Purposeful Photography

[luis_g]

<p>It's part of the landscape, it's not going away and Kenneth knows that. I don't think Don, Fred or I said the title was coveted (why should 'pro' be coveted? Oops I forget: It sells a lot of high-end cameras) or that it had anything to do with virtue -- or shame. It just is. It's funny how it rankles people... mostly those who haven't a clue, veterans or jaded insiders. Only thing said was that due to the reintegration of definitions that a lot of people with cameras would by default adopt that definition of what they are, in lieu of semi-pro, pro-wanna-be, carrying pro-gear pro-sumo, etc.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with hobbyist or amateur. In England, people are Ok with calling themselves 'snappers'. I would be surprised if the definitions don't realign themselves within a more social context, and one can see signs of this happening already.</p>

<p>Two years or more ago, a program was created that "looks" at an image and foretells how successful it will be ratings-wise at Flickr. It gave dismal ratings for some of the best-known photographs in history, btw. How long before such a thing is incorporated into cameras? Imagine a PN-rating version or one for Sotheby's auctions...in your LCD screen, whatever's pictured is being given a near real-time predictive rating. It wouldn't be like that computer at Jeopardy or anything, but a lot of people would love it.</p>

<p>Artists/miscreants? LOL. I sometimes think of it as a near-fatal mutation.</p>

<p>As technology becomes easier, more transparent and in tune with people's work skills, we're going to see those who might have been technically-averse but adept with good ideas and vision coming out of the woodwork. I think as Kenneth mentioned earlier, that's happening, and IMO, it's a good thing.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The idea of what's art and who's an artist is always in flux. There are gatekeepers and tastemakers for sure but what and who gets into the club in the long run is not based on any permanent criteria. Even museums offer little guidance. One sees the usual suspects, starting from about the 19th C. Impressionists, everywhere mostly because there is a lot of it. If your photographic efforts resembles anything from this period of time, competently or not, there is sufficient affinity that allows one to claim to be an artist without too much challenge. The large number of so-called schools or micro-styles being identified as somehow unique are caused by the shear density of typeage being cranked out by our culture gabbing about itself. <br>

The notion of dispersion or atomization of art has been around awhile. Meister Eckhart - 12th C., possessed a very sophisticated and timeless wisdom: <em>The artist is not a special kind of man , but every man is a special kind of artist.</em> The thought contained in that fine bumper sticker distinguishes conduct from specific kinds of skill. Remember the first SX70 ads that pitched the notion to up-scale types that, otherwise accomplished, people could find immediate gratification expressing themselves? Why wait to retire and <em>take-up</em> photography or painting? was implied. "You are a special kind of artist."<br>

What to call one's self doesn't mean much in an unstructured social media universe of <em>friends</em> and <em>likes</em>. For us still sooo last century, shyness about calling one's self an artist rather than our day job title is to either acknowledge we suck at it or you don't know what scruffy, disorganized, paranoid, or all three artist stereotypes we might be unfairly judged to represent. <br>

Having yet another mass mode of expression is itself a significant cause for unprecedented acts of art. I think the new digital modes: smartphones, Google aps, GPS and social meda already satisfy creative and expressive needs to a greater extent than possessing material art or a gallery, or museum visit.</p><div></div>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Wonderful statements, one and all. I'm outta my league. I don't know where things stand ( because they're moving ) right now. Self expression qualifying as art is new psychology thinking, and so different from all the preceding centuries. I don't resent qualified distinctions by societies thinkers determining that my self expression is passe. If it is, it is, regardless if I am benefiting by it, it has no other value. We steel ourselves better by owning up to these distinctions, and transcending them if we can. And the ugliness of disinterested market influences become stronger than social needs only when we let them. Playing it asleep at the wheel, all innocent and pure, as we have politically, will only dilute our culture.</p>

<p>Just because this involves psychic, spiritual, and individual experiences doesn't mean that it should take precedence over collective wisdom. Individuals are probes, not whole societies.</p>

[jtk]

<p>"MODE OF EXPRESSION"....yet another spin on the "art" let's-pretend trip, the "beret" trip as someone mentioned recently.</p>

