God how I hate Eggleston:)

[twmeyer]

"<i>The General public could probably care less about Eggleston.</i>"<p>and who is it that cares about the general public? Ah yes, Thomas Kinkaid, with "Over 10 Billion Sold"... no wait, that's McDonalds... t

[beeman458]

"and who is it that cares about the general public? Ah yes, Thomas Kinkaid, with "Over 10 Billion Sold"... no wait, that's McDonalds... t"

 

Is there something wrong with Thomas Kindaid's art, just because it's commercial in nature? Has there become a defacto standard that hasn't been made publicly known yet? You write your above as if there's something (superiority/snobbery), how shall I write.... pedestrian or socially unaceptable about his effort. Shall art be redefined so as to not include his genre? Do you hold his supportes (buyers of his art) in distain? If I can accept Eggleston, maybe you can find it in your heart to accept Kinkaid? If I can find it in my heart to understand Serrano, can you find it in your heart to accept velvet Elvis'?

 

Is not art a far reaching crown, encompassing all of human endevor or is it a crown only the acceptably few are secured by? :)

[h._p.]

"or is it a crown only the acceptably few are secured by"

 

Well said, Thomas. There are some, very few, people who believe that only their taste in art counts; but this is so clearly falacious that it's impossible to think of a practical way to refute it. It's rather like trying to deprogramme a member of one of those nasty sects. The members have to hold on to their, clearly erroneous, belief set because that belief has become a central part of their self image. Take it away and they are left with nothing. I find it all very sad because the power of art lies in its diversity.

[beeman458]

"It's rather like trying to deprogramme a member of one of those nasty sects."

 

I'm not sure but I'd bet you just nailed about seventy-five/eighty percent or more of the world's population with that one. LOL

 

"Aaaaaah, let's see, you belong to which religious sect?"

 

To me, as a "believer," they're all, to a one, "nasty" (cult) sects. But that's another philosophical thread, for as a "believer" I don't feel comfortable going "near," let alone into "any" place of worship cause to me they're "all" a bunch of (based upon personal experience) weak minded spiritual pervs. :O

[sprouty]

Thomas, I think it is a very healthy act to re-examine your artistic prejudices.

<P>

As for Eggleston, I came to appreciate his work fairly quickly, though not without casting a very skeptical eye. And truthfully, I often wonder if that's not how the vast majority approach him. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BNwL">Here is a thread</a> that helped me (and one in which you contributed greatly).

<P>

There is a great paragraph on Post Modernism by Tom Foley but what I also found intriguing was the comment by you that in order to appreciate the work you need a bit of understanding "as to "whaz-happ-i-nin" within the genre"</I>. It may seem simplistic but it is absolutely true.

<P>

So over the last few years I've spent a many countless hours reading and looking and without a doubt the more the background is filled in the greater and broader the appreciation becomes. And I'm far richer, in a philosophical sense, for making the effort.

<P>

Of course having said this, I don't necessarily come around to everything. I still struggle with one artist in particular - Wegman. In fact I truly can't understand him at <I>any</I> level. Anyone wanna help me with that?

[hatley]

<i>"Of course having said this, I don't necessarily come around to everything. I still struggle with one artist in particular - Wegman. In fact I truly can't understand him at any level. Anyone wanna help me with that?"</i><br><br>

 

I'm pretty far from an authority, but I have mulled Wegman over several times. In the end it comes down to a sports analogy for me. I'm not personally a big sports fan usually, but consider that in public life among males (at least I find) is still politics and sports. Both can be passionate subjects. But politics has a deadly serious core to it, sports usually doesn't. In sports we have a brighter side of the yin-yang of public interaction, politics can be damned depressing and friendship ending.<br><br>

Thats how I see Wegman, its the bright side. The reason I've mulled him over many times is that eventually we are going to feel a stronger shift away from Caravaggio. To me the exciting part of art is no longer how to show the negative, but how to show the uplifting without cliche. It is more challenging, in my view - more different than everyone else. So it isn't whimsy, but positivity that I get from him in the end and a gut feel that he and others who follow may represent a pivot point society is coming close to being ready for. Just my view.

[beeman458]

"...but how to show the uplifting without cliche."

