# Artistic value of photography today?



## Ivana again (Feb 22, 2005)

I was thinking about something and it really bothers me. I thought  to share that with you.
I saw here, on this forum many beatufull picture. And they look really amazing. But most of those pictures are edit with photoshop or some other program to make better picture.
What you think? Dont you think that photography then loose artistic value? I mean where is art of photography then when the place and the moment what you capture isnt the reality, and when its not anymore important talent of photographer but knowlege for working in photoshop.
My opinion is that photoshop is good for some things but not for editing the whole picture.
I dont know did you understand what I am trying to say, but I hope you did.
I really would like to hear your opinion about this?


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 22, 2005)

Take some darkroom classes and you will learn that quite a bit of the manipulations that you can do in Adobe PS has been done in the darkroom for decades.  There has always been a debate whether photography is too easy to be called art, even before they invented film (see the quote in my signature).

Here are a few other quotes relating to this subject that I like...

    "The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo

    "In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen 

    "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson


----------



## vonnagy (Feb 22, 2005)

^ agree with the mattfish 

another thing to consider is the amount of time it takes to manipulate a picture in photo. I think a great misconception among many folks  that you can output a great picture in photoshop in mere seconds. It can take hours and hours to get it right. If I were to charge folks by the time it took to post process some of my pics - only handful of the super rich could afford them  

Pressing the shutter is only the beginning of journey. I still go back to some pics and think 'man i should go back in fix the sky up a bit' etc, etc.


----------



## Floyd (Feb 24, 2005)

I recommend you try and source the David Hockney documentary he made in relation to the great masters (painters) and how they used optics to create their pictures.  Photography had a considerable impact on all art as it killed most realist painting as there was no longer a need for painting which serves as documentary.  Now painting is mostly intent on narrative, pure visual aesthetic, and expression with little emphasis on documentary.  Photography is merely painting with light.

Hockney is an intelligent man in the way he composes his phot montages as it is constantly circling an area and documenting it in sections just as the eye and the brain do, the human eye is deceptive in that it fools you in to thinking that everything is in focus due to memory.  The eye scans and remembers so as to form a whole image in the mind.  This is what Hockney's work does and is therefore more of a mimic to the way we really see things than a normal static single photograph.  In the photograph there is less subjectivity and emotion attached, the photograph is more truthful than the eye if we want to be technical as it renders more than we really do see at one time.  Besides we could get into the bull**** philosophical question of waht is truth with this.

Just accept that photography is the new documentary painting plus more.

VIVA FILM!


----------



## oriecat (Feb 24, 2005)

Did you see these articles on Hockney last year?  He had some interesting things to say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1161451,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html


----------



## SQ Bimmer (Feb 24, 2005)

There's a reason there are classes held on how to fully utilize photoshop, it's cause it's more complicated than pressing CTRL+SHIFT+L, CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+L, and CTRL+SHIFT+B, and undoing the adjustments that didn't look right!


----------



## terri (Feb 24, 2005)

Ivana: if you are bothered by the apparent trend in thinking that one no longer needs to concern oneself with pesky details like understanding shutter speed and aperture, because you can learn PS and control your image on the computer by post processing, then I share that concern.   But most real photographers have enough respect for the camera to "get it right in-camera", whether shooting film or digital.   Still, mistakes will always be made at times, and whether you're struggling with, for example, a too-dense negative in the darkroom for hours, or a too-dark digital image sitting in front of your PC using PS, your basic intent is still the same.   If I am interpreting your concern correctly, you are feeling disturbed over a perceived loss of respect for the art of photography, coupled with the cavalier approach towards a great program like PS that will (seemingly) solve the problems of poor image capture.   People oversaturate their images on PS constantly, to the point of garishness at times, because they failed to use a lens filter, or over/under exposed their image, or committed some other error that points to a chronic lack of understanding over their camera's functions - be it film or digital.   It is my opinion that this attitude is one of the sorriest aspects of photography today - but that it has little to do with photoshop.


----------



## Sergiozal (Mar 11, 2005)

What is the difference between use a ambar warm filter in your camera or do it in PS? Use B&W film or convert it?
It depends on what you (the artist, the journalist, whatever) want: To give a sensation, or be true in the photo, like to show exactly what you saw in that moment.
I think that if you shot it wrong, you cant make it better in PS, perhaps just a little, but you will never transform an ordinary shot into an extraordinary one.