<p>The idea that something formerly as important as "art" (up until the late fifties, perhaps) is now supplanted by something as value-free as "mode of expression" (a comfort to deconstructors!) does paint the scene (so to speak): all one needs to do is call Glen Beck or post on this Forum and voila! The "mode of expression" makes one today's "artist." :-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Allan Z - "</strong>The idea of what's art and who's an artist is always in flux."</p>

<p>...because it is alive.</p>

<p><strong>AZ - "</strong>Even museums offer little guidance. One sees the usual suspects, starting from about the 19th C. Impressionists, everywhere mostly because there is a lot of it."</p>

<p>And it happens to be the public's favorite type of art, according to Museum surveys, and since Museums stay alive selling admission, it's ubiquitous in permanent collections and shows.</p>

<p><strong>AZ - "</strong>Having yet another mass mode of expression is itself a significant cause for unprecedented acts of art. I think the new digital modes: smartphones, Google aps, GPS and social media already satisfy creative and expressive needs to a greater extent than possessing material art or a gallery, or museum visit."</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

[don_essedi]

It's not my intention to discuss what is art or who is an artist in photography. My thoughts in this thread are in response to shifts in language used by beginners and young photographers on photography forums towards "art" and away from "pro" or commercial photography. I don't mean to suggest that everyone using the 'artistic' expressions today do so with an actual intention of being artist photographers. It may not be that more are using the 'artistic', but it seems so, if fewer are using the 'pro' or commercial. They use the language they encounter to communicate about photography. It's my opinion that art is a richer millieu than advertising or celebrity photography for finding inspiration and for philosophical inquiry. So, it is a good thing, overall, given the alternatives.

 

 

Luis wrote "...not only do I think that the new wave considering themselves artists not detract anything from what we think of as artists, but that it will expand sympathy and support for the artist in the long run."

 

At the moment it seems "atomized", each to their own "subjectivity", their own unique "expression". Not unexpected of youth, but the thing about youth is it doesn't last very long. I think it is easier to learn the skills of photography than it is to develop a philosophy or theory of art and photography, for which the atomized expressions are placeholders.

[jtk]

<p>Don, I will think about your post regarding "atomized," "youth" etc. You've contributed significantly.</p>

<p>My impression is that Luis almost got your point, but then he used his appeal-to-authority ploy to define "art"...his authority lurks deep in museum management, which panders to the mobs it studies to arrive at (uncited) statistics that (according to Luis) center "art" on impressionism. Impressionism is nice, right? Nice.</p>

<p>You may be interested in my post over in "Philosophy" regarding Avedon (Youts Vs Geezers). It's my personal experience that the best photographers (artwise) are in fact commercial photographers, and that the famous "noncommercial" "art photographers" are wannabe commercial: they photograph in order to make money...consider Friedlander's many expensive coffee table books for example, some of which seem to me to be nothings. I don't think the best of Friedlander ever rose to Avedon's or Irving Penn's average, in terms of "bad/mediocre/good/stellar"</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>My apologies to Luis and Don if I appear to have taken the claim of artist as a title to be their point, rather I've just noticed how severely many others have fought for that distinction. I leapfrogged your intent. And while I'm at it, I hope I was not argumentative and crude to m.stephens viewpoint.<br>

I don't mean to expel the more human viewpoint of artist in favor of institutional approval, I just cannot personally live with the moniker as such. Feels too new age, and I prefer the old school hard liners. I'd rather be tossed out of a club I respect, than welcomed into one that accepts everybody.</p>

 

[david.wagle]

<p>When I was younger, I pursued a master's degree in philosophy and tried to think about stuff in depth. I used to talk about the atomization of this or the subjectivity of that.<br>

As I got older, one day I realized I had no idea what any of that stuff meant. Moreover, I'm pretty well convinced that no one else really does either. <br>

So now instead of worrying about purpose and intent I take pictures because I like taking pictures. My purpose is nothing more than to be true to my own self. That's complicated enough without spending all day trying to define and delineate nuance upon nuance.</p>

 

[don_essedi]

John, in my experience, Luis is right about the Impressionists. In attempting to market a client's work to the Carnegie Museum gift shops here -- not her paintings, but items like calendars, "giclee" prints, and gift cards based on them -- the buyer went into a rant about the public: they only buy the Impressionists. If its not Impressionists, they won't buy it.

