joe604 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 One part if this debate that I don't think is getting proper coverage is the role of the artist's popularity in defining the popularity of the artist's work. To make is point, John Stossel judges the selected art work outside of the context of the body of work of the artist. That's not necessarily unfair, but it misses the full explanation of why the selected art work was in the museums in the first place. Would a Picasso be as admired by any other name? Of course not. Isn't it just as silly to select a few of Friedlander's more questionable works and clique them as if each and every photo demonstrates his reputation? For any famous artist, there are some prominent works that helped win the artist fame, and there are some works where the artist's fame helps win the work prominence. --Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 "The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect<BR> but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. <BR>The creative mind plays with the objects it loves."<BR> Carl Gustav Jung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 "kiddie art" teaches us all important things. I learn a lot by watching my children draw. My son is a compulsive artist, he won't stop unless you make him. Reproduced below is (a bad photo of) a detail from a much larger drawing he did at age 3 -- among other things, I find it fascinating how he represents "writing" without being able to write per se.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 He obviously inherited your intelligence. Amazingly articulated universe he's got going there. Especially for a 3 y/o! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up." <BR> Pablo Picasso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Siiiiiiigh! If being a kid is key to being an artist..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 "The others have been told and believed that they were not singers." So the key to being a singer is raising one's hand? I raised my hand, now I'm a singer? Wow! After all these years. All I had to do was raise my hand. Go figure:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Jason Neuswanger offers John Stossel as proof that Friedlander sucks? Is that really the best you can do? I'm betting you weren't the highschool hero of the debate team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 <i>"When I was their age I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like them."</i> <p> Pablo Picasso after studying an exhibition of children's drawings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saulzelan Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Did anyone take the quiz themselves? I did, I got 60% correct. Interestingly, I got mostly the "not art" ones correct (i.e. I correctly identified those works that were by kids rather than "masters"- I don't really know if I agree with the designation "not art" for these works, but I see the game they were playing and went along with it for kicks. I am interested in the idea that of the four that I got wrong, one was by a "master" that I identified as "not art.") So I guess what I'm wondering is does this really tell us anything useful beyond the idea that there are some talented children out there (on the one hand) and (on the other hand) that some modern art has attempted to imitate icons of popular consumption (i.e. "pop" art) and that because of this cultural conditioning, we are prone to identify true artifacts of pop culture (such as items purchased at the salvation army store) as art? I don't think that it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "It is a shame that noteables are so anemic in their commentary on their efforts. It's as if they consider the general public to be lambs for the fleecing and if they speak true of their efforts, the enigma/mystique will be removed and nobody will want to purchase their photographic efforts." More likely, they believe that their audience should put some effort into thinking for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "More likely, they believe that their audience should put some effort into thinking for themselves." Geee! Fancy that. Or maybe, the artist needs to put something into the art, worthy of thought. Too bad what little the artists do write, don't agree with your above. That's why I posted links to what Serrano and Friedlander had to say on the matter. Maybe you can post a link to what artists have written that support you comment; or are you just guessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Thomas, there is no need for me to defend Freidlander, an artist who has made a reputation over several decades. Nor would he want me to. I don't know what Friedlander says about his own snaps, except for two or three famous one-liners. Serrano I know nothing about except for the Piss Christ furore some time ago. My take on Friedlander is mine alone, as someone who has spent some time taking pictures and thinking about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Thomas, it's ridiculous to say that someone's art is only as good as their verbal characterizations of it. Why should someone who has chosen a certain means of expression, photos, sculpture, whatever, have to do double-duty as a writer or orator? I've known a lot of brilliant musicians who are practically retarded when it comes to talking about their playing, probably because they've spent a lifetime learning to speak through their instrument. Same goes for artists -- if you want to understand their message, look at their art. Chances are, their talk is going to be more deceptive than helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Thomas, there is no need for me to defend Freidlander, an artist who has made a reputation over several decades. Nor would he want me to." I'm not asking you to defend Friedlander, I'm asking you to support you claim. Otherwise your claim is just another subjective claim of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 In addition, Thomas, even articulate artists can have trouble verbalizing the complexity of their motivations, indeed, can have trouble even recognizing it. Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one. I suppose you think this kind of thing exposes Melville and Dylan as frauds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Thomas, it's ridiculous to say that someone's art is only as good as their verbal characterizations of it." I'm not making that characterization. "Why should someone who has chosen a certain means of expression, photos, sculpture, whatever, have to do double-duty as a writer or orator?" When you have others prognosticating on someone's art, yes, the artist does have a responsibility of clarification. "I've known a lot of brilliant musicians who are practically retarded when it comes to talking about their playing, probably because they've spent a lifetime learning to speak through their instrument." I won't even go there. "Same goes for artists -- if you want to understand their message, look at their art. Chances are, their talk is going to be more deceptive than helpful." Then maybe they understand less about their own personal art then they're willing to acknowledge or their art is more shallow then they want to let on about. It really isn't hard to articulate a message, if indeed there's a message there to be conveyed. If there's not a message there, then it will be really, really hard to articulate a non-message and make it sound profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one. I suppose you think this kind of thing exposes Melville and Dylan as frauds?" You make my point. I doubt there was any "symbolism" in "Moby Dick" and it was nothing more then a good adventure tale. But others wanted to make it in to something it wasn't, against what Herman had to say. In the case of Dylan, I believe him. No fraud, just some guy writing lyrics that needs a rhyming word and others wanted meaning and there was none. This comments is similar to the one made by Serrano as to the gensis of "Piss Crist." A lot of what is made up about people's artistic efforts is more about the creator of the myth, then it is about the artistic effort. Didn't Freud say: "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar." Everybody want's to find a hidden door to a hidden garden that will take them away from reality. There are no hidden doors, gardens or magic and there never will be. The Mama's and Papa's said it well with "Do You Believe in Magic" as the magic is in you and the magic is in me and when you realize this, you'll realize that you've been in the garden all along and that you never left:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 <i>The Mama's and Papa's said it well with "Do You Believe in Magic" </i><p> It was The Lovin Spoonful. So much for accuracy. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Thomas, just because an artist says there is no symbolism it does not mean (s)he is telling the truth! Artists absolutely love to be ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "It was The Lovin Spoonful. So much for accuracy." D'oh! My apologies for the error. Damn, I knew the hair was up on the back of my neck for a reason:) Either which way, we've never left the garden, which is the accurate point:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Thomas, just because an artist says there is no symbolism it does not mean (s)he is telling the truth! Artists absolutely love to be ambiguous." Are we in the subjective realm again? You can show that either the comment that Beau alluded to by Melville or Dylan was not the truth in their comments? "Herman Melville supposedly maintained that there was no symbolism in "Moby Dick." Bob Dylan, when pressed for an explanation of some line or other in a song, frequently would say that he just needed something that rhymed with the previous one." You can show the comment I linked to of Serrano's was not an honest comment? When everybody else knows more about the purpose/meaning of an artistic effort then the artist themselves, that point alone should cause one pause as to the validity of the interpretations. If an artist says that they were just looking for a complimentary color, note, or word, who better to believe, the psychiatrists or the artist. Serrano really did do an excellent job of summing it up when he stated; "People want more of a story and I try to give them a story, but sometimes I have to say: look, you're reading too much into this." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Thomas, I think you are defining too narrowly what the creative process is all about. Often an artist uses his or her medium to express things that they are unable or unwilling to grapple with consciously. Just an anecdote from my own experience writing songs: people used to write me letters containing interpretations of my lyrics. Frequently the meanings they found were far from what I was thinking at the time I wrote the words, but sometimes I would realize these people were nevertheless correct. They perceived something in my work that I had failed to perceive myself. I don't mean to say that they "mythologized" my songs in the manner you describe above; in some cases they identified meanings that were more homely and modest than the grandiose intentions I thought I had -- it can go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "They perceived something in my work that I had failed to perceive myself." Not trying to be negative or offensive in my below. Or maybe they implanted an idea that you liked better then your original idea and you ran with the ball. A sort of psychosomatic thinking where you absorb their thinking and subplant your thoughts with their's as their interpretation sounds better then your's. Influence of thinking, in this case is easily within the realm of possible. I have trouble believing that outsiders understand another's art, more then the creator of the art, having never met and had indepth intimate conversations with them of a prolonged period. Are artists really this shallow in their understanding of their efforts? I have trouble accepting that these supposed great minds, don't even understand their own efforts. It seems a huge, over-arching stretch of the imagination for one to believe this. I think these folks know a whole lot more about their art then they want to let on about and I'm willing to bet that the truth is going to be very shallow indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Just an anecdote from my own experience writing songs: people used to write me letters containing interpretations of my lyrics." Just an aside, I won't write poetry/lyrics as I find doing so too revealing:) So I'll stick with photography:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "...psychosomatic thinking..." What???!!! Do you