postmodern Who R You

I actually had a question on this picture earlier, which I think I answered by looking more in depth at your gallery and some of the comments you had made. I do enjoy your critique of the "post modern," (it took a while to sink into my brain...wait for it...wait for it...) and think that opposing viewpoints always have a place (remembering now reading Aristophanes alongside Plato in an attempt to come to terms with Socrates' philosophy). I am sorry to learn you don't enjoy Eggleston, I took a while to warm up to him myself, and there are images of his that I still cannot fathom, but the majority of his work fascinates me now (he got short-changed at the SF Moma show, unfortunately.) Anyway, I enjoyed your portfolio and look forward to more of your postings. Thanks!

Thanks for your most thoughtful and encouraging comments.

In time, I may, as you commented, warm up to Eggleston. But until then, I think we're all being deceived and played for stupid by museum curators as many willingly go along with what critics and curators have to say with little to no outsider critique of the current "pop-culture" photographic art which exists in art galleries and museums today.

One should wonder about the validity of what's happening today in the contemporary Postmodern photographic art world as critics seem to go unchallenged in their one way pronouncements, from on high, of approval and admiration as the minions seem to go along, without challenging what's being said by the guru curators. The viewers seem more like learned droids then independent, think for themselves, individuals. "It is said and so in the said light it shall be admired."

If one were to read the histories and bio's of most Postmodern photographic artists, there's a well connected thread among them, just like presidential politics. Eggleston even went so far as to became connected in NYC just so he could become socially acceptable. I shake in the negative at the thought of going to a lecture about Eggleston because I'm so turned off by his images because of how Eggleston and his images are being disingenuously projected by critics, galleries and curators. Are these people really that deluded, sick or dead in the brain that they believe the stuff they spew forth? And these feelings after much research. The art and Eggleston are not hard to comprehend but the art babble behind the art and the artists is extremely difficult to buy into.

My question to Eggleston would be: "You're so much BS." "Does it ever bother you that so many have bought into it?"

Eggleston-San Fransisco MOMA

The descriptions of Eggleston and his images by others is such artistic crap that the mear thought of trying to have a rational conversation with any supporter would be beyond my ability to contain myself in person because I see the descriptions and art as so patently rediculous. And these are the feelings I have just sitting here at the computer keyboard:)

In my case, the only way I can make valid, what's being said is to realize these people are distubed or crazy and in need of serious counseling to help them reconnect with reality. And if I see Eggleston's work and the curator's/critic's comments of his work in this light, his work and their comments make perfect sense.

By the by, how did Eggleston get short changed over at the SFMOMA? I just checked and his show's good to go until 04Jan05.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving comment. I'll look forward to any additional comments.

 

The short changed comment referred to the fact that they did not display more of the los alamos images, when they could have, but that's always the curator's dilemma, I guess. I'll have to think about your comments for awhile before I can make a reasonable response. Thanks for the challenge, the opposing viewpoint is always valuable.

I have Eggleston's "Los Alamos" photo album and I actually hope this November to make a pilgrimage to SFMOMA and see the images in person.

 

From what I've read there's a world of difference between the book and the actual prints.

 

There's much that I'm in conflict with in regard to photographic PoMo but I haven't given up on it as I see the benefit; although I don't like the output as I expect better of these fine minds.

There's a good little book, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

by Christopher Butler, that provides a (probably watered down) account of PoMo; the author tends to be somewhat biased against the movement, but it serves a purpose. I read it when I was trying to understand the ideologies of PoMo more thoroughly myself, rather than just rejecting them out of hand. There are phogographers like Eggleston who I have come to appreciate, then there is the more "conceptual" movement which I still have a hard time accepting as art (e.g. a canvas covered with grey paint, a bare room where the light flicks on and off). On the other hand, the Bill Viola exhibit at the SF moma I thought was fantastic; does this qualify as PoMo? I don't know yet really how to define the movement entirely. (don't know if anyone does).