----------



## SQ Bimmer (Mar 14, 2005)

Sergiozal said:
			
		

> What is the difference between use a ambar warm filter in your camera or do it in PS? ...


Well, one method takes up more film or memory card space, the other method lets you play around with it in photoshop while only having to shoot 1 photo! I think you get the drift...


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 14, 2005)

Ah, the good ol' "Does photoshop ruin the taste of photography?" debate.

I'll answer the same way every time.

Every image is different. No matter what you do to get your final result, whether in the darkroom or with photoshop, that image is no less original and no less YOURS than it was when the light of the image passed through the glass in your lens.


----------



## John E. (Mar 15, 2005)

PS or no PS. Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## deb (Mar 17, 2005)

Well, let's approach the question logically.  

Art is the creation of something using a combination of tools, talent, skill, knowledge, perception, ideas, medium, etc.  with the intention of either invoking emotion or having someone find the creation aesthetically pleasing.

Some people create sculptures of garbage, and consider it art.

Some people paint with oils on canvas and consider it art.

Some people carve objects of wood and consider it art.

Some people capture and manipulate light and consider it art.

Does it matter whether you sculpt with a chisel or a chainsaw?  Does it matter if you capture light on film and manipulate it chemically or capture it and manipulate it electronically?

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I consider art and what others consider art will be as individual as each person.

I've seen PS manipulations that require great skill, perception, planning and use the elements of color, contrast, texture and light as well as any other artistic medium.

By the same token, I've seen PS manipulations that are about as much art as my grandchild's fingerpainting.  However, I will point out, that my grandchild's finger paintings have value to me.  

So yes. I'd say that PS manipulations can be considered art.


----------



## Astro (Mar 17, 2005)

Ivana again said:
			
		

> I was thinking about something and it really bothers me. I thought  to share that with you.
> I saw here, on this forum many beatufull picture. And they look really amazing. But most of those pictures are edit with photoshop or some other program to make better picture.
> What you think? Dont you think that photography then loose artistic value? I mean where is art of photography then when the place and the moment what you capture isnt the reality, and when its not anymore important talent of photographer but knowlege for working in photoshop.
> My opinion is that photoshop is good for some things but not for editing the whole picture.
> ...



I think you are right about craft of photography becoming somewhat extinct because of modern technology. True craftsmen are fewer and fewer. But this is the way things have been for centuries. Take printing for example: from Gutenberg press to desktop publishing and 6-color printing. Of course some old craft is going to be lost along the way. But one thing is for sure, no photoshop can help you if you dont have a talent for photography.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 18, 2005)

deb said:
			
		

> Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> What I consider art and what others consider art will be as individual as each person.


No one person can decide what Art is. Art is defined by Society and changes as Society does. So the decision as to wether something is Art or not is a consensus - and is generally made in retrospect.

What individuals are really doing when they consider something to be 'art' is merely expressing a personal preference. 
Saying that something is Art does not make it so. 
Take a look at a lot of work promoted in Galleries as 'art'. It's similar to furniture: just because it's old doesn't make it an antique (but you will usually find a mug on e-Bay to buy it).

No process that has creative potential ever dies out - it just ceases to be popular.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 18, 2005)

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language "art" is...



> 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
> 
> 2.
> a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
> ...



Now that we know *exactly* what "art" is, let's get out there and do some


----------



## Alpha (Mar 21, 2005)

I think the distinction to be made between manipualting a shot with the camera and manipulating it in PS is one of interaction. When you do your cropping, filtering, lighting, etc, all with your camera, you're using it to accentuate things that naturally exist in the environment you're photographing. Conversely, "purists" such as myself and Ivana tend to view editing in photoshop as further removed from the reality in which the image was captured. That is, doing as much as you can with the camera itself about manipulating the way the image is captured. Consequently, editing in PS manipulates an image that's already been manipulated. I personally don't like editing in PS because you may be introducing things into your images that couldn't possibly have existed in the true setting. For proponents of PS, that's an art in and of itself, but to others it can seem fake.