 

I might suggesting expanding that out to (considering the millions of digital cameras out there today) say "How to take make a visual recording of "anything" today without it being a cliche?" :)

 

As I was out on this weekend's photographic outing, I talked with my wife about this same point as I pointed to the S.F. Bay and at some footsteps in the mud going off into the distance.<div></div>

[sprouty]

Michael, I could probably find some understanding with respect to Wegman and your philosophy of it falling in the "lighter side" of the art world.

 

Except, and this is a big exception, that it is discussed in deadly serious tones at the highest levels in the world of academics and critics. Which, perversely in my mind, promotes selling prices an order of magnitude beyond the velvet dogs-playing-poker stuff.

[sprouty]

Then again, what the hell do I know...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6976660/

[hatley]

*grin

 

There is no doubt at all my view is simplistic and provincial, I formed it without reading any critics and used a sad foundation in art history. I will however quote Wilde in defense of taking a simple view: ﾓThe critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.ﾔ I think if we let the critic educate us too much, even frankly if they are right sometimes where we get it wrong, that it might make our views a touch homogeneous and as stagnant as the field of philosophy currently is (buried in epistemology).

 

Very interested in other interpretations, don't read this to say I think I'm right - I just ramble =)

[beeman458]

"Then again, what the hell do I know..."

 

Now that's funny.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[beeman458]

"Very interested in other interpretations, don't read this to say I think I'm right - I just ramble =)"

 

There is no such thing as a valid critique. Why? Cause a critique, no matter how educated, is nothing more than an education based (pre-disposition) bias.

[sprouty]

The strange thing about my above post (aside from the insane price) is that it was relatively easy to find the "dog's playing poker" auction price but I can't seem to find the highest price paid for a Wegman?

[beeman458]

".../but I can't seem to find the highest price paid for a Wegman?"

 

Scroll down to "prices."

 

http://www.agallery.com/Pages/photographers/wegman.html

 

Me thinks that Wegman has a bit more to go in the value department. It might have to do with exclusive Vs repeatability.

[sprouty]

I'm not sure that what was shown was the highest auction price, though at this point it doesn't really matter since the dogs playing poker selling for a half a million dollars still has my head spinning.

[maris_rusis]

Eggleston is credited as a photographer and I know he does a lot of camera clicking but I wonder who makes the pictures we see and if the pictures are photographs.

 

As a collector of photographs I need the stuff I buy to satisfy clear headed critical scholarship in the indefinite future and not just current fads or fashions. For that reason I buy photographs from people who conduct the entire process from camera work to the final picture by themselves. And the pictures have to be made from light sensitive materials.

 

Eggleston and many others do not meet those standards and their offerings represent a waste of eyesight if real photographs with impeccable provenance are one's objective.

[twmeyer]

re:"<i>Is there something wrong with Thomas Kindaid's art, just because it's commercial in nature? Has there become a defacto standard that hasn't been made publicly known yet? You write your above as if there's something (superiority/snobbery), how shall I write.... pedestrian or socially unaceptable about his effort. Shall art be redefined so as to not include his genre? Do you hold his supportes (buyers of his art) in distain? If I can accept Eggleston, maybe you can find it in your heart to accept Kinkaid? If I can find it in my heart to understand Serrano, can you find it in your heart to accept velvet Elvis'?<p>Is not art a far reaching crown, encompassing all of human endevor or is it a crown only the acceptably few are secured by?"</i><p>___________________________<p>wow. It appears that you have reached the age when you can just make up stuff and expect the kids to believe it.<p> No where did I suggest his work wasn't art, I was merely <b>implying</b> that it was about as tasty as a Big Mac, and just as predictable. "Commercial" art is not (by my standards) "less" because of broad appeal or professional motivations. Commercially successful art with broadly recognized integrity and appeal is difficult to produce.<p>I also was observing that he is an example of an Artiste who understands the tastes of the general public and it's tendancies (I have photographed the children of the general public with the Easter Bunny and they were pleased. They <b>know</b> what they like.) and he seems to satisfy their desires. Just like Ray Kroc. <p>One not too hidden premise behind my comment was that the general public is no better at judging artworks than they are assessing a hamburger.<p>And no, I don't think "<b>art (is) a far reaching crown, encompassing all of human endevor"</b>. <b>All</b> human endeavor? "Broad Brush" is too limiting a metaphor for that oversimplification.... at least I narrowed the field somewhat with <b>my</b> sweeping generalization.<p>In my commercial work, I lust for the approval of the general public. It pays the bills. In my artworks I have found designing for a mysterious and finicky general public to be a false and fruitless path that never leads to personal satisfaction or work with integrity and staying power. It (designing for the GP) is, for me, the well worn road to photographic "writers block", and forces me into cliche's ... t<p>I love velvet paintings, but prefer Tigers with Babes to Elvis<p>Sorry about the italics...WTF?

