ku # 496 ~ 99.999%
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 03:46PM 
A sunny winter moment • click to embiggenIn the current issue (No. 74) of LensWork, Brooks Jensen has worked himself into a fine tizzy about the current state of photography, Fine Art Division. He starts his Editor's Comment admitting that he is in a 'sour and cynical mood' brought on by a visit to the photography section of a bookstore.
Perusing the offerings on hand, he comes to the 'startling revelation' that 'Too much of photography is about photographers. He goes on to explain that 'the creative act in photography is supposedly the photography's skill in seeing what others do not, but this is simply not sufficient - and can lead to a lot of trite photography ... what counts is what a person makes, and - most importantly - expresses.'
Those who have followed my ramblings here on The Landscapist might suppose that Jensen and I to be simpatico on this point and, up to this point, we are in basic agreement. But .....
Jensen's fear and loathing, re: the current state of photography, seems to be centered around the fact that too many photographers, especially those whose work is published and/or exhibited in galleries and museums, are expressing themselves about 'trite and mundane stuff' about which 99.999% (Jensen's estimate) of the general public could care little, if at all. He asks, 'At what level of elitism have we crossed a line that makes our work meaningless.'
It is at this point that Jensen loses me because - since when has it been the point of making Fine Art to please all of the people, all of the time? That goal is more to the point of making Decorative Art.
To be fair, Jensen states that 'I think that art - the best art - tends to be about lofty things. perhaps I should use the term meaningful things.' But .... he then goes on to define 'meaningful things' by listing a 'who's who' of 'biggies' from 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.'
OK, sure. But .... again I think we disagree on the idea that it is only by exploring and expressing ourselves about the 'big stuff' (and ignoring the 'mundane stuff') that we can imbue our photography with 'meaning' that is worth considering.
Nevertheless, the main point of his commentary with which I completely disagree is that somehow, if we only can choose the 'right' meaningful stuff to picture, we can and will engage that 99.999% of the general public who currently thinks that our pictures are full of meaningless self-centered crap.
I've got news for Mr. Jensen - 99.999% (for the record, my estimate would be more in the region of 93%) of the general public thinks Fine Art, any Fine Art (not just photography), is full of crap. The absolutely last thing they want in their 'art' is to be engaged in contemplation about 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond.'
They look to 'art' for an escape / diversion from their relationship to the world and beyond - things that they can place in their homes to make them a nicer place to be. In short, Decorative Art.
In addition to that hurdle, IMO, 99.999% of the general public simply doesn't consider photography to be art. Period. A picture is something you take while you're on vacation (to hang on the refrigerator) to remind you of what a great time you had or something you take to remind you of a birthday or other event.
Maybe I'm just in a 'sour and cynical mood' but I tend to think of it as being 'realistic' - Fine Art has always been in the domain of the 'elite'. Some of it has even been too trite and mundane or, at the very least, arcane and obtuse for the 'general public' to grasp or care about. Some of it has been too concerned with 'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond' for the general public to want to grasp or care about it. And some of it just requires to much effort and education for the general public to understand it.
It just seems to me that that is the way of the world in most areas of human endeavor.
Any comments?
Reader Comments (6)
My basic attitude is that it's a Redneck World out there. Not only here in the good ol U.S. of A. The entire planet is populated by Rednecks, or at least 99.999% of it is. And to them, Art is a painting. Theatre, film, sculpture, literature, music, photography, etc. etc. are diversions. You want to talk about Art, then you better go find a painting.
Even with painting, isn't 99.999% (some hyperbole here) of what is considered Fine Art (at least before 1860 or so) commissioned by somebody, whether it be an Emperor, or a Medici, or a Captain of Industry? And aren't most of those commissions to teach a moral (read: religious) lesson or celebrate the patron's greatness?
'the eternal quest for the meaning of life, our relationship to the world and beyond'
If that statement is prefaced with the notion of intellectual pursuit, I think you are right. it's the problem with Art criticism - the attempt to intellectualise everything.
For most people I think their desire for the decorative is exactly about their relationship to the World. For most, that relationship is about the desire to be somewhere else; for adventure, excitement, discovery, escape.
The 99.999% are thus engaging with art no less than the 0.001%, they just do it in a different way that is not overtly elitist-intellectual.
I think I'm in agreement with Martin here (if I'm correctly interpreting his comment).
You're right, Mark, in that most people don't give a rat's behind as to what constitutes "Fine Art" and what constitutes "Decorative Art". But those are your distinctions, not their's. Those who do choose to think about it might ask you something like: "What gives you the right to designate yourself or anyone else as ARTIST in the first place?" Once you do that, you're implying that others - perhaps most others - are not ARTISTS. So you've set up this arbitrary dichotomy from the get-go. You've started down the path to "elitism" (a state that you personally often attack when speaking about ART CRITICS).
But let's get back to the "masses" who might react emotionally to a photograph of the North Rim of the Grand Canyon at sunset, with a lenticular cloud hanging over the eastern end of the canyon bathed in alpenglow. Isn't that visceral reaction as "meaningful" as someone else's reaction to a more esoteric offering? Who are we to demean the one image as merely "Decorative Art"? In case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what you're doing in these little editorials.
You are right about one thing - no one should be "making art" with a specific audience in mind. We all should be making photographs first for our own personal reasons. Still, there's another side to that coin.
If a photograph comes out of your camera and nobody sees it, does it really exist?
Perhaps Brook Jensen's problem is that he's not going to the right photography bookstore. Judging the state of fine art photography through the lens of what a particular buyer or corporation has chosen for their shelves starts with a skewed field.
My favorite quote about the bell curve of art appreciation is by the poet John Giorno, who repeats the phrase: "If something is good, people like it!"
My plan in 2008 is to take photos of women, cars, and sports. Just kidding.
Cheers,
Joe
if it is something that you'd happily hang on your wall, is it then decorative art and thus not interesting/ worthy/ Art ? Does it then have to be visually unappealing to not be decorative art ?
Didn't you express a desire to hang your decay series on the wall ? Does that make it decorative art ?