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 21, 2005)

Portraying things that were in the true setting is a goal of certain photography, yes. However, that's not the goal of ALL photography. The goal in most of it, I find, is to portray a mood or an idea, rather than recreate what actually WAS. The closer you get to portraying that idea in the camera, then great. The less work is required later to help further that idea in that case. However, PS is no more or less a tool to help portray that idea than a darkroom. Once again, I say it doesn't matter what your tool is, be it just the camera, or the help of a darkroom....hell, even if it's an image that was made SOLELY with photoshop.





The point is, it's an image. Images are there to envoke thought or mood, whether with paint, charcoal, a pencil, a camera, or a computer. The artist knows no boundaries or rules.


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 21, 2005)

Another point to make about photography and trying to recreate the mood that was actually there; when shooting portraits, not always do the people who are in the pictures want them to turn out as they actually were:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 21, 2005)

I have to agree with Max and Ivana to some extend.
I see a distinction between using PS or darkroom techniques for creative effect and using these same tools to 'rescue' a photo. If I am using these tools to save a poor image then I have failed to exercise control over my medium. Image manipulation should not be seen as a substitute for knowledge, ability and skill in photography.
When I take pictures with my DSLR I save RAW and the only post-processing I do is to convert to JPEG for posting. I don't even adjust levels (even though I can use PS and have used it for graphics for many years).


----------



## Kent Frost (Mar 21, 2005)

I agree that if it's a poor image to begin with, try again. If it's an image that you want to look like a winner, but is missing a few details that keep it from being so (and some of you know how hard it can be to take the same exact photos twice) then PS is a very useful tool. Once again (and this is a huge point that everyone has to soak in)...no matter what the tools you use are, each image (especially good images) is unique to its creator. That creation is no less yours whether you made it with film and in a darkroom, or with digital and in PS. Show it off.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 21, 2005)

When I first started printing my own BW there were negs where I had goofed the exposure enough to make them impossible for me to print satisfactorily.  Ten years of darkroom experience later, and after learning a few tricks, now I am able to "rescue" them, and make very nice prints.  These days most of my exposures in regular sorts of lighting (daylight or flash) are right where I want them to be, but in difficult lighting situations such as night time and other low light, or high contrast situations, extensive darkroom manipulation may be neccessary to get good prints, or even just to get the prints the way I want them.  My pre-visualization isn't always accurate to reality.  

IMHO using levels is the same as choosing a certain contrast grade of paper or using VC papers, and that increasing saturation is very similar to using a polarizer or choosing to load the camera with Velvia (Velvia ain't natural no way!).  Unsharp mask is definately a lot easier in Adobe PS, but it's been around a long time in the darkroom.  The biggest convenience I see with Adobe PS is the ability to stop working, save it, and then restart almost immediately at a later time.  With the darkroom there is set up and clean up that means I need to schedule enough time to finish my work in one session.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 22, 2005)

With b&w film I worked very hard to control everything so it prints perfectly on Grade 2. It's rare that I print more than 1/2 a grade off. Similarly I very rarely burn in. I guess I'm just trying to do the same with Digital.
At heart I'm an old purist - bring back the good old days when you used your hat for a shutter.
I am aware that my approach is mine alone - if other people want to do things different I'll cheer them on regardless.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 22, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> With b&w film I worked very hard to control everything so it prints perfectly on Grade 2. It's rare that I print more than 1/2 a grade off.



Wait a minute, since lighting in reality isn't always contrast grade 2, isn't this image manipulation?  

I've known many photogs who would consider themselves "purists".  I have a buddy that does fantastic large format color landscape work.  He does not use filters (like a polarizer) because he believes in capturing nature unmodified.  Of course he shoots with Velvia.  Now I think Velvia is beautiful, but I have a hard time seeing a significant difference between choosing it, and using a polarizer.  Either choice strays from pure reality.



> if other people want to do things different I'll cheer them on regardless



I think this is what is important.  Choose your own path, but if others choose a different path, it doesn't mean their ways are inferior.  In fact, I have more  respect for the folks who are doing all of their own processing and printing, even if it is in PS and on inkjet printers, than folks who are dropping their color neg film off at the lab to be printed by someone else (and if you think they aren't making manipulations and decisions about how your image is going to look as an end product you're kidding yourself).  The process of photography does not end when the finger comes up off the shutter release.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 22, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, since lighting in reality isn't always contrast grade 2, isn't this image manipulation?