One of the reasons that I'm having a hard time responding to the Eggleston critique is that I'm having a hard time understanding your specific objection to him. Most of your comment seemed directed at the heavy handed culture of curators holding forth on what is to be considered art and what is not, as well as a healthy distrust of critics and their often obfuscating prose. (I'm just trying to paraphrase your position, let me know if I've got it or not). Issues that I do certainly agree with: the public needs to certainly get thinking and questioning of the experts when we disagree with them. However, your specific reason for disliking Eggleston? I know you expresed frustration with even discussing the issue, but I am genuinely interested.

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion. I'll look the book up. But, I've read and studied fairly extensively the subject and actually understand the deconstructive nature of photographic Postmodernism.

There are photographers like Eggleston who I have come to appreciate,"

And I don't wish to stop anybody from liking him but when you learn more about Eggleston, by reading interviews he's given, one might come to appreciate the immaturity of both his efforts and his thinking.

On the other hand, the Bill Viola exhibit at the SF moma I thought was fantastic; does this qualify as PoMo? I don't know yet really how to define the movement entirely. (don't know if anyone does).

There are two distinctly different movements, one feeds off the other but the two are totally different. Postmodern and Postmodern photographic art. Postmodern photographic art has elements of Postmodernism think in it but that's where the similarities, to me, ends. The executive version; photographic Postmodern art is about deconstructing the sacred, what ever one might find sacred.

Next post.

One of the reasons that I'm having a hard time responding to the Eggleston critique is that I'm having a hard time understanding your specific objection to him.

I have several objections. First, a bit of background. Being a student of photographic art, working on a ProPhotography degree in the late seventies, we at community college were doing the sort of photography that Eggleston is so noted for. Second, we were working with 2 1/4 twin lense reflexes, in color, so he's not the father of zip as he's being heroically projected as. Nobody was the father of anything other than Eastman Kodak, as color was very prevelent in this here neck of the twenty acre woods at that time in photographic history. It's as if Stalin's writers were doing the writing and making him into something he wasn't.

Third, his images are not that thoughtful. Cropped for effect, yes but not avant garde. Images of the banal? Cool, but not avant garde. And when an artist ducks the reveiling answer to a question as to what you're about, photographically speaking and the artist answers back; "I'm at war with the obvious."; you can bet your bottom dollar that you're being flim flamed by a con man. Eggleston, just answer the stupid question like a man, not a child.

Most of your comment seemed directed at the heavy handed culture of curators holding forth on what is to be considered art and what is not, as well as a healthy distrust of critics and their often obfuscating prose. (I'm just trying to paraphrase your position, let me know if I've got it or not).

For simplicity, I'll agree with your above cause you're in the ballpark.

The main point is, cause they're the gatekeepers, we're stuck with what they want to show and we have little to say in the matter as what they show, becomes the living icon of what to achieve because; "See, it's being shown at the MOMA, so it must be great." Art's going down the toilet cause these curators are all in bed with each other and they're hell bent on being the first to drag art to a new bottom. And making a new bottom seems to be what contemporary avant garde has become all about.

Since the opposite has been done, Romanticism, Realism and Modernism, then one must reach for the other side of the equation to be avant garde; enters Postmodern photographic art. Today, it's all about getting shown at the MOMA, it's not about art. It's also become about overt commercialism and PopCulture; at least Warhol was honest about this point:)

Issues that I do certainly agree with: the public needs to certainly get thinking and questioning of the experts when we disagree with them. However, your specific reason for disliking Eggleston? I know you expresed frustration with even discussing the issue, but I am genuinely interested.

It's good to read that challenging the curators and critics isn't seen as an act of heresy in the hedgemonic world that's been created by museum curators in the contemporary art world and hopefully I've given you some insight as to my frustration with the touting of Eggleston's art as it's not personal:)

I expect better of my fellow artists, not worse.