Have you ever seen a really rotten gallery/show/exposition?

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I do not intend to poke fun at other peoples art. So in that spirit lets share what we have learned from inferior examples. I'll go first.</p>

<p>A couple days ago the local newspaper featured a press release announcing a month-long gallery showing at a nearby small-town playhouse. I followed the URL to the photographer's personal Internet portfolio. From there I followed a link to an online retail outlet featuring some prints for sale. I also found a link to another personal website detailing the photographers qualifications. </p>

<p>At the first URL, the personal portfolio, nearly every photo is out of focus! Also, nearly every photo is pixilated from excessive enlargement! Most photos have simply awful color! While surfing this website I kept thinking to myself the photographer's monitor must not be calibrated or the webmaster is a hack (or both)! At the retail website I did not find any difference in the quality of the images. On to the third website I discover the photographer is appointed to a position on an economic development board, is the "President" of a local art organization, and a board member of a larger regional art organization! I told my wife we need to see this gallery in person.</p>

<p>At the gallery my wife and I both had the shock of our lives. Nearly every photo is out of focus. Most photos were printed with a mis-calibrated 'home' printer which left obvious lines across the entire image. Some of the prints are rippled - I assume from over saturation of the ink. The colors were simply awful! The frames were common which is not bad, but the matting job left a lot to be desired. In one example the photo is intentionally placed high within the frame dividing the matting boarder with about 1/3 above the photo and 2/3 below it. However, the photo is not centered and off to the left about a quarter inch - not enough to be an obvious intentional artistic offset, just an annoying goof!</p>

<p>I will not comment on the subject material, composition, or any other elements as these are all interpretable on many levels of art, skill, and artistic license. But in conclusion I can only guess the photographer has poor vision and uses manual focus. My wife and I are both professional artists with nearly 30 years combined experience between us, (NOT pro photographers) and have the benefit of art degrees (for whatever those may be worth) and a lot of experience viewing 'art'. As 'art' goes this gallery is by far the worst we have ever seen! </p>

<p>On our way home we joked how the photographer whom sits on three important boards, (two of them 'art' related) must have no idea how bad the photos suck because nobody will be honest for fear of a reprisal. We can not imagine anyone sharing these photos in this setting if they truly had any idea of exactly how bad they are. The lesson here is 'If you never hear a poor comment about your work then you may not be hearing the truth'.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Ah the emperor's new clothes</p>

<p>My sister and I went to see an acquaintence's show at a gallery that she's part owner of. The pictures were interesting, well composed, properly exposed, etc. However the gallery presentation was of the most amateur quality. The prints were made on thin paper that wrinkled when printed, the panoramas were printed on two pieces of paper, trimmed and mounted so there was an uneven seam down the middle, and the mats looked like they had been cut with a chain saw.</p>

<p>I believe she's a competent photographer but she should leave the mounting, framing, and gallery presentation to others.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I live pretty much in the Chelsea gallery district. More often than not the art shows really stink. Our neighborhood does not have an exclusive on odiferous art. One frequently sees it (even more often) in Soho, and it appears with regularity in the 57th st and Madison Ave districts as well. Moreover, I have seen it in LA, Boston and Chicago as well. A little less in Chicago, although I have not been there in 28 years. They have probably caught up by now.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>People who live in glass houses, etc. so I won't make any comments except to point out the great law:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>90% of everything is crap</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There have been quibbles on the actual percentage, but the principle seems solid.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Sounds pretty much like any creative endeavor. Try community theater if you want to see some wild variations in ability. It can range from cheerfully incompetent to near-world class quality from experienced actors who just do it for love of the art. Same with music, same with any other art form. I've seen plenty of local galleries and shows with bad photographs, and some with excellent photographs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The lesson here is 'If you never hear a poor comment about your work then you may not be hearing the truth'."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nah, that's just trolling, not constructive criticism. Ask anyone who's received a "cowardly anonymous 3/3" when they knew they deserved a heroic anonymous 7/7. They'll tell you that, just as with reviews of literature, theater or movies, if the criticism is negative, then it's the critic's responsibility to give the artist lessons to make them better. It's never the artist's responsibility to learn to produce better work. The function of art is only to receive accolades (interesting that the etymology of that word includes "a hug around the neck"). If the art fails to produce the desired effect, the fault is obviously with the viewer.</p>

<p>Thus, by their own accolades, are they hanged.</p>

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I am thankful ya'll are taking this subject in the spirit I intend. I think the most significant difference between an amateur artist and a professional one is the thick skin found on professionals. </p>

<p>I will never forget my first 'class review' at college - It was a mixed class with newbies like me and on up to the 'professional students' who have no plans to leave college. My work was verbally shredded by everyone! However, so was every other work to cross the wall in that room. By the end of the semester it became easy to see all the faults of any piece before my fellow classmates point them out to me in as blunt a manner as possible. By the time I graduated I knew which personalities would like a piece and which ones would not.</p>

<p>I minored in photography and have pursued photography as a hobby ever since. I think most of my photos are on par with the bottom 10% of those posted here, (okay, maybe the bottom 5%) but I learn a lot by reading all the critiques and advice given. Keep up the good work!</p>

[rossb]

<p> Sometimes pictures look out of focus to me also. But after a Senior coffee I remember to put on my glasses and everything kind of perks up a bit. I do find that when viewing digital pictures I enjoy them more with my glasses off. I just gawk and squint at it for a while and say "Bamm, now that's what I'm talking about". Then I go look for a nice Pie to go with my senior coffee.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>If you think it's surprising to see terrible work at a small-town playhouse/gallery, try renting a typical straight-to-DVD Steven Seagal movie. There are people spending millions of dollars to create absolute garbage.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>I think JDM's percentages are overly optimistic. Probably closer to 98 percent. But when you stumble into something at a show that wows you (the 2 Max Beckman's in the 'frisco museum of modern art's permanent collection come to mind), it's really, really worth it.</p>