Exercising control over exposure and processing isn't technically 'image' manipulation as modifications are done _before_ the negative is produced.
You could make an argument for it, though, but it would mean that choice of film would be considered image manipulation. And choice of lens and camera. And so to would be taking the picture in the first place.
Actualy, that is quite a persuasive argument.
So if taking the picture in the first place is image manipulation then any argument about manipulation using PS (or anything else) becomes meaningless.


----------



## omalley (Apr 2, 2005)

I think photoshop is great for art in the sense that it will separate the wheat from the chaff, much in the same way that gelatin silver printing did. For example, a platinum print is more time consuming, expensive, and technically difficult than a silver print. Therefore less of them get made, their percieved value goes up, and they are appreciated all the more.

When we are speaking of commercial art, there is a definite advantage in using a software program rather than some messy old chemicals and having to spend years learning the skills of a master printer. Years are not required to learn the skill of a computer program. 

On the other hand, when we are speaking of the fine arts, there is a disadvantage in using something like photoshop, not the least of which is the fact that many reputable galleries prefer an archivally processed g.s.p. To an average person, it may look as though art photos are mostly being produced digitally, but to someone who is familiar with the gallery system, that is not the case. That has everything to do with the fact that you may see a good photo (of any kind) but galleries are not interested in a "good photo", they are interested in a cohesive body of work and an artist who is committed to the aesthetic concerns of the work over the long run.

The whole argument of digital versus film will only end when people accept that they are intended for different purposes.


----------



## Mumfandc (Apr 3, 2005)

omalley said:
			
		

> On the other hand, when we are speaking of the fine arts, there is a disadvantage in using something like photoshop, not the least of which is the fact that many reputable galleries prefer an archivally processed g.s.p. To an average person, it may look as though art photos are mostly being produced digitally, but to someone who is familiar with the gallery system, that is not the case. That has everything to do with the fact that you may see a good photo (of any kind) but galleries are not interested in a "good photo", they are interested in a cohesive body of work and an artist who is committed to the aesthetic concerns of the work over the long run.
> 
> The whole argument of digital versus film will only end when people accept that they are intended for different purposes.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree in your view of photography within the realm of "Fine Arts" and what reputable galleries are "looking for". You're in NYC, go to the Chelsea contemporary art galleries, things can go way beyond material commodites. And did you see the Armory show? HUNDREDS of the World's established galleries/dealers were there (I spent 5 hours, had to rush through the end), many displaying photographers who work heavily with digital manipulation.

VERY successful Fine Art, non-commercial photographers/artists like Anthony Goicolea, Miwa Yanagi, Ugo Rondinone, Laurie Anderson, Thomas Ruff and Paul Pfeiffer use Photoshop and an ABUNDANCE of digital manipulation which is the basis of their work, and they are represented by the most recognized gallery names in the scene Larry Gagosian, Barabra Gladstone etc. (Of course, you don't have to take their word whether these artists are good or not). But IMO, art has always progressed alongside technological advances.

Take a look at Paul Pfeiffer's work in particular. I don't know if you saw his recent show at Gagosian, but his "Four Horseman of the Apocalypse" is a good example of incorporation of digital editing in photography, (as "Fine Art" if you want to call it that).

Also Miwa Yanagi, heres a quote of a short bio I found of her work...

*The Japanese artist Miwa Yanagi achieved her breakthrough into the international art world with the photo series Elevator Girls, which intermingled the twin themes of consumer culture and the role of women. Originally begun as a performance project, Elevator Girls depicts groups of women in identical uniform enclosed in regimented consumer spaces. The Girls, modeled on the young women who operate elevators in Japanese department stores, stand in as a symbol of the repressive strictures governing the behavior of young women in contemporary Japanese society. Yanagi's latest series, My Grandmothers, is a penetrating and fantastic analysis of the future dreams of young women. Using makeup and computer manipulation, she shows her protagonists as they imagine they will look and live in 50 years.*

You said it yourself, galleries are interested in a cohesive body of work...why would that exclude those who use digital manipulation as an essential part of it??


