From: Liam Lawless (liam.lawless@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 02/22/02-12:31:23 PM Z
Does uninspired crap not exist, then?
Liam
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Lovenguth [mailto:chrisml@pacbell.net]
Sent: 22 February 2002 16:57
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: What is "Good Photography"?
Maybe it's my upbringing from a highly conceptual school of thought but
there seems to be this neglect sometimes when making an argument like this
on the conceptual aspect of art. Think about it for a moment. You walk in to
a room, possibly by yourself; maybe someone else is there. The lights go
off. What has become of the environment, space, color, all this sense of
space that you had when entering a room with the lights on is now gone? Now
when the lights come back on, maybe you have moved, maybe more people came
in, maybe someone left, regardless the composition of the space has changed.
That is the art. It is very pure too because the viewer and the space are
the art. A truly interactive art experience that is consistently
transforming. It is a piece that will never be the same each time you view
it.
Now with the installation after the party. Just think about it a
little...people who dismiss this are people who think, "Well if the janitor
cleaned it up why isn't that art too?" Again you are not thinking about
intent and space. The party was in that space of the exhibit. This artist
wanted to preserve an event that affected a change in an environment. Would
it have been more valid for you if he had taken a picture with an 8X10 and
did a platinum print of it, then hung it in that space? Why go through all
those steps and alter the perspective of the event? Why not just show the
viewer the objects that are a result of an event?
It comes down to two things I have notice lately about the "viewer" in the
art world.
1.) First some people believe that they shouldn't have to think to view art.
Thinking is work. Art is entertainment. TV is entertainment, don't have to
think in front of a TV, shouldn't have to think in front of art.
2.) Art must be a tangible "none but the trained artist can do" object.
Painting makes an object, sculpture makes an object, photography makes an
object and installation makes an object but it just better be something like
painting, sculpture, or photography. Better be also something crafty that
took time an expertise to do or it's not art. (Remember that it wasn't very
long ago that no photograph was considered art. Photography is mechanical,
all you need is a camera so "I can do that" and it isn't art! In fact many
people still think this way.)
"No wonder that there's "such little support of artists in this world" when
poseurs such as Creed pass off uninspired crap as art and are handsomely
rewarded for it. The general public (being much smarter than the art world
cognoscenti) consider it a joke, as evidenced by Barry's humor column."
On a personal note Cactus, calling someone else's work crap without
experiencing it, just means you are bitter that this person got money and a
place in a gallery. That, my friend, is EXACTLY what I meant when I said
there is little support for artist in the world by other artist. You see
this as a competition further indicated by you comment:
"Ever try to get your work in a museum Christopher? If you have, then you
would understand that curators do wield power."
First you assume that because I don't share you view that I must not have
tried to get work in somewhere. So I must not be a real artist to begin with
and not understand what I'm talking about.
What exactly is the power? Making art is making art, not being in SFMOMA.
That is ego.
Do I dream of being a living famous artist that can go to any museum and see
my work? Of course!
Do I blame curators, gallery owners, trends in art, art dealers, coffee
houses, when "they" chose someone else's work over mine? No!
Do I attack what I think as inferior work to mine as "Uninspired crap"? No!
Do I think sometimes work in a gallery, museum, coffee house, could be
better thought out, or has a composition that isn't working, or the idea is
lacking direction? Yes!
And that is all the difference......
-----Original Message-----
From: Cactus Cowboy [mailto:cactus@tritel.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:36 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: What is "Good Photography"?
Greetings from Big Wonderful Wyoming,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Lovenguth" <chrisml@pacbell.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: RE: What is "Good Photography"?
> I find it interesting that of all groups of people us photographers would
> not see the significant statement being made in having a room transform
> itself from light to dark at calculated intervals. Ironic to me that whom
What "significant statement"? (ROTFLMAO) Sure, we can all appreciate the
beauty in mundane everyday events, e.g. lights turning on and off, but does
this justify giving Martin Creed a prestigious art award for such a banal
idea? I don't think so. Did you actually read Dave Barry's column? Mr.
Barry makes more sense in one short column than many art school professors
ever will in their entire careers.
> criticizes this wouldn't think about this idea but focus more on effort
made
> in an object (or lack there of). But then again being so focused in
> alternative process is all about a precious object. Not that I'm
personally
> attacking any of you I just find this interesting. I also find it
> interesting that people really believe that curators have that much power.
You're making a hasty conclusion based on a false premise. I DID think
about the idea. I (and many other people) are not as focused on tangible
works of art ("precious object") as you suggest. I'm not so engrossed in
alternative photographic processes that I'm oblivious to music, poetry, and
performance art.
Ever try to get your work in a museum Christopher? If you have, then you
would understand that curators do wield power.
> Also the fact that some artists seem the need to attack the validity of
> someone else's work. There is already such little support of artists in
this
> world and now in this post-modern era artist also have to look out for
other
> artist questioning validity. Not questioning style, composition and form,
> mind you, but rather if it is altogether is worth looking at as art. I
call
> this the "I can do that so it isn't art" syndrome.
No wonder that there's "such little support of artists in this world" when
poseurs such as Creed pass off uninspired crap as art and are handsomely
rewarded for it. The general public (being much smarter than the art world
cognoscenti) consider it a joke, as evidenced by Barry's humor column.
Three cheers for the janitor who cleaned up and discarded the art gallery
'trash art' installation. Why was this smart janitor not hailed for
creating a brilliant artwork entitled "Clean Gallery"? Maybe because he
didn't pay $50,000 for an advanced art degree?
Best regards,
Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: illovich [mailto:illovich@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: What is "Good Photography"?
>
> >At 08:34 PM 18/02/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >He can do whatever he wants, and the critics will declare that it's art,
> >especially if it
> >>annoys normal people".
> >>
> >>Link to Barry's column:
>
>>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/2679614.
> ht
> >
> >It's the Emperor's new clothes!
> >
> >The trouble that the misinformed and ignorant public (like me and you)
has
> >is that when we dare to speak up and say that these so-called "art works"
> >are preposterous and outrageous, then the defenders of art suddenly crawl
> >out from the crevices to chastise us for missing the point of the work
and
> >of art itself. There seems to be no point in even trying to debate the
> >matter, because if the almighty curator has pontificated that the work is
> >art, then why would we even dare suggest that it is not! The appeal to
> >authority is stronger than common sense, even though the janitor
correctly
> >recognized the trash installation for what it was and tried to dispose of
> it.
>
> All very well and good...when you saw the piece in question, what did
> you think of it?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST