- Messages
- 104,478
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well that's the thing isn't it? People are different and like different things. Often it's trying to get behind why something was selected that really engages me, I might not "like" a photo but some people did and I want to know why.Some interesting things here, but as so often is the case I struggle a bit to fully appreciate why some of the images are winners.
Often it's trying to get behind why something was selected that really engages me, I might not "like" a photo but some people did and I want to know why.
As conceptual art, or as photography? Very little of it seems to stand up as both to me. The first and second places strike me as justified..
Thanks for the insights and the link, it's useful to read your thoughts.
...the art world has normalised the idea of an “artist’s statement“ and it often seems like such statements are post-hoc box-ticking (see what I did there) for being allowed into art-spaces.
I'm a little distrustful of how sloppy a lot of it is and have this silly idea that if you are majking something which is a visual representation of a concept it ought to stand on its visual merits regardless of the thinking behind it.
Meades says something in the video about art being communication and a lot of stuff failing to fulfil that purpose.I'm not sure what I think, but in principle I think I agree that the photograph still needs to draw me in and have visual interest, even if knowing about the concept adds to its understanding and appreciation.
Possibly because 40 years ago there was no pressure on galleries to be "accessible", they were happy to be elitist.I don't remember it being so prevalent forty years ago.
I think you are correct to some extent although I suspect (hope?) it is deeper and more nuanced than simple commercethey don't sit well in a gallery space which demands objects which are unique and can be marketed. That's my take on it.
I think you are correct to some extent although I suspect (hope?) it is deeper and more nuanced than simple commerce
I'm sure we all find that 90% of art (ALL art, not just modern stuff and not just photography) doesn't move us, is trite, fails in its aims, or is just plain rubbish. However we will never agree which 10% is good, we are all different. So some photos engage some of us and some don't. I find photography to be the most immediate in a way, some photos almost instantly burn themselves into my brain but I find with other media it takes a longer time for them to make an impact if they are going to impact me at all.I think I agree that the photograph still needs to draw me in and have visual interest,
And that's a phrase to celebrate! Thanks for the initial link.It’s a complex soup of motivations
I find the relationship of art and commerce an awkward one, but even artists need to eat.deeper and more nuanced than simple commerce
What happend to starving in garrets?I find the relationship of art and commerce an awkward one, but even artists need to eat.
But surely it's better to create an evironement that helps separate those with too much disposable income from said spare cash? And if that takes a few ambiguous words on a card, a "space" with white walls and wood floors, a cafe, a spokesmoron or two and an evenings kowtowing then why not?Seriously, they could do what poets do. Get proper jobs and produce art in their spare time.
But surely it's better to create an evironement that helps separate those with too much disposable income from said spare cash? And if that takes a few ambiguous words on a card, a "space" with white walls and wood floors, a cafe, a spokesmoron or two and an evenings kowtowing then why not?
I plan on watching the videos tomorrow, but I guess you can't communicate to all of the people all of the timeMeades says something in the video about art being communication and a lot of stuff failing to fulfil that purpose.
I'm sure we all find that 90% of art (ALL art, not just modern stuff and not just photography) doesn't move us, is trite, fails in its aims, or is just plain rubbish.
It really is OK to like what you like and be ambivalent about or dislike the rest.
If you haven't watched Meades before, get yourself a stiff drink and a good dictionary and hold on tightI plan on watching the videos tomorrow,
It isn't necessarily a failure anywhere IMHO, I have no interest in football so no amount of great sports writing or football photography is going to engage me in a football match, no matter how good it is. Because I don't engage with it I don't know what is good and what isn't, so I just stay away from that whole arena. It's not that the football photographers have failed to grab my attention or that I have failed to be a football fan.How do we know whether the failure is with the artist, or with ourselves.
So personally I try to keep an open mind and if people I respect are saying that something is good I do make the effort to try to understand what they see in it, I don’t always “get it” but I don’t see that as a failure just diversity of interest.
. They are examples of how my perscpeiton of the work one photographer can vary between two essentially similar photos
The second one could be an example of a picture which works better seen larger where the two horses are more noticeable. Not all pictures work the same at different sizes.I'm gonna get sacked at this rate, must do some work, but here's a couple from Jem Southam's instgram. I wouldn't hang either on the wall but he first works for me, I like the composition and tones, the second does absolutely nothing for me, it looks like any old under exposed snap. They are examples of how my perscpeiton of the work one photographer can vary between two essentially similar photos
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1HNewSgiD6/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1HjVIxAGtl/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet
I couldn't agree more, even the quality of the reproduction at a similar size can make a huge difference. I went to see the Don McCullin exhibition and his prints were 100x better than anything in a book or on a screen even though many were a similar size to what I had seen previouslyThe second one could be an example of a picture which works better seen larger where the two horses are more noticeable. Not all pictures work the same at different sizes.
In all seriousness: why? I think that an artist deserves whatever attention and opinion others wish to give or withold. Just like the rest of us.making a reasonable level of effort to understand, before deciding your don't like it, is something all artists deserves.
In all seriousness: why? I think that an artist deserves whatever attention and opinion others wish to give or withold. Just like the rest of us.
That's a view from the artist's position but what about the viewer? If there were a million viewers and only 100 artists, it might have merit but now there's a million artists all clamouring for the attention of the viewers. Why should the viewers be expected to do more than glance and make up their mind instantly whether to examine more closely or more likely pass on to the next thing?I think everyone deserves a reasonable effort made into understanding them or their work before making a judgement.
I think that an artist deserves whatever attention and opinion others wish to give or withold. Just like the rest of us.
Entirely valid. Life is short(ish) and in these multimedia days we're swamped with stuff. But if and when attention is decided to be given, then it's as Graham says ..That's a view from the artist's position but what about the viewer? If there were a million viewers and only 100 artists, it might have merit but now there's a million artists all clamouring for the attention of the viewers. Why should the viewers be expected to do more than glance and make up their mind instantly whether to examine more closely or more likely pass on to the next thing?
you are a real pro!I'm gonna get sacked at this rate, must do some work, but here's a couple from Jem Southam's instgram. I wouldn't hang either on the wall but he first works for me, I like the composition and tones, the second does absolutely nothing for me, it looks like any old under exposed snap. They are examples of how my perscpeiton of the work one photographer can vary between two essentially similar photos
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1HNewSgiD6/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/B1HjVIxAGtl/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet
For those without a telly licence, there's a version on u-tube if you look for it. And yes the last 12 mins are the relevant pearl in the oyster.I strongly recommend Johnathon Meades on Jargon https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09xzsbp - the last 15 minutes or so is about art jargon
Whatever that means. ???you are a real pro!
That's a view from the artist's position but what about the viewer? If there were a million viewers and only 100 artists, it might have merit but now there's a million artists all clamouring for the attention of the viewers. Why should the viewers be expected to do more than glance and make up their mind instantly whether to examine more closely or more likely pass on to the next thing?
I accept that. However, it isn't possible for a reader to understand more than what you type. The temptation to write as we would speak leads I think to most of the confrontation on forums.In the spirit it was written... ...But, I'm not suggesting you do that for every single photograph you ever look at...
Or not reading a reply in the context of the thread of messages that led to it being made.I accept that. However, it isn't possible for a reader to understand more than what you type. The temptation to write as we would speak leads I think to most of the confrontation on forums.