I agree with you, Jorge
Originally Posted by Jorge
It's been a few years since I've been to the "AGO" (art gallery of ontario).
They had some nice stuff on loan from Europe (you know the stuff produced by people who actually had talent), but it was quite old, dated. Then they had a lot of very modern stuff that anyone could produce and (to me) does not require any talent except perhaps how to use a glue gun and come up with single word fancy names. I visited the "powerplant" a modern art gallery and again, haven't been back. Few photos, all were blurry and half you couldn't tell what the subject is/was/supposed/might be. I was told "it represents the artist's rage against the norm." And here I thought "norm" was a relative word. I visited the small galleries along Queen street west (again in Toronto) and was even more dismayed. I felt I was doomed and would never sell a print as I was too "old fashioned, not contempary enough" or as Jorge says "no shock value". I was a part of the "unwashed masses" who doesn't get it. IMHO "getting it" was seeing how much $$$ you could get out of a sucker who was artistically challenged, or just blind.
When I went to New Orleans, I visited galleries along Royal street and in the French Market, and my heart was lifted. Here I found prints I would consider hanging on my walls. I also saw many prints a multi-artist show they have at the Distillery in Toronto. Everyone there are emerging/stuggling artists with some really nice stuff. (well there was some crap too)
As for your interview Ann, talk of what you know. Express your opinions when asked, and be polite. Don't say "it's crap", say "not my prefered style". (Crap is a word used by only the highest ranking elit members of the white glove sects for something that won't net them enough $, or by the unwashed masses who don't know better)
Simple: if it's 4x6 or 5x7 and in color, it's a snapshot. if it's in color at all, it's commercial. if it's any size and square or 8x10 or larger in black and white, it's fine art!
I'm kidding of course, but using the AIPAD show as a barometer of what galleries internationally regard as collectible, fine art, it's not too far off the mark. It's true that well established 'names' are the backbone of the fine art market, but the galleries represented at AIPAD (and that's a very large number of them under one roof) definitely do represent and promote new and 'emerging' fine art photographers as well.
As to what constitutes a fine art photograph, I've no better a definition than anyone else, but I think one knows one when you see one. To be silly again, then, I guess if a photograph serves no apparent useful purpose, it must exist because the photographer believed in it for whatever reason that decision was made. Perhaps that makes it art.
My take is that Clay probably has the proper perspective on this "fine art" thing.
Clay describes art that has psychological or cultural permanence. In other words it stands the test of time -- like Shakespeare or Bach. Some art can be so tied to its period or culture that it losses its value over time or distance, but during its time or within its culture it can be as important as or more so than that which has survived the ages. In some of my art history classes these two types of art were referred to as temporary or cultural, for those works that lacked permanence and physiological, for the work that survived. One is not necessarily better than the other. An example of a 'great' artist who may not last the test of time is Warhol. The same may be found to be true of the entire Pop Art movement. Meanwhile, the preceding movement, Abstract Impressionism, has never been well received by the general public, but stands a far better chance of surviving for generations to come.
Originally Posted by lee
I would be inclined to discount the term fine art and simply refer to art as art, just as i would not discount work that does not survive the ages.
In photography a fine art photograph becomes such if a critic(s) find it interesting, if people actually pay money for it or if it is old enough that its age or historical content merits such a definition.
I don't think these have always been the standards but they seem to be today. To understand what will be determined as fine art, it is probably more important to understand who are the critics and the current fads in photography.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
QUOTE=Jorge]OTOH Robert, can it be considered "fine" art just because it was difficult to make? ..[/QUOTE]
I recall a short story on Public TV a few years back (when Picasso was still living) about the famous “artist”. It went into his contemporary life, I think he was in his late 70’s or early 80” at the time. In one scene, he and his interviewer were walking through a Spanish pottery shop when Picasso stopped to pick up a small discarded narrow neck clay vase. In real time he transformed that reject into a “Picasso” work d’art! I thought it was rather attractive with a definite “Picasso” definition. I once had a friend who had the same talent for making art of essentially nothing but he just disappeared – haven’t heard from him in years.
To get accepted in the art society one needs “contacts”. Don’t know how to do this other than to be really aggressive in the field. Or be really really pleasant. That ain’t me!
I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
Truly, dr bob.
I don't find "fine art" to be a pretentious term at all, or a vague term. For me, it's something that exhibits both vision (or talent, what ever that is), and some degree of skill (or craftsmanship), and usually employs fine materials that actively contribute to the final product. I find the work of Jackson Pollack to be compelling, but I'm not sure he was a craftsman. Some will, I'm sure, disagree.
As to the state of fine photography, I can only report what I see here in my neck of the woods. Friends and family seem to find it fascinating, and are always happy to receive a print as a gift........... I least I think they are. I'm not sure how "fine" my stuff is, but the two art shows I've done thus far have been very successful, both in terms of sales, and in the booth traffic and the interest that people showed. However, out of 75 artists attending, there were only two photographers. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
A friend who is a high end commercial shooter, and had never gone the art show/print sales route, is finding a brisk market for his work.
I have to think (or I want and need to think) that in this rather chilly world, an object of beauty that shows the skilled touch of a human hand will always have a market/audience. A well done fiber print is a thing of beauty, very organic, not at all plastic or digital. It's something that we know can last beyond us, it's function undiminished (another rarity in today's world).
"If You Push Something Hard Enough, It Will fall over" - Fudd's First Law of Opposition
Pollack did some very impressive 'representational' work prior to (and possible after) becoming famous for his gesture line paintings. I once had a book that had reprints of some of his illustrations -- he was quite an individual.
Originally Posted by Doug Bennett
Good point. Although for me it is frustrating because it boggles my mind that anyone PAYING for "fine art" would be satisfied with poorly made crap. That we are now in a world where only the "content" counts and NEVER the craftmanship.
And even the content is a joke.
They recently awarded an MFA here to someone who had, allegedly, spent 3 years working on her thesis.
It was a joke. It looked like it was all shot in about 2 weeks, with maybe a couple of rolls being used. The work was sort of like Cindy Sherman Sans Any Idea Of What She Is Trying To Do. Just this person in a house they just bought. Honestly little more than snapshots.
And it was all very basic hotlight or "backyard at noon" lighting. Everything was at f8 or f11 (hey, why focus?), and it was simply large color prints that looked almost lurid.
And sadly, I am sure this woman will soon be VERY VERY rich....
Skilless, but rich.
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
LOL.....yeah, a$$ kissing is an acquired skill.....
Originally Posted by dr bob