[anthea50]

<p>I'm assuming that we're including ballet recitals? I have seen some truly tragic performances....</p>

[steve_levine]

<p> A few years ago I was looking to hire a 2nd wedding assistant. A young woman from a local state U's art dept applied. Her photographs looked like a stoned monkey with a motor drive had fired off some out of focus shots! When I asked her about her work she was truly hurt by my criticism. I ended up hiring a smart high school student that was willing to learn.</p>

<p> For some reason there are a number of people that seem to think that poor technique equals art? To further this thought, I've seen some known fine art shooters put out some real crap and call it art.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>John, and others, if you like German Expressionist art, the Beckman and other paintings in the collections of the St. Louis Art Museum are extremely fine--worth a trip to see.</p>

<p>Of course, this was among the very core of what was called Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art), so not everyone likes(d) this kind of work. :( </p>

<p>For years, as I traveled around, every place I went was just mounting some kind of German Expressionist exhibit. I learned to love it; the more I saw of it.<br>

[images of people shouting-"JDM's coming, schedule the GE exhibit!"]</p>

[tholte]

<p>Mike, lighten up a bit! Steve Seagal movies are poorly written, acted and produced but the good guys always wins. Isn't that worth something?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>From my understanding assessing the quality of art in all its forms has to take into account the entire decision making process and not just those of the artist's. The folks that decide what gets shown and who gets money to provide the places to show it are also involved in that creative process though they'ld probably not admit it.</p>

<p>IOW it's mostly about marketing and who gets seen the most at the right place at the right time by the right people which is an art form all unto itself.</p>

<p>Andy Warhol's soup cans comes to mind. Soup cans! Really?!</p>

<p>Now that was some righteous playing and preying on public group thinking if I ever saw. And that's exactly what Warhol was communicating which compounded the public's perception that he was a genius. I don't know how he could ever stop laughing knowing this.</p>

[gordon_lukesh1]

<p>Taos, NM celebrated the "Summer of Love" in honor of 40 years since Easy Rider was made, much of it here. Dennis Hopper used to live here and is a frequent visitor (he is a friend of our next door neighbor, the noted actor Dean Stockwell). OK so a local gallery announced a photo show by a photographer from back then. His name escapes me but that doesn't bother me.<br>

We went to the opening expecting to be wowed. But except for one darkroom produced photo, all they guy did was scan his old B&W negs and blow them up digitally. What's worse is he didn't take the time to clean the negatives, there was evidence of hairs all over them, not scratches (I do darkroom work and I know the difference). Most people walked in, glanced, and walked right out. The gallery owner couldn't even give away food! The photos were so-so; the production was amateurish at best, and that's being polite.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

The easiest way to turn a poorly composed, badly lit, out of focus, poorly presented piece of a crap into a valuable piece of art is to stick a $5,500 price tag on it.

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>James--</strong></p>

<p>Have you ever tried it? Did it succeed?</p>

[johnathan1]

<p>Ever go to a county fair and see the images being judged? Some county fair exhibits are pretty nice, while others leave a lot to be desired. <br>

I have been to a few galleries in my local area and wonder what the gallery owner was thinking to hang certain pieces. I will not even start to try to tell someone what art is, but in many cases almost anyone can tell you what art is not, and this is where as a gallery owner I would be a little more picky on what is displayed. <br>

James you hit it on the nail head there. In Santa Clair, Ca. I once seen a painting of a thumb, nothing spectacular, no real definition, just a skin tone color with a rust colored background - $5000. I literally walked out of the gallery laughing.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Fred,

 

I've never had any photos really bad enough to charge $5,500 for.

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I visit at least three area fairs each year. I will not give any negative comment on the photo contests because the vast majority of entries are truly amateurs. However, with that said, I see a lot of really good photos at these fairs! Even the kids put up some surprising stuff. The example I opened this topic with is by far much worse than anything I have seen at my local fairs! Good stuff everybody - thanks.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Most interesting responses. I have one question. If we all see through the art world bull.... why does it continue?</p>

[john gettis]

<p>Saw an exhibit at a Photo Musuem once that was toilet seats that famous people had sat in paint then on the seats. Thank god it was free I would have hated to have paid to see that. I walked to the back where they keep a few Ansel Adams Photos on display spent a few minutes looking at them and walked out after asking when the current main display would be over. John</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"If we all see through the art world bull.... why does it continue?" <strong>--Bruce Cahn</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question. My guess is that the answer is something along these lines: while the very occasional toilet seat is commanding someone's attention and money for some reason, lots of really creative and talented people are out there working hard at being artists. They have studios, they learn their craft, they crave expressing themselves in ways that others often respond to and, if they're lucky, they get shown in a gallery or museum. They often don't make a whole lot of money and often don't rip people off. Maybe it continues so everyone else can feel good about themselves. ;)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Market expectation. There's good stuff out there that sells; but, there are a lot of people who are buying who expect to pay. </p>

<p>I often wonder if some of it isn't an insurance or financing racket. I looked into some insurance sales pitches recently; one of the leading questions I saw repetitively was Dollar Value of Equipment. Frequently, there were no or few questions involving risk assessment. The whole scheme was based on purchase price of assets. </p>

<p>That's how some people think. My guess is, they also buy art. Property owning and social ranking gives us the bourgeois.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>JDM.....<br>

Larry the Cable Guy says 99% of all statistics are made up by 51% of the people doing the study 86% of the time....so I'm not sure about...<br>

"90% of everything is crap"<br>

However, on the surface it makes sense...</p>