 

A successful artist (one who supports themselves and dependents with their art sales) means an artist with an understanding of the biz. It doesn't make their work commercial art, though, just as someone who paints or photographs machinery, office interiors, or factories isn't practicing the industrial arts. Photographers like Avedon and Penn had clients, contracts, deliverables, an accountant and a tax lawyer, I'm sure.

 

I believe advertising photography and the MOMA discovered each other a few years ago.

[don_essedi]

I should clarify part of my response to John. Penn and Avedon were commercial photographers. That they may have standing in the world of art photography is true as well, and their work might be great art, but their commercial work was not art photography. Painting with a broad brush: art photography aims for exhibition in a gallery or museum as its end, and not as a perfume ad in Vogue.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think of art as multi-criterial, like a bunch of overlapping Venn diagrams. No one quality is either necessary or sufficient to cover everything that is art. That's why art often requires a discussion rather than a definition. There are things like Representation, Beauty, Significance, Symbolism, Transcendence, Self-Expression, Human Experience, Aesthetic Experience, "Art for Art's Sake", Non-Utilitarian, Institution that are considered. It's more in the mixing of these various qualities (sometimes one, sometimes some, sometimes all) that art can be found. And I hesitate to make art about categorization, which is what often happens. (<em>What counts as art?</em>) I'd much rather it be about art as living. (<em>What does it do?</em>)</p>

<p>Self-expression is neither necessary nor sufficient as a quality of art. There are plenty of art objects that were not intended as such kinds of expressions. And there are plenty of self expressions that are not art: a sigh, for example.</p>

<p>I don't think institutional approval is necessary or sufficient either. I've seen plenty of galleries showing crap that's not close to being art* and plenty of great art never makes it to the institutional route.</p>

<p>(*I do think there is bad art, which is also shown at galleries. But some just isn't art at all.)</p>

<p>The biz and financial support is one and only one measure of success. Another measure can be the product. And another can be the process. And another can be its reception by an audience. There are many artists more successful at creating art than many of the successful art-biz types. And many can't support themselves or their families with their art.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I don't often ponder art in a commercial context. I usually consider commercial production of objects as a 'craft.' But reading here about selling Giclee prints and calendars in gift shops reminds me of how difficult it is to make substantial income by those means. Every gift shop in my town has a rack 12" x 18" matted and bagged photographs on sale for twenty five bucks a piece. The shrunken versions are pasted onto blank greeting cards for the price of a cup of coffee (but not as much as a latte). I know by the thumb skids this stuff doesn't move much. All dutifully hand signed by the photographer, who has done the best to capture all the exciting landscapes, or macro subjects in rich colors (many are really magnificent). A modest house rents for a grand, and an economy car costs $25k, and a roast will set you back $12. Can this math work? I've always guessed that these "pros" were earning pin money.</p>

<p>By contrast, Thierry Guetta, in an act of superb post-everything self aggrandisement, slaps some spray paint on Xeroxed images, builds a one man show, and prices hundreds of these works of art at 5-figures for the swooning LA art world, and sells it out to the walls. Now that's economics!</p>

<p>Why do I mention this? Just to observe that it seems the camera has been deeply discounted in value as a tool of production. Perhaps in the same way that the telephone has lost economic influence as a communications tool. (What day trader would use a voice phone to buy and sell his stocks?)</p>

[don_essedi]

"I don't often ponder art in a commercial context. I usually consider commercial production of objects as a 'craft.' But reading here about selling Giclee prints and calendars in gift shops reminds me of how difficult it is to make substantial income by those means."

 

You highlight a point I was making earlier, that the economic impetus for photography is vanishing. That part of photography is of no interest to the amateur. They don't need to be compensated for their time, money and energy expenditures. They support themselves by other means. They can adopt the old aristocratic ideas about art and 'trade', if so inclined.

