man & nature # 74 ~ an apostate visual artist
Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 06:56AM 
2 trees, 400 miles / 24 hours apart • click to embiggen2 quick items and then I'm out of here to NYC.
1.) Mary Dennis wrote: "I wanted to add that I'm a little surprised to hear that the focusing, schlepping and chutzpah part of photography doesn't come naturally to you ... I always had the impression that you were old hat at this kind of thing.
my response: I'm old hat at schlepping my commercial photo portfolio although those days are behind me for the most part. But, the fact that I am "old hat" at doing it doesn't mean that I like it, not to mention that schlepping commercial work is a whole different kettle of fish than doing so in the Art world.
The commercial world has nearly endless possibilities, not so the Art world - by "Art world" I mean the "high-end" gallery world. A world that, thanks to Aaron, I have a point of entry into. Nevertheless ... ugh.
2.) The consensus from the SURVEY is that one of the primary reasons most keep coming back to The Landscapist is because it is one of only a few blog-places where gear and techno topics don't rule the day. Fortunately for me, there are just enough of you out there who are interested in the medium of photography beyond that of the toys involved - just enough to keep me going.
But, I'm curious. Why do you think that is? Why aren't more picture makers interested (for their own benefit / curiosity, not mine) in the some of the topics discussed here? Could it have something to do with this? -
Unfortunately, art in America has become an elitist preserve. This is partly the fault of a critical establishment which abandoned the enduring search for a common language - the language of love and loss and sorrow and remembrance - and began to speak, almost exclusively, in a specialized and opaque language that few can understand. I mean, who dares to define the ironies of postmodernism? Who cares? I know of very few writers, historians, theologians or scientists, who offer the slightest nod to the so-called "art world" - which now defines itself by a handful of art stars (exciting, savvy, marketable) who, unlike their literary counterparts (Dylan, DeLillo), speak primarily to a small New York audience. This audience hungers for an acceptable avant-garde they can take for granted, an "edginess" that shocks for a moment or two. Outside of this extroverted realm in which celebrity has been converted into meaning, in which the quiet, free-standing work of art is given little respect, apostate visual artists find themselves longing for an absent American discourse. - John Rosenthal
Which brings me back to item # 1. I am mostly likely an "apostate visual artist" in that I am not certain that my pictures conform to the "specialized and opaque language that few can understand" art world of New York. IMO, I and my work tend towards that "absent American discourse" that Rosenthal writes about.
And, it is those considerations that make schlepping my work in the Art world so daunting.
Reader Comments (5)
I actually wrote about this a couple of days ago, this post
The technical side of things is easy. There are demonstrative 'truths'. Everything else is somewhat subjective and requires actually expressing an opinion.
These days opinions seem to be entry points for fights for a lot of folk (the comment in response to that post is a fine example of what happens if you try to stray away from the technical and are willing to express a non-standard point of view)
I fear that the actual art market is not so easy in respect to innovations as it may seem. That explains the need for an obscure language to pack the usual, reassuring, stuff. At least for what I have seen. Burtinsky may come in as good example, a colored Ansel applied to human disasters and recently a me too in china (or any other esotic location) raising and/or collapsing buildings. All in big sizes but really nothing new in photographic terms.
The same applies to almost every area of production in our western world (an example being the notorious mountain bike). In the last 50 years most of the, valuable, innovations where user driven.
In the last century history of art each innovation had the critics on the opposite side at first, then when they realized that there was demand they jumped in, leaving out the most difficult to understand. Fortunately for the artists there still where Illuminate Capitalists, a rare stuff today.
I think that your son has a better idea in giving to the critics something to chew misleading them to an other media and at the same time building consensus around his work.
I don't think that's it, for most. There may be a few who are striving for "higher Art" and are disillusioned by the whole Fine Art world today.
I think the real reason is a lot simpler. I think most don't really see photography as Art. few strive for higher things. Some nice pictures of the places they've been to put on the walls is goal enough. too few people are interested in learning a whole lot more, nor strive to push their boundaries.
I think the reasons that the numbers discussing matters here is small, is just because it is that - a small group. Sad but true.
"Why aren't more picture makers interested (for their own benefit / curiosity, not mine) in the some of the topics discussed here?"
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that some people consider photography as a physical, almost sport-like pursuit, while others consider it a more intellectual pursuit. I'm not saying all jocks are dumb of course but maybe it's more about the doing than the thinking and constant rumination. For me it's a little of both and trying to strike a balance.
I guess Martin mostly has it. Photography is accessible for everyone and was so for decades. Most of the images people produce daily are definitely not art and were never meant to be.
Many of the images that people see daily may be art, but are not meant to be either. They are commercial photography used in advertising and news, and again there is only a small fraction that could be classified as art by their properties, even if their context says otherwise.
Thus: even after such a long history as art, photography still has a hard time to be recognized as such.
On the other hand, photography as a hobby and a pastime thrives today just as it did 30, 50 years before, and as with all hobbies, people love to discuss gear.
Remember: when you don't see photography as art, when you do it to make "pretty pictures" for the family album, then the subject is what photography is about, not how it is depicted. People tend to confuse subject and representation. Art lies in the representation.
Now, when all value is in the subjects and the subjects are mostly private, what will you talk about? Gear, of course :)
I disagree in one point though: it's not sad. It's simply that we have to recognize that there are different uses to the medium, and ours is one that most people don't care for. That's OK, I don't care for watching sports, and I would find it very strange if anyone were sad about that :)