[beeman458]

"No where did I suggest his work wasn't art, I was merely implying that it was about as tasty as a Big Mac,"

 

Your point was very clear.

[beeman458]

"One not too hidden premise behind my comment was that the general public is no better at judging artworks than they are assessing a hamburger."

 

I think the public is perfectly fine with their ability to judge the character of a hamburger. You're pretentious and don't realize it.

 

If a person digs a McDonalds, then so be it as there are many choices and it seems they know what they want and that's all that matters. What you or I think of their taste, don't matter. They're doing just fine without our approval. Where's the rub?

 

Art's the same way, it seems the only ones being rubbed in the art department are those who feel their knowledge set is "superior" to others so therefore they somehow have a better insight? Am I better then the next person because I have a handle on who's who and what's what or in real terms, aren't we all just bozos on the bus?

 

 

"One not too hidden premise behind my comment was that the general public is no better at judging artworks than they are assessing a hamburger."

 

Me thinks the general public is a "whole lot better" at judging art then you realize and it rubs the "high fallutin ones" to no end cause the general public doesn't agree with them so to make themselves feel better, they denigrate rather then accept that different people have different understandings, tastes, wants and dislikes and

 

"Is not art a far reaching crown, encompassing all of human endevor or is it a crown only the acceptably few are secured by? :)"

 

Like it or not, art surrounds, holds and comforts us all and the comment is not an ("Broad Brush" is too limiting a metaphor for that oversimplification....) oversimplification.

 

The poor, poor, pedestrian masses, doomed to live a life at McDonalds. How sad. Do you even read what you post?

[twmeyer]

what's sadder is that I read what you post. "<i>You're pretentious and don't realize it.</i> " I am actual, and not pretending anything. You posit yourself to be a self appointed working class hero. Good luck with that (and yes, <i>that's</i> sarcasm. You'll get no insincere smiley face from me). <p>If I choose to appreciate art, or even create my own <i>without</i> first conducting a poll of the General Public or a panel of esteeeeeemed art academics, or the auctioneers at Sotheby's, or WHOMEVER to see if they approve, that's MY option. You can suck up to whomever you deem worthy and yap on this forum all you want and it will make squat difference to me.<p>"<i>If a person digs a McDonalds...it seems they know what they want and that's all that matters...They're doing just fine without our approval.</i>" They are NOT doing fine. Have you noticed the girth of your discerning General Public lately? The increased occurance of child diabetes? The GP's taste for Big Macs has a detrimental effect on me, and you, every day. A poisonous diet is weakening this country (the USA) and we are spreading it across the world. <p>You spend too much time on the internet. Get your self righteous head out where there's some air, you've got a dangerous personal feedback loop going on (you don't work for the Post Office, do you? Day trading maybe? Oh yes, it's pesticides, isn't it? hmmm)... t

[beeman458]

You really are pretentious. You should try exploring this point instead of hating me for pointing it out.

 

-----------------------

 

"If a person digs a McDonalds...it seems they know what they want and that's all that matters...They're doing just fine without our approval."

 

-----------------------

 

"They are NOT doing fine."

 

Me thinks you're confusing health issues with choice of food and the need for outside intervention as they're doing fine with their free choice of burgers and how this idea compares to the masses' understanding and their free choice of what art they'll pursuit.

 

Free choice has it's..... testing of patience shall we say.

 

"Get your self righteous head out where there's some air, you've got a dangerous personal feedback loop going on (you don't work for the Post Office, do you? Day trading maybe?

