Re: {OT} Neo-Pictorialism and sentimentality

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 10/13/03-06:42:08 AM Z


I've been thinking about the 'problem' of kitsch and
over-sentimentality as well. My preliminary thought about what may
separate the two is that kitsch and its ilk seem to be intended to
reinforce an existing 'romantic' world view, whereas the stuff we like
(I'm sure everyone on the list has great taste) seems to be intended
to challenge an existing, or introduce a new world view. The 'sicky'
stuff seems to show the world the comfortable way we always thought it
should be (but probably never really was), versus the 'good' work which
shows the world in a new, unusual, or unique way that challenges the
way we look at things. Even when we use old, romantic soft focus
pictorial techniques, the best stuff, IMO, always is a little edgy,
unsettling and surprising. I kind of envision a Barcalounger with nails
sticking out of the cushions. Familiar, comfortable looking at first
glance, but..

Clay

On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 07:21 AM, shannon stoney wrote:

> Kate wrote:
>
>>
>> I only hope our latest bunch of "neo-pictorialists" will refrain from
>> the
>> sicky!!!
>
>
> This is one of the issues that I"m struggling with, in writing about
> Pictorialism. Why was so much of it so...sentimental, for lack of a
> better word? (I think my teachers are already worried that I like
> "romantic" and "sentimental" images because I photograph my rural
> neighborhood a lot, and to them anything rural, no matter how gritty,
> is de facto romantic and even politically retro.) A lot of Julia
> Margaret Cameron's work is brilliant, but some of it is really what
> Kate would call "sicky," I think. And not just because it involves
> naked children; the real problem is that the naked children are
> supposed to personify Spring, or Truth, or some abstraction like that.
>
> I haven't noticed that The Antiquarian Avant-Garde over-indulges much
> in the kind of Victorian kitsch that we associate with 19th century
> pictorialism, but maybe I have just been associating with
> extraordinarily sophisticated practitioners, such as yourselves. Does
> late 20th/early 21st century Pictorialism have its own version of
> kitsch? Let's pick on pinhole and Holga users for example: seen any
> really kitschy Holga or pinhole pictures? (It's ok if they are
> cyanotypes too!) And what is kitsch?
> I was forced this past summer to read that awful Art in Theory
> 1900-2000 book and the topic came up a lot in that book, but I want to
> know what YOU think it is.
>
> Kate also wrote:
>
> At 11:44 AM +1300 10/13/03, Kate Mahoney wrote:
>> Have a look at James Elkins "Pictures and Tears" if you want an
>> interesting
>> critique of sentimental pictures of young girls, everyone, there is an
>> excellent chapter.
>
>
> I have this book and I find it very interesting. I have not gotten to
> that chapter yet, but it's interesting to think about the whole issue
> of why and how art can move people to tears occasionally, and why most
> art historians or professional art critics are immune to this
> response. The first chapter is about the Rothko chapel here in
> Houston, where a lot of people apparently cry. It could never be
> described as sentimental. But of course some emotion-inducing images
> tread a fine line between being "powerful" and being sentimental. But
> so do movies! And people are generally not terrible ashamed if they
> cried when Old Yeller died (as the country song goes), but wouldn't be
> caught dead crying in an art museum.
>
> Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this. (Forget about
> Sally Mann for a while. Those images might make you cry too, but for
> a different reason.)
>
> --shannon
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST