Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,493   Posts: 1,542,990   Online: 836
      
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 92

Thread: Sherrie Levine

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    I think having this debate over Levine's work being "art" or not is pointless. She has already made a place for herself in all art history/photo history books and her work is collected in all major museum's around the world.
    Back in the 60's-70's everyone was dealing this this issue, and came to the conclusion that yes, what she is doing can be called "art". What is art anyway? The expression of one's self. Her work is about the idea she is trying to express.

    If your viewing her work as just the image and the process, then I can see where your coming from, but that is not how she wanted her work to be viewed. What was being created was the MESSAGE in her work. It's about the IDEA and what she is trying to SAY by doing that act. She is not presenting the photographs as the original artist were originally intending, but removing them from their original context to make the viewer really question what the artist is trying to say.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    At the time of the expressionists, there existed an acedemie that in essence defined what was art at the time. Those great artists we admire today were nearly outcasts in the world of art. None of us can really state that the works some complain about so dearly today will not be accepted later in art history; of course they might be rejected outright.

    Again, this goes back to consensus and mob rule; if we get enough people to reject something, the hope is that might sway popular views. In reality these are only opinions.

    I would hate a world of art in which what I did had to conform to the opinions of some vocal majority. While my work is not in museums, and I might never find a place in art history, I am glad to be able to pursue my own creative vision.

    This is something I think art is more about that trying to define what is art. I don't have to like anything from Jeff Koons, Richard Prince, Sherrie Levine, nor any of dozens of others . . . I do respect that they challenge common perceptions and expectations. To dismiss their works out of hand would be narrow minded, though that does not mean I have to like what they did. Isn't that what being an artist is about?

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    From what I understand art is the expression of ones self. Levines is the expression of others work, not her own, no matter what spin she puts on it. She was not creted anythig. That is all I am saying. And to call what she has done is not art. The art was created by those she copied / stole from.

    I am not shallow minded I jut do not believe in stealing others work and displaying in the context of your work regardless of the idea or regardless if she gave credit. She made a lot of money and fame from the sweat and blood of others and that is just wrong.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh View Post
    Di Vinci was appropriating images from science, biology, math and geometry books.
    Dear Ryan,

    Are you sure about this? The number of illustrated books in the world even in 1519, the year of his death, was limited. Indeed, I'd dispute that biology existed as a subject at the time. Rather, I think, they (the books of which you are thinking) borrowed from him in later years.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  5. #15
    jmdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh View Post
    If your viewing her work as just the image and the process, then I can see where your coming from, but that is not how she wanted her work to be viewed. What was being created was the MESSAGE in her work. It's about the IDEA and what she is trying to SAY by doing that act. She is not presenting the photographs as the original artist were originally intending, but removing them from their original context to make the viewer really question what the artist is trying to say.

    Ryan,

    It seems to me that her work is about killing the ideas of the Modernists. It's about reducing the ideas of originality and sharp focus to little more than footnotes and promoting post-modernism and deconstructionism.

    When I see a print by Bravo, or Weston, or Smith, or Evans, I think 'extraordinary.' When I see Levine's work, I think 'so what.' It doesn't matter if critics define it as art, it lacks feeling and meaning to me.

    Mike

  6. #16
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I'm neither comfortable with nor impressed by Levine's proccess or concept. I'm unpursuaded by it. But I haven't devoted much attention or thought to it. It's not highly likely that I will.

    That said, Kevin, you are very narrow minded. You have a very rigid definition of a concept (art) that defies rigid definitions. X isn't art because you say it's not and art is Y because you say so is infinately more unpersuasive than Levine's work is.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    >>That said, Kevin, you are very narrow minded.
    That is your opinion, and apparently is it wrong. If you call plagiarism art then I really feel sorry for your views. But they are your views and I respect them.

    If being narrow minded is about not stealing others work as your own, then yes I am extremely narrow minded and very happy to be.

    Thank for the compliment.

  8. #18
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    If being narrow minded is about not stealing others work as your own, then yes I am extremely narrow minded and very happy to be.
    Look - I don't want to come off as unfair or mean - but it seems to me that you're really asking for it. Looking at the stuff on your website - one might think you're delusional about precisely this topic, Kevin. At least Levine is honest about what she's trying to do, not to mention daring in the extreme. Your argument is just a rehash of 19th century painters' arguments against photography.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Dear Ryan,

    Are you sure about this? The number of illustrated books in the world even in 1519, the year of his death, was limited. Indeed, I'd dispute that biology existed as a subject at the time. Rather, I think, they (the books of which you are thinking) borrowed from him in later years.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    In some ways, yes, you are correct.

    "Leonardo da Vinci as an appropriation artist, because he used recombinant methods of appropriation, borrowing from sources as diverse as biology, mathematics, engineering and art, and then synthesizing them into inventions and artworks."

  10. #20
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan McIntosh View Post
    In some ways, yes, you are correct.

    "Leonardo da Vinci as an appropriation artist, because he used recombinant methods of appropriation, borrowing from sources as diverse as biology, mathematics, engineering and art, and then synthesizing them into inventions and artworks."

    I don't think you can compare at all. We don't really know the cultural environment surrounding da Vinci so much to be able to accurately assess whether this sort of thing was deemed acceptable at the time, or indeed, how his work was really considered to be able to make an informed judgement. However - all other things being equal, you can't really say da Vinci was an 'appropriation artist' in the same sense as Levine. All other things being equal - da Vinci was ripping off - where Levine was NOT.

    I think the fact that Levine used such extremely WELL RECOGNIZED images proves that her intention was NOT to take credit for the aesthetic merits of those works in question. And this is the crux of the whole argument, as presented, against Levine. And this is the core of the matter as far as copyright legislation goes, too. I welcome anyone to try to counter this argument - but I doubt you'll get very far.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin