troutnut Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 This relates to the debate here about the difference between "artsy"photographers like Friedlander and those who choose instead to takephotos worth looking at.<br><br> Here's the link: <ahref="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=563146&page=1">Commentaryby John Stossel: You Call That Art?</a><br><br> It's not specific to photography, but art in general. They did anexperiment, mixing the works of famous abstract artists with thingspainted by 4-year-olds, elephants, etc, and asking various groups ofpeople to identify the "real" art vs the kiddy art.<br><br> It turns out that the kiddy art actually did better with the generalpublic than the works of the masters. Artists also could not tellthem all apart. Even an art historian, presumably familiar with thestyles of these famous artists, mistook one of the paintings by smallchildren for the work of a master.<br><br> Here's a quote from the story: <i>One artist, Victor Acevedo,described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution ofabstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning andJackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's aschool of art."</i><br><br> At least one artist was more grounded. Says the article: <i>Anartist who calls himself Flash Light told me, "The function of art isto make rich people feel more important."</i><br><br> This really parallels the conflicting opinions about photography thatI've seen on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now