Photography is not art!

keps

Interesting article in today's Guardian


http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

challengemaster

Newsflash: Bitter journalist writes "controversial" article

Seems to be his style to piss on everyones piss on peoples parade for no good reason other than he's an idiot.

Jonathan Jones reviews Maggi Hambling: ‘If she’s a painter, I’m Rembrandt’

Flat, soulless and stupid: why photographs don’t work in art galleries

magicbastarder

he's right about the photo. it's hackneyed and chocolate boxy.

magicbastarder

actually, all it needs is an inspirational quote across the bottom and it will have achieved its full potential.

DaireQuinlan

Didn't he write almost exactly this same piece a couple of weeks ago ?

But yes, this is kinda mystifying. Lik is to art photography like Thomas Kinkade is to painting.

looksee

I can only see the bum of a jeaned, bowlegged person facing a ghostly Venus de Milo.

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Thomas Kinkade

did you really have to force me to google him?

magicbastarder

anyway, the vast majority of photography is not art. so he's at least 95% right.

amdgilmore

‘Beauty is cheap if you point a camera at a grand phenomenon of nature’

I have similar feelings, but his mistake is in thinking he can extrapolate a conclusion about all photography from this, or from his apparently limited exposure to the medium.

superflyninja

He forgot about black and white photos that shows boobies. Proper art them.

eoglyn

I saw this being discussed domewhere else online earlier this morning. The defence of the 'art' was that, like gursky, it prints really well, and you are not getting anywhere near the full impact through your computer screen.
I think he uses large format cameras and the detail in the print is incredible.

However, i think that this images captures a common trick that the guides will show photographers visiting antelope canyon - the guides throw up a fist full of sand, get out of the way and voila... photo-cloud-light-beam-magic.

In my mind, the fact this is so frequently done that it is know as a 'thing', it really calls into question the artistic merit of the piece.

There is also a suggestion that, as there is absolutely no evidence of the photographer's work having a secondary market, that the high prices could be a type of ruse or marketing ploy to create a buzz around his work, and command similarly stupid prices in the future.

I think it is healthy to question the artistic merit of this piece. To infer a sweeping conclusion and dismiss an entire medium because of this one piece however, what a dope.

magicbastarder

eoglyn wrote: »

I think he uses large format cameras and the detail in the print is incredible.

a facile response to this might be that this would imply that it's easier to take 'arty' photos on a 36MP camera than a 6MP camera.

eoglyn

magicbastarder wrote: »

a facile response to this might be that this would imply that it's easier to take 'arty' photos on a 36MP camera than a 6MP camera.

Agreed, you can't assess its merit solely based on its process.

Perhaps to avoid the discussion of artistic merit by those who haven't experienced it the artist should not have allowed it circulate online.

I actually had an experience of this recently, a relative sent me a flyer of a local art exhibition ongoing. I dismissed the flyer immediately, looking at the image, it looked like something that would contend for POTW here, but it didn't look like great art that you'd go to see in a gallery. I was totally wrong it turns out, there was a kind of 3d element, difficult to explain, but the medium it was present on lifted it to a different level entirely.

kelly1

Where does he get the idea that technology can't be used to create art?

peckerhead

looksee wrote: »

I can only see the bum of a jeaned, bowlegged person facing a ghostly Venus de Milo.

It's not the Venus de Milo, it's a shaft of vaporised urine hitting the ground at force. Can't be unseen.

inkedpt

Also an interesting article on the same paper...

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time

by Jonathan Jones of course

thebaz

some people would consider unmade beds or grainy random videos not art -

Me, if its done well , creative and tells a story it is art , regardless of medium - provided its Great, be that Tracy Emins bed , grainy black and white photography , film or just a great story - its all Art.

Painting is always the measure , for visual art , but good photography done well , can nearly be as moving (to me

Zillah

inkedpt wrote: »

Also an interesting article on the same paper...

