The vacuum?

[q.g._de_bakker]

There is art. And there is art appreciation.

Both have a lot to do with Joe Public. No worries there.

In both fields, as in just about any field of human activity, there are far too may would-be's trying to peddle their own misconceptions to others as if those and they were something other people should take note of.

And as in just about any field of human activity, there are also people who spent a lot of their time and effort trying to understand what is going on. The depth of knowledge and understanding most (granted: not all) curators, critics and gallery owners (and yes: artists too) have is way beyond the imagination of those would-be's.

You rarely see or hear anything in fora like this one from one of those in the know. It, however, is far from uncommon to encounter those who misconceive themselves as more expert than the experts.

 

But hey! Let's not allow some 'matters outside art itself' turn things awry!

Edited September 12, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

[Allen Herbert]

Ha ha.

 

Entertaining

[Supriyo]

This is a great observation. It reminds of one way the auteur theory of film works. Andrew Sarris, who promulgated this way of looking at films, suggested that even the lesser quality films of great directors may be more significant than the films of lesser quality directors because they most often still reflect the brilliance of their better films and can also show some of the building blocks of their finer works even while not necessarily measuring up to them. Of course, while still recognizing the beauty of rare films from directors with not a lot of successes or even one-hit wonders.

 

Another important point. I want to add, though, that if herd mentality is one extreme of communal response, the other is that wonderful feeling when most everyone knows they’re seeing something great and the joy of that experience seems both warranted and infectious. Standing ovations at operas, symphonies, and Broadway plays have become de rigueur but there was a time when they were very rare, and a spontaneous standing ovation meant and felt like something very special.

 

Welcome back, Supriyo. This is why I’ve missed you.

 

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of the reference to the film world that you mentioned, but certainly makes sense. What you said - Among the collective works from an artist, there can be those that are masterpieces, and there are those that may not qualify as the best, but certainly inform on the principal aspects of the artist’s approach and philosophy. I once visited an exhibition on Rembrandt at LACMA, which had a lot of half finished, sometimes hastily drawn drafts of sketches on display, but mostly chronologically arranged, which shows how the artist’s approach evolved over time. They were not much standing alone, but helpful for understanding the formal finished works in relation to the stage of the artist’s life when they were created.

 

 

Nice to refer to the standing ovation. A spontaneous collective reaction to the ecstatic emotion felt at the end of a performance has a great deal of positive energy and genuineness attached to it, as opposed to the herd mentality that I was referring to.

[Supriyo]

I think I did, and (mostly) still do.

 

It doesn't mean that I can't appreciate paintings, but it is just a little different.

And especially if they are both in the same museum.

 

that’s the spirit, to be able to recognize something as art, even though you don’t reconcile with the style. That requires a certain degree of maturity.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Supriyo

[Supriyo]

I think there may be an irony in this. While that may redound poorly to critics, especially in hindsight, it may also provide some inspiration to artists who are sometimes provocateurs and many of whom will appreciate that kind of reaction and also have enough confidence in and love for their own work that they consider rejection by the sanctioned art world a badge of honor. The problem, of course, is putting food on the table while wearing that badge!

 

I agree, but at the same time, it depends on the artist’s persona too, i think. I read somewhere that negative criticism of his work (including those coming from his own brother) was devastating to Van Gogh, who suffered from lifelong depression and positive encouragement mattered to him. On the other hand, there are artists who are rebels for whom, derision and criticism would serve as badges of honor, as you mentioned.

[samstevens]

Seeing the equivalent in the academic world, I have to think that herd mentality plays a role in art reviewing too.

Herd mentality in reviewing seems a negative, just as it does in academia, science, and surely in politics, where masses have allowed themselves to follow like sheep the most evil of evil men.

 

What do you think about herd mentality among art viewers and audiences? Here, I’m honestly wondering.

 

Take a pop star or very popular artist who you don’t like and you think has become popular via a herd mentality that’s taken over more critical sophistication. I still wonder if the actual experience of the fans isn’t significant and in many ways art-like, the passion and even sometimes ecstasy with which fans respond? Those feelings are real, and even transformative, even if they’re stimulated more because of group-think than individual taste or understanding. And it’s still the music or the painting or the photograph that’s being attended to, whether because someone chose it themselves or went along with the crowd. So, there’s an object, a recipient, emotion, and thrill. What’s bad? Sure, many of us want more, a deeper experience. But for those who allow themselves to be led to something and are enjoying the experience of being part of something and aren’t hurting anyone or being hurt themselves, can a herd function in a positive way?

 

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

[Supriyo]

Herd mentality in reviewing seems a negative, just as it does in academia, science, and surely in politics, where masses have allowed themselves to follow like sheep the most evil of evil men.

 

What do you think about herd mentality among art viewers and audiences? Here, I’m honestly wondering.

 

Right, herd mentality, the phrase itself carries a negative connotation to it, so it don’t wish to describe all communal experiences using it. When I used the term, I was specifically referring to art reviews, rather than the audience. Since I have seen this phenomenon in other fields, I felt that the art world would be no exception. However, I also think that those who really deal with art would know the most trusted and highly regarded experts and reviewers.

 

When it comes to a fan following or a frenzy associated with a star performer or artist, I agree that it’s different than herd mentality. It’s more of a shared experience, to be in a state of mind to enjoy something, even if induced by or led by someone else. I feel it’s different. Herd mentality many times involves supplanting one’s own lack of originality, vision or indecision with mimicry or fake show of confidence in a field, which is shallower than the shared communal experience of an art or an artist’s performance.

 

I just want to mention that some members on PN dismiss art that they don’t like by explaining them away saying that their popularity must be the product of opportunistic reviewers. Even if there was really herd mentality involved in some art reviews, I don’t share their viewpoint, which seems too simplistic and self-serving to me.

