OT-Is it art? Or amateur dentistry?

[brett_davis1]

Hi, all. I posted a while back about the free-for-all, non-juried show Artomatic 2004

in D.C., which is now up and running (go to www.artomatic.org) for more info. Lots of

photography to see (including mine, but most of that has been posted here).

 

Anyway, the Washington Post's art critic went to the show early and completely ripped

it apart (mentioning "trite street photography" in one blast). He feels, basically, that a

non-juried show is literally an insult to struggling artists, and compares it to amateur

dentists. Since there are amateur photographers, pro photographers, and pro dentists

on this board, I thought it could be helpful to post it and get your thoughts.

 

I have photographed for years, studied it in school and have had photojournalist

shots published in newspapers, but I'm not a professional. Am I insulting anyone by

paying $60 to defray show expenses, volunteering 15 hours, and participating in

Artomatic?

 

And, for the record, the critic is right about one thing: There is a pretty good amount

of crap. But one thing he doesn't mention is that the show is a lot of fun.

 

Here's the review; thanks in advance to anyone who converts this to a live link:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41463-2004Nov10.html?sub=AR

[michael s.]

Brett's <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41463-2004Nov10.html?sub=AR>Washington Post link</a>.<p><p>

[al_kaplan1]

The Washington Post won't register me without divulging info I don't want them to have for spamming me. Screw them!

[michael s.]

Aw go on, Al. We already know all of that stuff anyway.

 

Yes, both the Washington Post and the NY Times websites, among others, do require registration. I registered for both long ago and have yet to suffer any adverse consequences (that I'm aware of -:). Both feature some outstanding photography.

 

And Al, why would you be sensitive about telling these major American newspapers what "only your hairdresser knows for sure?"

[al_kaplan1]

Well, Michael, my hairdresser knows about everything there is to know about me. We lived together for about a dozen years, she's met my current lady friend, and she's best friends with my ex-wife. No secrets. So far the Washington Post hasn't cooked me any meals or slept with me.

[michael s.]

Without having seen the exhibit, I'll go out on a limb and say this art critic is, in my view, full of beans.

 

That I've decided not because he complains about the art itself, but because he concludes his diatribe with the assertion that "...all the money and resources and attention that go Artomatic's way are, by definition, not going to serious art ..."

 

Art is not a "zero sum game." The $60 and volunteer time contributed by each Artomatic exhibitor are not assets which, were they not spent on Artomatic, would be spent on "serious art."

 

Brett -- I don't know you and haven't a clue as to your personal circumstances. But am I correct in assuming that you have in your recent experience entered a museum and paid the entrance fee? Had you not spent the $60 exhibitor's fee and volunteered your time, would that $60 have gone to "serious art." [Leave aside for the moment my suspicion that there almost certainly is at least some "serious art" on exhibit there.]

 

He makes other points, too, and the piece makes for a provocative read. For that reason alone, I'd recommend it.

 

I'll say this: this critic would fit right in on our forum. Whether he'd be termed a troll, a troglodyte, or a genius is open to question.

[brett_davis1]

It would probably have gone to food. I live in D.C., I'm not in the habit of paying for

museums! The Smithsonians are free!

[michael s.]

But there's the Corcoran. (I'm in the DC Metro area.)

[brett_davis1]

That's true. And there are others, of course. Actually, I would have spent the cash on

three Al Kaplan T-shirts.

[al_kaplan1]

Thanks, Brett. Now that is true photographic art!

[michael s.]

We well-dressed Washingtonians should plan a get-together. Of course the Post critic will claim that the dough we spend on food and beverages would otherwise have gone to "serious art." Fat chance.

[michael s.]

On second thought, we invite Mr. Critic. When he sees the t-shirts we're wearing, my bet is we'll see the first sub-9-second 100 meter dash of this millenium.

[furcafe]

I regularly attend the Artomatic (didn't have time to participate this year) & agree that Mr. Gopnik both went a little overboard in his criticism & completely missed the point that Artomatic is supposed to be a fun exposition of local art & a big party, not the Whitney Bienniale (imagine that, an art critic taking himself too seriously!).

 

BTW, I don't recall seeing Brett's work Friday night, but there was a lot of stuff to go through in 1 sprint (perhaps on another visit).

[brett_davis1]

I think a D.C. event would be a fine idea. Maybe we should meet at Artomatic.

[davecollopy]

Brett I didn't see your show so I can't comment. As for the WP article I will say this, anybody who closes with a phrase like "art that matters" is a pretentious blowhard. I wouldn't give Blake whatshisname a second thought. His writing skills suck, his humor is dry and sophomoric, and this article is just another example of free press in the America being highjacked by the lowest common denominator of our society. I guess the WP will let anybody off the street submit articles and they must be too cheap to afford a copy editor. I don't read the Washington Post, but after soiling myself with this "review" I wouldn't use it for toilet paper. Don't let it get you down. There's a lot of a-holes in this world.

[brett_davis1]

The review didn't get me down--it's actually driving people to the show--but I was more interested in getting responses to his opinion that non-juried art shows simply shouldn't exist. I guess part of the problem is there is no certification as to who is an artist and who is not. Of course, Gopnik is working in a field--journalism--with no such certification, either.

[eliot_rosen]

We have another thread demeaning MDs, now one demeaning dentists. Hey guys, lighten up. Ever try calling a photojournalist when you need root canal? :-)

[michael s.]

Actually, Eliot, the dental references come from the "Washington Post" story. They didn't originate with Brett. (The link is above.)

 

Eliot has a point, though. Everybody should ease up on the docs, dentists, and lawyers, too (no chance, I'm afraid) ... and go back to thumping Pres. Bush. :-)