From: Shannon Stoney (shannonstoney@earthlink.net)
Date: 08/19/02-12:25:36 PM Z
So, if Weston were around today, which camp do you think he would fall in,
of the two that you mention? The craft camp or the intellectual bunch?
--shannon
----------
>From: Christopher Lovenguth <chrisml@pacbell.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: What Postmodernism Means, etc.,etc.,etc.
>Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2002, 9:02 AM
>
> Wow I don't look at my email at all this past weekend and I miss the
> bi-yearly "what is art" debate. Everyone knows how much I enjoy ruffling
> feathers on this topic especially when Mr. Perl is used as reference in
> support of an argument....
>
> This time around instead of sounding bitter and possibly insulting people
> here on this list (which I'll probably do anyway), I am going to try and
> look at this "debate" a different way. I think this conversation always gets
> wrapped up in definitions of what label to put on current art when it
> actually has nothing to do with that. At least for this conversation there
> are two camps on this list:
>
> There is one group who seems to be utterly displeased with how
> intellectualized art is and wants to believe in art as object is a
> legitimate art form. This group is very bitter with the current trends in
> galleries, art schools and so called experts "high brows" in the field.
>
> The other group believes there is a place and always has been for conception
> and thought in art. To these people, plain and simple this is what art is.
> If someone wants to make a pretty picture for the sake of it, that is craft.
>
> I will admit that I am bias to the second group and this email will be full
> of that bias. I also know this is very much an over simplified labeling of
> these two camps. But my point here is these biases have nothing to do with
> post-modernism or any other label that a timeframe in art history has or
> will get. That is left up to the art historians well after a movement has
> come and gone. This obsession with "what will be the next thing and it
> better be what I'm doing because what I'm doing is very important and must
> be recognized or I'm wasting my time here" and then the complaining about
> the next big movement when it doesn't incorporate what you are doing is
> wasted energy. This is where artist are now in this modern age. It seems
> most artist are so worried about being shunned by their own community (which
> now seems to include art critics and gallery owners) and concerned they can
> not call themselves artist, they set about invalidating anything that is
> contrary to their belief. That is not a supportive community.
>
> I'm all over the place in this email but I'll continue....now for the
> bias...
>
> Weather you like it or not intellectualism is very important in art. That is
> what makes it art. Making the object creative comes second. Art must have
> both for it to be successful, but thought outweighs creativeness. It is much
> more important to the art movement as a whole that people think then it is
> for objects to be made well (if at all). This might be hard for some to
> believe but if you were to give a hundred people a pepper and a digital
> camera and a year to solely just work on making an image of that pepper with
> Weston's image as reference, ninety-five images at end of that year will be
> creative and competitive with Weston's original. The images will have depth,
> sensuality, texture, etc. Some will blunder in to a nice image, others will
> have taken thousands until the right one came out. That is the thing about
> the object of art, it only takes time, persistence and sometimes an accident
> (and money for materials) to make a nice one. Original thought on the other
> hand is exclusive. To bring up the f64 group as support of "art as object"
> argument is invalid because the context of when the images were made needs
> to be considered. At that time this group of people were fighting against
> the blur. They were also pushing the medium to an extreme. When you take
> their images out of period by duplicating their work today and apply
> contemporary thought to them, they do not hold up. This is because it has
> been done. When work like this is now made it is in the ream of craft and
> training. Artists have always looked back on past periods of art for
> training and inspiration, not replication. Replication and emulation again
> is craft.
>
> It is fine to do work for work sake. Just like it is OK to go out and play
> touch football with you friends on the weekend and emulate pro football
> greats. Just don't to walk in an arena and expect to be let on a NFL team
> because you play every weekend, know how to throw the ball and have seen the
> pros do it on TV.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST