are lot of imitations... work done by someone who has copied what has come before them (You and I doing that steel sculpture). How many "Impressionist" paintings are sold at hotel sales every weekend? But none of them have moved the Art forward. When it was discovered that the Van Gogh was an "Original", of course it had greater value.

 

I think Art requires work on the part of the viewer. True, one can find lovely pictures to look at and get them right away. For me, that is less satisfying. Art requires an intellectual point of view. It's why I find Ansel Adams vacant. The pictures are beautiful and I appreciate that, but they just don't say anything to me. And after one viewing, I've lost interest.

 

My way of thinking is not intended to downplay the intellectual capabilities of the public. People are not stupid, however they are often unwilling to accept what they don't know, to be open to a new way of seeing and to confront the challenges presented by the New.

 

Sorry for rambling on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two responses to Stephen H.

 

First, I think you are confusing the collection of art with the art itself. The fact that an original Van Gogh is worth more than a copy says nothing about the quality of the art, but rather about the value placed on originals by collectors and curators.

 

Second, regarding the art objects that you seem to think are stupid: I often develop a deeper and deeper appreciation for a work the more I know its role in the progression of a vision over time. It may be that the work is superficial or that your engagement and interest in the work is superficial.

 

To say that a work of art must stand on its own does not mean that it must be viewed from the vantage point of complete ignorance of the rest of the world of art. I generally find that I value individual works more after seeing them in comprehensive shows of an artist's work. I learn to see the works as stepping stones along a path rather than just as unrelated rocks in a field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll vote with the group that distrusts those that insult those that they are suppose to serve.

 

If you have a group of people, artists, that thumb their collective noses at the unwashed masses, maybe, just maybe the unwashed masses are going to distrust these disrespectfull artistic types.

 

And if you have only artists paying homage to artists as artists reject the masses, you have a click behavior pattern and people, the general public, inherintly distrust those that set out to make themselves different on purpose. Also, take into consideration some of the empty brained art that's being fostered as "real art" that is nothing more then paint splats on a canvas, selling for a bizillion dollars and yes, this shame is going to breed reasonable distrust.

 

People don't distrust my art but I'm an artist of the masses, not an artist for artists. I give my art and talents away on purpose.

 

Here's a shot, who's impact doesn't fully come through in the web example that artist's don't like but the unwashed masses love.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1905649&size=lg

 

This image has been ripped by artists but the print is described as beautiful by non artists types. Both can be right but I stand with the masses as they're my audience, not artists.

 

This artistic disconnect by artists from the general public, breeds a reasonable disconnect of distrust.

 

Hope my above is found insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas,

 

I don't agree that artists intentionally thumb their noses at the masses. I think they just do what they feel compelled to do. I've always thought that great writers don't have a choice in their vocation. They can't help themselves. They must write. It's almost always a fluke when great Art and commerce connect. This is likely why the vast majority of artists never make a living at it. Let's not forget that Van Gogh and others practically starved to death. Their art was not accepted by the masses of their time. It took quite a while for the culture to catch up to their vision. This is no less true today.

 

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. What might change my view is if there were a narrative attached along with other images...again to create a context for the picture. Art goes beyond attractiveness. There are additional elements.

 

Please understand, my intention is in no way meant to devalue your work. I just have a particular, perhaps peculiar, point of view :>}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake

 

There's a huge disconnect between artists and the masses that I've seen and explored. The masses look at my work and they don't need a narrative. Why? The images speak to them. They find the work beautiful and make all kinds of connective comments. Artists on the other hand, look at my work and don't get it. Artists try to say that people are lying to me, to be polite and yet people make disparageing remarks about artists work, even when my work's not around:-) And artists, they're quick to dismiss comments by the unwashed masses with disparaging comments, which bolster their egos.

 

I won't address your comments about my work as that would be my ego speaking and can easily be discounted as such, so I'll leave your personal comments as the final word of what you think of my images.

 

There's a disconnect in the art world and the art world doesn't see the disconnect. Why? Because they're the disconnect. The masses do see this disconnnect. Why? Because the masses, they're not stupid but artists like to pretend the masses are and show this with their artistically arrogant attitude of disconnect from the masses.

 

I stand proudly connected with the masses:-)<div>006cyO-15470584.jpg.6ca5cfb1a19579789606d85f38ffbcea.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas:

 

You may be interested in reading about the relationship between the community of modern artists and the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. You will be comforted to know that your point of view regarding the artists was very popular among some very powerful people and was even incorporated into national policy for several years, banning all art but the most commonplace pretty naturalism, outlawing schools of modern art such as Impressionism and Cubism, with their incomprehensible disdain for the lines and forms of nature.

 

Hitler was a lover of the arts, once he excised all of what he described as "aesthetic atrocities." He might have authored the immortal retort to the art-snob: I might not be an art expert, but I know what I like!

 

I do not accept your notion that there is an "unwashed masses" that stands in opposition to the artistic elite. If it makes you feel superior, go ahead and believe it, but I challenge you to draw the line between your two imaginary camps in a way that anyone else would accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing:

 

Regarding Thomas' comment: "I'll vote with the group that distrusts those that insult those that they are suppose to serve."

 

What purile notion of art states that the artist is supposed to **SERVE** the public? You seem to think that the world is all sugar and light and the only reality that exists to be reflected in art is the **pretty** reality. And you seem to think that the job of **the artist** (like there is just one job and You, Thomas, decide what it is) is to provide to the Unwashed Masses whatever objects the masses think are **pretty**.

 

Reality is not all pretty. Art is equally vital in exploring pain as beauty, in challenging society. Goody for you that you have found a community of grinning chums to tell you how much they like your pretty pictures. Your grinning buddies are **not** the REAL masses. There are no real unwashed masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ward

 

I like how you did that, reached all the way back to Hitler's insanely nutty behavior for an example. But don't worry, I won't consider that extremism:)

 

>I do not accept your notion that there is an "unwashed masses" that >stands in opposition to the artistic elite.

 

They don't stand in opposition, they just aren't accepting. There's a difference. There's no battle royale going on.

 

>If it makes you feel superior, go ahead and believe it, but I >challenge you to draw the line between your two imaginary camps in a >way that anyone else would accept.

 

That's the disconnect, you don't think it exists, therefore it doesn't exist. The camps aren't imaginary as they're clearly two existing groups of thought. As to the line, it's as blurry of a line as there exists. Why? Because you have cross over points to any philosophy. There's never a clear line unless you pull the middle group of any thought and only have extremist to polarize the thinking process much like your Hitler example.

 

There's no superiority here. In my opinion, based upon my personal observations, artists hold themselves in such high esteem, much as you hold yourself, that they and you also, don't see the disconnect. Not only that but you had to resort to Hitler as an example to make your point that there isn't a disconnect:)

 

There's a disconnect all right and the unwashed masses see it even if you don't. And if you don't want to agree with me or see what's really going on, it's okay. I only posted why I think, based upon my personal observations, why I think the general public doesn't trust the art world and their label "Art". The question was posed because there's truth to the question. So in order to tell me I'm nuts, you have to say the question below doesn't exist.

 

".....why do people generally distrust things labeled Art and more specific to this discussion, photography that is labeled Art?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff.

 

"Thomas, I think you have over-rated yourself."

 

Since I haven't rated myself, how's that?

 

It seems that I have stated an opinion that most if not all here would disagree with but it's not a crime nor does it rate myself to say that I prefer the unwashed masses to artists. But how does your comment relate to the question of photographic art not being trusted?

 

And your answer, to the original question, besides to attack me personally is????? I'd love to read your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My, my, my. From a couple of extremely aggressive answers, it's quite clear why the general public, the unwashed masses, are so untrusting of the art world. If that's the best some can come up with as answers, they, as I stated earlier, the behavior of the art world creates this well deserved distrust.

 

I'll leave this thread now and let everybody insult me because I stand with a different camp of thinkers as I tried to answer the question the way I see it. You all can pile on and have the last word of hate even if you don't want to take the time to answer the original posters question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>. . . it's quite clear why the general public, the unwashed

masses, are so untrusting of the art world.</i><P>

If only they applied that skepticism to politicians and the media!

<P>

I'm not sure I really buy that argument, but if it's true, I say good

for them! It's a tribute to both the artists and the public that

viewers aren't blindly accepting the supposed meaning of any

artistic works. No telling what kind of crazy sh*t artists are trying

to communicate--it's smart to be wary of their messages.<P>

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...