[Allen Herbert]

"I just want to mention that some members on PN dismiss art that they don’t like by explaining them away saying that their popularity must be the product of opportunistic reviewers. Even if there was really herd mentality involved in some art reviews" Supriyo

 

Suprriyo.

 

The Art or Photography is all about what works or not.

 

The reality is the Art or photograph, that does not work, requires a t least a thousands words.

[samstevens]

requires

Here’s where all your b.s. comes to a head. Requires is your strawman. It’s your false rationale for speaking nonsense.

 

Szarkowski and others didn’t think Eggleston’s work required a thousand words. He thought Eggleston’s work inspired those words and thought his photos worthy of complex discussion.

 

I have a sense you’ve never read Szarkowski and wouldn’t understand him if you did. Yes, that’s only a guess, but is based on what you’ve repeated merely by platitude in these discussions for decades.

[Allen Herbert]

"Here’s where all your b.s. comes to a head. Requires is your strawman. It’s your false rationale for speaking nonsense." Sam

 

When someone resorts to name calling, and angst, it really means one thing...guess.

 

Personally ,I avoid such silliness, it offers little in construct conservation, other a red face bloke, in a Hawaii tee-shirt, declaring there's a fly in my soup. I suggest a nice cup of tea, with a chocolate biscuit. Very cheery for folks with angst.

 

Chill.

 

The Art or Photography is all about what works or not.

 

The reality is the Art or photograph, that does not work, requires a t least a thousands words.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

Not that you cannot use your imagination to offer your thoughts on a photograph.

 

But, remember, you are not the photographer, just a third party person, offering their thoughts.

 

That's it.

 

Photographic thoughts.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

[Allen Herbert]

The Art of prose, is the Art of prose.

 

The Art of photography is the Art of the photograph.

 

Neither, need each other, as the both stand alone in their Art.

[samstevens]

When someone resorts to name calling, and angst, it really means one thing...guess.

I don’t have to guess. I know what it means: that I’m fed up with your b.s., your constantly talking about photos requiring a thousand words when neither I nor any of the critics I reference think or say photos require words. It’s your intellectual dishonesty that leads to the charge of b.s. and I stand by that charge. You just did it again, by the way, when you say “neither need each other.” No one said they did yet you pretend that’s what’s being said here. Critics are inspired to write words about art. They find art worthy of complex discussion. It’s pure foolishness to say that means they think art needs words. It’s time you get over putting words in people’s mouth to make a point at their expense. THIS IS NOT ABOUT NEED. Never was. b.s.

[Allen Herbert]

"neither I nor any of the critics I reference think or say photos require words" Sam

 

We agree,

 

Yet, those sneaky word come in to support those...well, they need the words. Sort of like a tin of soup;))

 

Jeez, Sam, Chill. Mostly I agree with you.

 

Anyway, a photo for you.

 

Of looking..

 

[samstevens]

I had taken you off but I’m putting you back on ignore. Too toxic and it’s not fair to all who read these insipid exchanges. My own failing. I can’t take it. Don’t expect any more responses.

[Allen Herbert]

Okay,

 

Be happy with love in folk.

 

Sort of like a politician, who like to hear, what they only like to hear.

[samstevens]

Yet, those sneaky word come in to support those

The sneaky words don’t “come in.” You bring them in. You intentionally use the word need to mischaracterize what others are doing when they use words to describe photos. Because you can’t accept the words for what they are and likely have not read the words or understood the words, you have to distort what’s happening to live comfortably in the false world you’ve created for yourself.

Be happy with love in folk.

you sound like a hack tv evangelist. Next thing you’ll be asking for love donations. Get a grip.

[Allen Herbert]

"you sound like a hack tv evangelist. Next thing you’ll be asking for love donations" Sam

 

Okay, like the idea of love donations. Starving children, comes to to mind, in the so called third world. If someone sent a dollar reading this post..

 

Chill, out Sam. Send a few coins as a love donation.

 

Anyway, obviously, not my intention, I'm upsetting you....so, I'm off to read a book. God bless.

 

[denny_rane]

Don't like him. The big cheese curator John Szarkowski made him. Most of his stuff is boring crap. But you know the saying...opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one!

I like his tricycle photo

[samstevens]

training wheels

[inoneeye]

Lol. And then remembered....

That was the photo that first piqued my interest in Eggleston. Still love it and paid deference to it with my version.

Edited September 22, 2021 by inoneeye

[Allen Herbert]

"you have to distort what’s happening to live comfortably in the false world you’ve created for yourself" Sam

 

Err what is happening? Okay, it is happening in fantasy fairyland for you.

 

Anyway, Inoneeye agrees with anything you say. He is not sure what he agrees with, but, does it matter? He's enjoying the training wheels you gave him, bucket loads.

 

Eggleston’s, sort of think the endless prose written about; he must be really, something special. Me, I like looking at the photos, not the endless words. And for me, I feel little communication with his photos.

 

The wordsmithing is far more interesting..

Edited September 29, 2021 by Allen Herbert

[Allen Herbert]

"I had taken you off but I’m putting you back on ignore. Too toxic and it’s not fair to all who read these insipid exchanges. My own failing. I can’t take it. Don’t expect any more responses" Sam.

 

Sam likes to be the Bella Donna of Ball.

 

Its all about admiring his wonderful prose, and the way, he dances around the ball room, with so much elegance.

 

Admires are welcome only. Others with different thoughts, are insipid folk, who are not deserve to receive the superior intellectually of the Sam.

 

Sad., he really needs to grow up.

[Allen Herbert]