[luis_g]

<p>A nod to <strong>Don, </strong>for knowing what I was talking about.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>That's why art often requires a discussion rather than a definition."</p>

<p>I would add to that "...requires an <em>ongoing </em>discussion...". It's a living concept, not one frozen in time, though like everything else, every work of art or idea in art has specific timespace coordinates. In agreement with a lot of the rest.</p>

<p>Only a small percentage of artists ever make a living from it.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Perhaps my respect for the "artistry" of commercial photographers comes from knowing too many of them. In general they give their lives to their "art," unlike hobbiests. Few ever bother with MFA in photography or any of the degree mills, many studied under painters as well as photo notables like White, Siskind, and Adams. Surely "commitment" relates somehow. </p>

<p>MOMA is trend-oriented, like any big museum. That they may be front edge trend followers, or are even trend creators, doesn't matter one way or another. Avedon was Avedon long before MOMA exhibited his work. Exhibition by MOMA or Met isn't a curse but they are, after all, marketing organizations. Relying on them and their affection for Impressionism is like using Sarah Palin as one's North Star. She's often enough "right," but her relevance is at a certain level. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>My observation is that if the public is obsessed with the impressionists, there's no one to blame but museum curators. As the establishment's guardians of the public consciousness regarding art and it's incitements, they apply all due conservative principles to undercut, undermine, blunt and otherwise negate awareness of the conditions of the now-living.</p>

<p>The motivations and reactions of artists 5 generations back is <yawn> pretty safe to put on display. It feels like we need a better word to describe that stuff, and I would nominate '<em>wasart</em>' to describe that which once was art in it's living time. e.g. the power to meaningfully stimulate emotions, senses and intellect. For example, when viewing iconic photographs of the era when 'conserving natural wonders' was a motivation driving photography as art, how can this be relevant in the age of cynical industrialism? Would the effort be better spent showing the public Yosemite Falls, or the pile of one million discarded cell phones? By and large museums are chartered with upholding the status quo, not fomenting revolution. And that's essentially at counter-purpose to art! The impressionists therefore march ever forward in stunningly beautiful irrelevance - - on calendars and coffee cups.</p>

<p>A paintbrush handle made from the most unavailable and exotic hardwood won't really help you paint. But cameras are being made that make bad pictures (technically) impossible. It's not a stretch to say that the camera industry is eating it's customers. So, photography is saddled up to Moore's Law, like it or not. All you have to do to understand why you can't make a living with a camera is invert Moore's Law of value to express the economics instead of the compute power. Photographers face what web designers faced, and for exactly the same reasons. This also applies to graphics designers, who once commanded a week of wages to produce a commercial book cover, and now are lucky to acquire lunch money for the same output. In short, photography evolved from craft to an industrial process. (Just try selling hand-knitted stockings!)</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"For example, when viewing iconic photographs of the era when 'conserving natural wonders' was a motivation driving photography as art, how can this be relevant in the age of cynical industrialism?"</em></p>

<p>Humans are historical beings. We can <em>empathize</em> with various timeframes and contexts. We can also appreciate some works which transcend their original context.</p>

<p><em>"Would the effort be better spent showing the public Yosemite Falls, or the pile of one million discarded cell phones?"</em></p>

<p>Why would it be either/or? Any museums in San Francisco that offer Impressionist and more traditional works offer alternatives as well. You just gotta go down the hall.</p>

<p>It's not just Impressionism that gets commercialized and kitschified. Little statues of David. Mona Lisa refrigerator magnets. These habits say something about our collective consciousness, not about the value of the original works of art.</p>

[don_essedi]

FWIW, m stephens, here's the recent exhibition history of my local art museum. We're kind of a backwater compared to the big cities, but I don't think there are any Impressionists exhibits. Some nice photography ones, though.