 

"...dangerous..."

 

Interesting. In what way? What do I encourage or do, that's so detrimental or threatening to society at large that's considered "dangerous?"

 

If it helps, I'm good with your hate. About a week ago, I came to realize (an epiphany) how full of hate the world is and no matter what door I open, there's going be somebody there hating me so I came to be at peace with this point as it seemed important to do so. So if you want to hate me, I'm good. In the meantime, I'll stick to my comment that...

 

"Like it or not, art surrounds, holds and comforts us all...."

 

The beauty of what I learned from studing Eggleston's efforts over the last couple of years was insight (permission/comfort) in which to blend Modern with Postmodern and for this I'm grateful. I don't need anybody's permission or approval in order to do what I'm doing as because of what I learned from Eggleston's efforts, what others think, don't matter. There is a difference, I'm not going to go running to John in NYC's MOMA, join the right gang and promote myself. How demeaning.

 

I love reading about what folks have to say about Impressionist like Manet as they had to pull out of the Salon and put together their own show. Stieglitz? He ran up against this hate also as he too had to leave the "Linked Ring" cause of this vitriol.

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/linked_r.htm

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/photo_se.htm

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/camerawo.htm

 

Get a grip, chill and enjoy cause we're all going die anyways.

[hatley]

<i>"If it helps, I'm good with your hate. About a week ago, I came to realize (an epiphany) how full of hate the world is and no matter what door I open, there's going be somebody there hating me so I came to be at peace with this point as it seemed important to do so."</i><br><br>

 

Thats strange, since four or five days ago you said something similar to this to me. I think maybe you might mistake passionate arguments for hatred - since I'm not sure where you got that vibe from then or now. Either that or you might be buying into a current political spin on the american minority party (its standard stuff for the majority party to paint the minority party as obstructionists this way all through history), and using percieved elitism as the hook. Don't buy this stuff mate, sometimes people just have a different view. It doesn't mean they think they are better than you or hate you, but in a serious conversation they may believe what they say and argue the point. Thats what philosophy is all about really, good intellectual debate/conversation.

 

Cheers.

[mike dixon]

Michael, if you look through Thomas's posting history, you'll see that, whenever people disagree with him, he likes to portray himself as a feared and/or hated rebel who's threatening the status quo. A lot of us now just roll our eyes at the screen and don't even bother playing.

[beeman458]

"Thats what philosophy is all about really, good intellectual debate/conversation. Cheers."

 

Thanks for the insight but "hate" is an appropriate word as when someone takes on your profession as reason for your thinking as they call you dangerous. There's only one way to chacterize this sort of conversation.

 

I'm tired of "hate" that's posted under the guise of "passion" so I'm upfront about it. Writing in a generic sense and not applying my next towards you or any one person. Hate me if you will (convenience) cause your hate isn't going change my thinking.

 

No particular order: I'm hated cause I'm white. I'm hated cause I'm Christian. I'm hated cause I'm American. I'm hated cause I'm straight. I'm hated cause I'm monogomous. I'm hated cause I'm male. I'm hated cause I'm Republican. I'm hated for my values. I'm hated cause I'm comfortable with my art and my think. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.

 

There's no confusion as there's clearly a difference between hateful conversation and passionent conversation. One needs to come to interpersonal terms with this hate, which I have, so hate me if you will, I'm good.

[beeman458]

"he likes to portray himself as a feared and/or hated rebel who's threatening the status quo"

 

When have I ever portrayed myself as "feared" or stated that I'm "threatening the status quo." Your comments above is the type of behavior I write of Mike. Yes, my comments do challenge the "status quo," hence the vitriol but I have no use for "fear." Yes, I am an artistic rebel by today's standards, does that bother you? I actually know why I do what I do in regard to my artistic efforts and how these efforts fit into the scheme of it all. Does this bother you?

 

What I was in my past, I apologize for as that's not who emerged from my cocoon like sabatical in my efforts to regain health.

 

I've made peace with my dislike (hate) for Eggleston, the purpose of this thread and I'm now making peace with the hate that's become so prevalent in the world today. Is this such a bad thing?