----------



## omalley (Apr 4, 2005)

Mumfandc said:
			
		

> You're in NYC, go to the Chelsea contemporary art galleries, things can go way beyond material commodites.


I think the term you're looking for is investment, not commodity.
While I cannot argue that those artists have representation, only time will tell if photoshopped images go the way of graffiti art and Mark Kostabi or if they prove to be a medium which is taken seriously by investors (all the people who buy art expecting it to hold its value, not just the rich people at Sotheby's.)
You are correct in assuming that I'm unfamiliar with those people. Except Laurie Anderson. If it is the same Laurie Anderson of 'Language Is A Virus', then technically she is a performance artist and the photos of her work are simply an artifact/document of that work. Of course it could be a different person.


> You said it yourself, galleries are interested in a cohesive body of work...why would that exclude those who use digital manipulation as an essential part of it??


Well, obviously it doesn't disclude them, but again, only time will tell if these are serious artists or the latest Pomo hipsters glomming onto the newest trend. Take Loretta Lux, for example, as one of these digital artists. I think her ideas have some merit, but she is technically lacking as a photographer and couldn't care less. She publicly declares that her husband sets up studio lighting for her because she doesn't want to bother with it, and that if the photos look boring then she spruces them up in Photoshop before printing them out. To my thinking, this is not someone who is committed to an aesthetic philosophy, and if she doesn't get bored and move on to something else besides art eventually, I will be greatly surprised. 
It's possible that I am an old fogey who is resistant to new things, but again, only time will tell.


----------



## Cuervo79 (Apr 4, 2005)

Well IMO it all comes down to taste, for me I prefer to stay away from photoshop if I want my picture to talk for itself, on the other hand, I love changing and adjusting my photos if I want to put them as wallpapers in my PC. For me I like my art be done with no digital manipulation, because of the fact that if you do something wrong in photoshop you can undo it or even revert processes with the history, wich you can´t do that in a dark room, the 1 chance of doing it the way you want it makes it unique. 
I understand digital manipulation in comercial photography, and I understand and accept the manipulation the artists Mumfandc talks about. But that does not mean I have to like what they do.
It al comes down to taste, not who is right or wrong


----------



## Mumfandc (Apr 4, 2005)

omalley said:
			
		

> I think the term you're looking for is investment, not commodity.
> While I cannot argue that those artists have representation, only time will tell if photoshopped images go the way of graffiti art and Mark Kostabi or if they prove to be a medium which is taken seriously by investors (all the people who buy art expecting it to hold its value, not just the rich people at Sotheby's.)


Time will tell? There's no need to wait because digitally photoshopped images have long been accepted already. Who said graffitti art can't be taken "seriously" by investors? Jean-Michel Basquiat and Barry McGee are both graffiti artists who very successfully brought this "low-artform" into the realm of high-art. Hell, Basquiat sold at the age of 23(?), a number of his works for around $20-30,000 (I believe he was represented by Barbara Gladstone gallery) which was considered a HUGE success for such a man his age. There is currently a comprehensive show of Basquiat's work at the Brooklyn Museum right now.





> Well, obviously it doesn't disclude them, but again, only time will tell if these are serious artists or the latest Pomo hipsters glomming onto the newest trend. Take Loretta Lux, for example, as one of these digital artists. I think her ideas have some merit, but she is technically lacking as a photographer and couldn't care less. She publicly declares that her husband sets up studio lighting for her because she doesn't want to bother with it, and that if the photos look boring then she spruces them up in Photoshop before printing them out. To my thinking, this is not someone who is committed to an aesthetic philosophy, and if she doesn't get bored and move on to something else besides art eventually, I will be greatly surprised.
> It's possible that I am an old fogey who is resistant to new things, but again, only time will tell.


Another example, Jeff Koons...he's absolutely NOTORIOUS for not even lifting a finger in the creations of his "artwork", and yet the buyers still pay MILLIONS for his work at Sotheby's...? Go to the New York Foundation for the Arts website, as well as craigslist.org...Jeff Koons studio is always running listings seeking painters and assistants to work for him.