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time

by Jonathan Jones of course

What a joke. I don't think any art is ever worth millions, but the most pretentious thing about all of this was his faux-outrage. I don't remember The Guardian so blatantly indulging in click bait before.

CabanSail

There's nothing like consistency
.... and that's nothing like consistency.

magicbastarder

as someone else pointed out, the photo mentioned in the OP looks like one of those x-rays taken of, shall we say, 'amateur exploratory vacuum cleaning in the nude gone wrong'.

magicbastarder

thebaz wrote: »

some people would consider unmade beds or grainy random videos not art -

depends on how you define art; from what i understand, it derives from the same word as 'artifice'; so if you took that at face value, most photography would fail the test.
plus, photography is a different art form from most other art forms; it's a process of capture, or reduction, rather than of pure creation. part of the skill of photography is choosing what to leave out.

also, it 'suffers' (word used cautiously) from being so democratic. anyone can take a photograph and get a recognisable result. the same is not the case for painting, and definitely not for the likes of sculpture, etc.

Wabbit Ears

Ive always said that aanything a person creates that provokes an emotional response can be considered Art.

So not all photography is art. You can look at a picture and feel nothing at all but some pictures do make you feel whimsical, nostalgic, joyous, forlorn, etc etc.

keps

Thr Guardian published a 'rebuttal' today

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones

Ben D Bus

superflyninja wrote: »

He forgot about black and white photos that shows boobies. Proper art them.

B&W art boobies is my signature style

Myksyk

Initial article has the intellectual merit and insight of a junior cert D grade essay. Utterly groan-worthy. The kind of tiresome drivel that, rather than anger you, just drains you of the will to live! How anyone managed to muster enough energy to respond is beyond me, but fair play. The rebuttal makes the creakingly obvious points that no-one should have to waste time making.

HW100S

Interesting!!

K_user

A prime example of someone who doesn’t understand what they are talking about.

Yes anyone can own a camera, photographs are taken by everyone with a phone to an all seeing all dancing DSLR. But there are vast differences between a snapshot of a pretty scene and landscape photograph.

The best question to ask the author of the article is whether being able to write qualifies you as a writer? If merely possessing the tools makes you as good as everyone else, then can the Guardian start sending me cheques right now? Because I can type, I have a computer, therefore I must be a journalist.

What the author fails to understand is the time it takes to make something look simple. I’m sure the canyons in Arizona have a lot of visitors every year and most of those have some sort of camera. But pointing and shooting does not make for a “great” image. The eye, skill and being in the right place makes for a great “image”.

magicbastarder

K_user wrote: »

But there are vast differences between a snapshot of a pretty scene and landscape photograph.

quantitative rather than qualitative. on the face of it, a landscape photograph is a well taken 'snapshot of a pretty scene'. i would certainly not consider a well taken landscape photo to automatically qualify as 'art'.

MagicHumanDoll

Art is something that evokes emotion, that allows the viewer to become attached to it and something that tells a story where possible (or better yet allows you to create your own story). To say that photography isn't art is simply wrong. There are paintings out there that connect to people where others laugh because they're 'not art'. Art is a vast, general word, and one that includes photography!

Bears and Vodka

I dislike when people justify claims such as "photography/modern art is not art" by saying it's easy to produce. Yes, you can take a photo of the same landscape with a good camera and it will look something like the photo that sold for millions, and yes you can probably paint a Rothko if you had any sort of experience with oil paint.

Undoubtedly execution is important, and like someone said real skill of an artist is to make it look easy. But what people are interested in a lot of the time is the artist's vision of the world. Lots of people criticise Gursky's photography and say it's not worth the money, but you cannot deny he has an unusual style and an interesting viewpoint.

At any rate, before somebody begins these arguments they should firstly define what 'art' is. We cannot even come to a definitive conclusion as to what constitutes as art and what doesn't. How are we supposed to make judgements about photography on these shaky foundations?