What's up with the blur and grain?

[Klainmeister]

Galleries need to sell stuff. Generally, photography is a tough sell. Unlike drawing, painting etc, it is difficult to get the public to see the monetary value in a photograph, because the "hand of the artist" is not obvious. People often ascribe value to things they don't think they can do, or things that look as though a lot of work went into them. If they see a drawing, they see a special skill. When people look at sharp, well exposed, grainless photographs, they think they can do it. After all, the film/sensor records the image, the lens focuses etc. The photographer just has to see what already exists and take the picture, right? Print quality? Nobody sees that or cares, besides perhaps other photographers/printers. In that context, from a marketing perspective, it might be easier to sell photographs that are blurry or grainy or under/overexposed because they are further removed from what the public would normally view as simple photographs. Potential buyers may see them as more than just pictures, and perhaps have a sense of the work the artist put in. A blurry or very grainy print might give the impression the photographer made the picture rather than simply took the picture.

Please note this post is not meant to imply blurry, grainy or "badly" exposed pictures are inherently any better or worse than straight work. I'm just trying to put forth a possible explanation for why we might find more of this type of work in galleries.

Michael, I think you hit the nail right on the head. I have 4 photographs hanging in our office, 1 is a cyanotype toned with wine, another is a lith, and two are straight BW fiber (warmtone). Never once has anyone said anything about the latter two, while the paint-like aspect of the cyanotype gets constant comments. Someone even called it art!

[Rudeofus]

You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.

Few artists have the technical skills to develop a new technique by themselves. Van Gogh didn't come up with Chromium yellow, some unknown chemist did. Van Gogh also didn't invent still life paintings or sunflowers, but the way he presented sunflowers was certainly novel and intriguing. The term innovation goes far beyond technical advances. Expressing something new or in a new way with common means is also a form of innovation.

The blurry truck image doesn't do any of that, and therefore IMHO it doesn't go beyond the "nice image!" level. And this is not an art collection.

[Felinik]

You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.

This I completely agree with, if there's a certain level of innovation and creativity, blurry - grainy - underexposed - stained - whatnot, can definitely add something to an image, though then the threshold of originality need to really be noticeable!

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

[Felinik]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

My reply to this is in my posting above yours.

[horacekenneth]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

I assume you mean challenging emotionally or philosophically. I think art can have a number of purposes. It doesn't need to be deep, but it can be and that can add. It can also be cheesy and distract from what would otherwise have been a nice photo. Does anybody know what Ansel Adam's purpose in his landscapes was? I imagine his art wasn't meant to be any more challenging than to show other people the world in a very technical fashion.

My question is what does the medium do to your message? A hyper-realist painter, a pro large format photographer, and a guy with an 8x10 polaroid (loaded with something more accurate than IP film) all make a picture of the same landscape. How does the medium change the message? What if it was a portrait?

[Prof_Pixel]

Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

[pdeeh]

As far as the 'famous' photographers go, it seems to me that such work is often treated like 'the emperors new clothes'.

Of course, sometimes the Emperor's old clothes are worn out and shabby ... but perhaps many think they are still sparkling and fresh

[Vaughn]

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

And as we grow older, our hearing just aint what it use to be...

[Felinik]

Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.

Maybe it was...

What interests me is that in the end, and this is what triggered me to start this thread, is that the artist for some reason chose to keep it, and that the curator has chosen it to be included in the exhibition + book...

Though I buy that "it's fashion", there's loads of ugly clothes on the street nowadays too...




/Grumpy old fart