And what exactly is your definition of "aesthetic philosophy"? We are currently discussing all of this in my required Western art theories class (interesting, but I sure won't say I enjoy it!). Have you ever read Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Judgement"? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, and it's too complicated to summarize here, but basically..."serious artist" or trendy hipster, if they are able to make an artwork which people enjoy, then that's the way it is.

To back that up, here's an interesting excerpt I found regarding Kant (from Robert Williams "Art Theory" 2004):

*"...Important for Kant, is the idea that aesthetic Judgement remain free of controlling principles or concepts. "Whether a dress, a house, or a flower is beautiful is a matter upon which one declines to allow one's judgement to be swayed by any reasons or principles. "When we judge something to have a nameable function, we cease to regard it aesthetically...Aesthetic judgements are thus characterized by a "purposiveness without purpose". We keep on looking because the object satisfies the needs of our gaze in some way we cannot fully grasp. Kant concludes with a succinct, if unlovely, formulation: "the beatiful is that which, without any concept, is cognized as the object of necessary satisfaction."*

That's also why I meant what I said, more than a "commodity" (with archival purpose), and not "investment".


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 5, 2005)

Seems to me we are getting into the 'what makes Art?' argument. You really should go back to the person who started this question - Marcel Duchamp. He opened this can of worms in the early 1900's and people have been trying to sort the mess out ever since. Kurt Schwitters pushed it along. People now are just rehashing their work.
You also need to realise that galleries and such are not in the least interested in Art. They just want to find something that they can sell for wad's of cash and are just in to novelty (I could tell you stories...)
Art buyers are similarly obsessed with money. They only want to buy things that will gain in value and they have their methods.
The name of the game now is novelty and gimmick and lot's of young 'artists' jump on whichever bandwagon is passing - not to make art but to make money.
It will sort itself out in time. Probably.


----------



## Mumfandc (Apr 5, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> You also need to realise that galleries and such are not in the least interested in Art. They just want to find something that they can sell for wad's of cash and are just in to novelty (I could tell you stories...)
> Art buyers are similarly obsessed with money. They only want to buy things that will gain in value and they have their methods.
> The name of the game now is novelty and gimmick and lot's of young 'artists' jump on whichever bandwagon is passing - not to make art but to make money.
> It will sort itself out in time. Probably.


Who exactly decides who is an artist? I could be an artist to one person and not to another.

I disagree with you about galleries and their quest for money. I do AGREE that there are those who purchase artwork merely for the increasing value of it. But I don't agree that you can generalize the entire art buyer populace with that statement.

I don't know if you seen the galleries here in NYC, but there are dozens of galleries here that do not "sell" any type of material work to the public. For example, those who routinely host performance art like the Sean Kelly gallery who represents Marina Abramovic...I'd suggest you look up her work. One interesting piece "Rhythm 0", she invited her audience to do whatever they wanted to her body using any of the 72 items she provided: pen, scissors, chains, axe, loaded pistol, and others.

If not performance art, then installation art which can't be "bought", as they are only temporary, later to be dismantled and "discarded". I believe it was the Matthew Marks (or Gladstone?) gallery which hosted the installation artist Gregor Schneider last year. He's work often deals with the alteration of interior spaces which confuse the viewers sensory experiences.  

For this particular "exhibition", if you went into the _actual_ gallery space itself, there was LITERALLY NOTHING there...rather you had to walk outside to an adjacent halfway-closed metal "garage door" (which you had to CRAWL under), to find a constructed alley-like claustrophobic space which was very unnerving. It was open 24-hours, it could only be found by word of mouth.

I'm just trying show you that these galleries are not always interested in "something they can sell for wad's of cash" like you said. Of course there are galleries which sell art for the sole purpose of decorating ones home...I guess that's another "type".


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 5, 2005)

Mumfandc said:
			
		

> Who exactly decides who is an artist? I could be an artist to one person and not to another.


Anyone can call themselves an artist. This is not disputed. You can also call your output 'art', which again would raise no dispute. But...
The questions 'what is an artist' and  'what is art' have been hotly debated for a hundred years now (you really should acquaint yourself with Marcel Duchamp) and are no nearer resolution. What is certain, though, is that there  are artists (and their work) who are of much greater significance and importance than all the rest. A good understanding of Art history will make it clear to you what makes this so.