 

http://web.cmoa.org/?page_id=49

 

Of special importance to me is the upcoming exhibit of Teenie Harris' photographs (late Oct 2011, through mid-April 2012) which I highly recommend.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenie_Harris

[jtk]

<p>Luis makes my point exactly: It's not just "Impressionism." Art, whatever it once may have been, has become a "kitchified" concept.</p>

<p>Happily, this remains a PHOTO forum...it often addresses something beyond kitsch. In fact, it's only the Philosophy forum and its exiles here that obsess on "art."</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Thanks for the link Don - I enjoyed reading the history section on the museum in addition to reviewing the list of exhibitions.</p>

<p>I agree with you and Fred that one can find contemporary exhibits. I am sure I exaggerated the idea in my attempt to describe the institutional fawning over historical movements like impressionism. I too was always able to find some good contemporary space in the neighborhood.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p> Whatever photography's purpose, <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Foto-Follies/Duane-Michals/e/9783865212757">never trust any photograph so large that it can only fit inside a museeum</a>. Gotta love Duane Michals.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Adding to Phylo's point . . .</p>

<p>M, I understand what you're getting at, but it all makes sense to me. I don't see it as institutional fawning over historical movements. I see it as institutional concentration, variety, and differentiation. It makes sense to me that the bigger, more established institutions like museums would show more traditional and historically-established works. There are certainly museums dedicated not to doing that. Smaller galleries, part of art's institution, generally have a different emphasis, different artists represented, and different audiences. Studios, many of which have become at least a little bit institutionalized (for example, there is a regular Open Studio day in San Francisco) show yet another kind of work and appeal to yet a different demographic. Art schools are part of the institution of art and they don't necessarily encourage students to limit their experience and activity to Impressionism or any other older schools, though they often recognize their significance. Books are already and Internet Web Sites are fast becoming part of the institution.</p>

<p>And then there's all the significant stuff that's off the radar, which no one's love for Impressionism will stifle. It may be good to have an institution so that there will always be important people working outside it.</p>

[don_essedi]

I agree with Fred that we are historical beings. Museums can be spooky because they are dedicated to preservation of history. That doesn't include us. We aren't history yet. Presenting contemporary work involves 'politics' -- as it should. We should keep in mind that the ruckus and riots caused by the Impressionists when they were contemporary didn't occur in museums. Museum curators don't want riots, just publicity and crowds at the turnstyles.

So, yes, the Impressionists are 'safe' now. Mapplethorpe probably still isn't safe in most towns' museums.

 

I give museums points for trying to present the contemporary, and some even seeking it out in the hinterlands. I would never have seen Harris' photos if the museum hadn't bought them up and preserved and displayed them. For that I'm grateful. Same with the Impressionists, for that matter.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>m. stephens - "</strong>My observation is that if the public is obsessed with the impressionists, there's no one to blame but museum curators."</p>

<p>Appealing as the idea of placing blame is, maybe there's no one to blame at all: Impressionist art is perceived through a different neural pathway than regular imagery. There's a physical reason why it stimulates emotions.</p>

<p><strong>m- "</strong>By and large museums are chartered with upholding the status quo..."</p>

<p>In reality, they're just like a big sports stadium: Chartered with upholding ticket sales/survival. If that fails...</p>

<p><strong>m- "</strong>But cameras are being made that make bad pictures (technically) impossible."</p>

<p>That is wonderful, though we're not there yet. The day we are, those that are geniuses will rightly go to the front of the line, and no more stinking excuses, specially from techno-blowhards, claiming they hold the high ground with well-crafted yawners. It's still going to take skills and hard work -- not just pushing a button.<br /> __________________________</p>

<p>Museums come in many flavors, not only the historical.There are many Contemporary Art Museums (even photography ones) who <em>never </em>show the Impressionists & show very recent or current work. We are historical beings but more than that people of stories. Museums, even historical ones, are very careful to show history but do so in <em>story form.</em> In a form that connects to our own story. I don't mean the history of our time, but our own individual stories in one way or another.</p>

<p>Yes, they're selling tickets to art lovers, but mostly to regular people who want to be art-entained and are not educated in the arts nor connoisseurs, but they feel the power of art, and they go to it like moths to a light, because they know they will learn something, feel plenty, have a good time, be revived, and slightly transformed by the process. Same with gallery openings, particularly private ones. The power of art may be undefinable, but it's undeniably evident. And this scene plays out around the world, every day (except monday :-).</p>