know what either of those words mean? From my own experience writing, often a story develops quite far before you become aware of the way it builds on traumas in your own life - and no doubt there are themes in anyone's writing whose significance, even for themselves, they remain unaware of. However, to address, your point above, Thomas, culture is a collaborative construct, a sort of ongoing conversation with the past and the present. The artist puts something in, and what happens to it then is most likely beyond his control. However, his contribution must be resonant and timely if it is generate the conversation in the first place. As to why a photographer should say: I just take pictures, I imagine that this is often because he has no urge to hang his dirty laundry out for everyone to look at. His product is his body of work, not a mass of words about it. The process is not important (although certainly interesting), and indeed disclosure might well direct the "conversation" in ways that are not valuable to the work itself. Tp put it in terms of resonance, it might well limit the number of harmonics at which his work resonates, whereas it should be able to vibrate freely without constraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "I'm willing to bet that the truth is going to be very shallow indeed." I think this is what the old psychoanalysts called "projection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 If a buisness executive were to fill out a report in crayon or act out in some childish unprofessional way, he would be fired on the spot. But when a photographer like Friedlander produces imagery equivalent to a child's, he is praised for "being able to capture this feeling." This just proves how obsessed people are with adults who make a living doing what 8 year olds can do. How else do you explain Friedlanders status or the fact that professional athletes make millions playing a kids game. People love to live in a fantasy world and there are no shortage of "professionals" willing to cash in on this fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "What???!!! Do you know what either of those words mean?" But of course. And I even took the time to try to explain my intentionally incorrect usage of the word. "A sort of psychosomatic thinking where you absorb their thinking and subplant your thoughts with their's as their interpretation sounds better then your's." Sorry if I didn't have a better word of choice at the ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "I think this is what the old psychoanalysts called "projection"." I base the comment on that what I've read and posted links to; comments made by notables. So there's less projection and more fact but yes, the over-arching comment is subjective in nature, as I haven't done research on all photographic artists; just a few in which to base my comment on. A key factor here is avoidancy behavior patterns. If someone doesn't want to address an issue in a straight forward manner, then reasonably, the motive for this behavior should be called into question. Why? And if you have a group (birds of a feather) exhibiting this behavior then the fact that there's a collective avoidancy belies ulterior motives. The Mob. Politicians. Unions. Secretive groups of any genre. Religious groups. And yes, many artists seem to demand that they be part of this secretive behavior as to their artistic motives; Eggleston is a prime example. It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it should be such a surprise that others see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't. Straight answers to straight questions. Not to much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it should be such a surprise that others see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't." Oops! Mistyped a word. Should read: It's okay if folks want to seem enigmatic as it serves their purposes but it shouldn't be such a surprise that other's see this behavior for what it is and not what it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 "Other's" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofrancardi Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Great food for thoughts... but I'm willing, and mostly do, to think as a child and looking positively at artistic works and enjoy paintings, photographs, music.. whatever Art it is as long as money don't come in. that's when I get suspicious. That's why I love the Net and this wes site! I learnt that, often, not always, artistic career is a matter of liasons and public relations and... well, you know what I mean. that does not mean that "Arts" are not worth the effort and the "Effort" is not worth the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 I'm surprised that you folks let slide the importance of Minor White and Stieglitz and their willingness to discuss their early photographic efforts and the emotional impact they tried to imbue their images with.<p> <a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122401a.htm">Minor White - Equivalents</a><p> <a href="http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stieglit.htm">Alfred Stieglitz</a> worked with "Impressionism" in his earlier photographic efforts before moving on to "Realism" and discussed this point in great detail.<p> The point of my above is to show that earlier notables, Minor White and Alfred Stieglitz had no problem discussing their efforts. No enigma or need for the viewing audience to "have" to figure it out; the message was on the table for all to discuss. One has no problem locating writings by Ansel Adams which he writes as to what he and his images were all about; "Ansel Adams; Letters And Images 1916-1984."<p> I'd love to see some links posted as to what contemporary notables, post 1970, Postmodern photographers, have to say, directly, about their efforts, much in the same light as earlier notables such as Stieglitz, White and Adams were so willing to do.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Thomas, I suspect that one reason for the wordiness of White and Stieglitz is that both were the creators of movements in art, and therefore they wrote numerous manifestos. This is not the case with Friedlander, for instance, or most modern artists. Plus, I think nowadays not many people would be attracted by White's dimestore mysticism or the self-explanation of the pre-war avantguardes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now