			
				Mumfandc said:
			
		

> I disagree with you about galleries and their quest for money. I do AGREE that there are those who purchase artwork merely for the increasing value of it. But I don't agree that you can generalize the entire art buyer populace with that statement.
> 
> I don't know if you seen the galleries here in NYC, but there are dozens of galleries here that do not "sell" any type of material work to the public. For example, those who routinely host performance art like the Sean Kelly gallery who represents Marina Abramovic...I'd suggest you look up her work. One interesting piece "Rhythm 0", she invited her audience to do whatever they wanted to her body using any of the 72 items she provided: pen, scissors, chains, axe, loaded pistol, and others.
> 
> ...


You are exhibiting the most amazing degree of naiivety. All galleries exist to make money - otherwise they go out of business very quickly. If they are not selling work then they are getting funding from _somewhere_. Even when an artist, or a group of artists, pay for their own exhibition space they do it to raise their profile so they can get commissions and charge more for their work.
Your view of the art world seems to be informed by going to galleries and looking at exhibitions. My view comes from having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists.


----------



## Mumfandc (Apr 5, 2005)

> What is certain, though, is that there are artists (and their work) who are of much greater significance and importance than all the rest. A good understanding of Art history will make it clear to you what makes this so.


Art History has always been of huge debate. WESTERN/EUROPEAN art has ALWAYS been considered "of greater significance" than the art of primitive "lesser" cultures. And yet major figures in art history, like Picasso, have borrowed heavily from primitive cultures like in Africa. There are plenty of critics who debate this, and what's written in the book not everyone agrees with.



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Your view of the art world seems to be informed by going to galleries and looking at exhibitions. My view comes from having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists.


What's wrong with going to galleries and looking at exhibitions? These things are FREE, I don't pay to see them...and I don't buy the work either. And I never straight out said that galleries DON'T earn money from other sources, (I only mentioned the selling of a product)...but that doesn't mean these gallery owners are using that profit to buy themselves Lamborginis. 

You SERIOUSLY need to take a second look at what you typed above, I guess _you_ just admitted yourself, that YOU don't care about viewing Art.  As you said, MY view of the artworld comes from viewing exhibitions, *you stated (quote above) that YOUR VIEW of the artworld comes from "having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists"*...I see no ART in that equation! You're just focusing on the character of INDIVIDUALS of the art world. That doesn't make YOUR view right...OR mine. But the way you put it, the viewing of a particular piece of artwork comes second, and the business and politics behind the work come first. Then there's the complete opposite, but I feel in reality galleries can operate in either way.

That's not to say that I DON'T care about what's behind the work, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote the things I said about Joel-Peter Witkin. But if you claim to have had so much first-hand experience with these evil gallery owners and everyone else you mentioned, why on earth are you WASTING YOUR TIME around them if you're against them so much??? For "stories"...?! I may not have as much experience as you, but have temporarily interned at two galleries here in NYC. 

You can call my opinion NAIVE all you want, but I'd take caution labeling people that because a direct antonym of naive is "pretentious".


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Apr 6, 2005)

Mumfandc said:
			
		

> Art History has always been of huge debate. WESTERN/EUROPEAN art has ALWAYS been considered "of greater significance" than the art of primitive "lesser" cultures. And yet major figures in art history, like Picasso, have borrowed heavily from primitive cultures like in Africa. There are plenty of critics who debate this, and what's written in the book not everyone agrees with.
> 
> 
> What's wrong with going to galleries and looking at exhibitions? These things are FREE, I don't pay to see them...and I don't buy the work either. And I never straight out said that galleries DON'T earn money from other sources, (I only mentioned the selling of a product)...but that doesn't mean these gallery owners are using that profit to buy themselves Lamborginis.
> ...


I really do think that it is you who need to read what you have written - but more importantly you need to read what I have written.
You are getting confused between talking about Art and the Art _World_. There is a distinct difference between these two which you seem to fail to recognise. For an Artist to be able to produce Art he needs to eat and buy materials. The Art World is the machinery that makes this possible to a large extent. This has always been the case.
One could argue that without the Art World they would be very little Art - and certainly no galleries in which to show it.
I was making the point that the Art Gallery system has taken over - now it is a big business and Art and artists have just become a commodity, devaluing both terms in a number of ways and relegating Artists to second class citizens in the system.
You also make a number of other assumptions that have no basis in fact.
Where, in what I have written, did I say that I was  _against_ anyone  making money?
Where did I say it was wrong to go to galleries and look at exhibitions?
Where did I seperate out Western Art from the rest of the world? I made no distinction - but I would agree that the Art World has become much more important and powerful in the West. 
And where did I 'admit' that I don't care about viewing Art?
As for why I should 'waste my time' around 'evil' gallery owners - that is just such a silly comment that I won't even bother answering.

Now this is the last I am going to write in this thread for a number of reasons.
Firstly, other people might want to put their views.
Secondly, a lot of your 'argument' comes from claiming that I have said things that I have not, and it is a waste of time to try to talk sensibly in these situations.
Thirdly, you are starting to get personally insulting (and using CAPITALS) and it is certainly a waste of time talking to people when they behave like this.


And of course gallery owners don't use their profits to buy Lamborghini's - they don't usually earn that much. They tend to buy Porsche's.


----------



## Mumfandc (Apr 6, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> I really do think that it is you who need to read what you have written - but more importantly you need to read what I have written.



Are you _sure_ about that? Afterall, as your signature says: *"I used to be indecisive....but now I'm not so sure."*



> Thirdly, you are starting to get personally insulting (and using CAPITALS) and it is certainly a waste of time talking to people when they behave like this.


Well initially, I was personally insulted by you calling me naive. I guess I'll admit that I did waste my time talking to a person like yourself.


----------



## omalley (Apr 6, 2005)

Now, now, let's play nice. It was getting to be such a stimulating conversation.
I'll admit that most galleries are in it to make money, but some (not all) are in it also because they like art. Some galleries pretend that they do not care about making money and only show reductionist garbage twenty years out of date. These people are what we call socialites. They need to feel important and cultured, and rub lots of elbows, and have trendy openings where the people who attend wear name brand and barely remember what they learned in Art History 101. So they open a gallery, not caring one whit if their sales are any good. These people are the scum of the art world. They are the ones who fob off "installations" which consist of a pile of cookies dumped onto the floor, on the viewing public. This is why average people are so confused about "what art is". But my views are probably more conservative than that of others here, and I tend to agree with Julian Spaulding ('The Eclipse of Art') on many points.
Getting back to the first category of gallery owners, those who are in it to make money, some are more driven by this than others. Those are usually the ones who stay open longer, unfortunately. Time and again I've seen galleries close because they are too fixated on showing quality work. It's unfortunate. Of course, when we are taken on by a gallery, we like to pretend that it is solely on the quality of the work. But, of course, the owner is hoping that we will sell out the show. It is also accurate that artists are treated like second-class citizens by the gallery system, otherwise why would we feel like they are doing us a favor when we are accepted for a show? It is a fact that even highly talented artists feel "lucky" to have adequate representation, even though sales of their work is why their gallery is staying open.
If all this is true then why keep doing it, you ask? Because eventually the pendulum has to swing the other way. Postmodernism is the worst thing to have happened to art. Like Communism it was a great idea for a little while, but it quickly soured. At this point educated people are becoming tired of seeing the same "statements about the nature of art" being made again and again ad infinitum. Wonder where all the art critics went? They had nothing left to talk about. You can only write so many articles titled 'Is It Art?' before everyone gets bored. Now we are completely stalled in this gray area of "what comes next?" Sooner or later people will get sick of viewing work that is completely devoid of craft (and its accompanying rationalization "proving" that it can be art if it wants to) and they will start demanding to see something better. Or they won't and we will all just continue getting more stupid.
Hey, come to think of it, how about a new thread where we all speculate about what will come next? I think I will start one.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 11, 2005)

Here's David Hockney's take...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 12, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Here's David Hockney's take...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html


[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Wonder what Hockney thought of Jerry Uelsmann!

[/font]
I know nothing about art or its history, but Russel Roberts sounded interesting:
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]


> Russell Roberts, head of photography at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, said Hockney's argument was "simplistic".


 [/font]


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 16, 2005)

An article...

http://wilson.dynu.net/dilution.asp


----------

