Artistic value of photography today?

[Mumfandc]

You also need to realise that galleries and such are not in the least interested in Art. They just want to find something that they can sell for wad's of cash and are just in to novelty (I could tell you stories...)
Art buyers are similarly obsessed with money. They only want to buy things that will gain in value and they have their methods.
The name of the game now is novelty and gimmick and lot's of young 'artists' jump on whichever bandwagon is passing - not to make art but to make money.
It will sort itself out in time. Probably.

Who exactly decides who is an artist? I could be an artist to one person and not to another.

I disagree with you about galleries and their quest for money. I do AGREE that there are those who purchase artwork merely for the increasing value of it. But I don't agree that you can generalize the entire art buyer populace with that statement.

I don't know if you seen the galleries here in NYC, but there are dozens of galleries here that do not "sell" any type of material work to the public. For example, those who routinely host performance art like the Sean Kelly gallery who represents Marina Abramovic...I'd suggest you look up her work. One interesting piece "Rhythm 0", she invited her audience to do whatever they wanted to her body using any of the 72 items she provided: pen, scissors, chains, axe, loaded pistol, and others.

If not performance art, then installation art which can't be "bought", as they are only temporary, later to be dismantled and "discarded". I believe it was the Matthew Marks (or Gladstone?) gallery which hosted the installation artist Gregor Schneider last year. He's work often deals with the alteration of interior spaces which confuse the viewers sensory experiences.

For this particular "exhibition", if you went into the actual gallery space itself, there was LITERALLY NOTHING there...rather you had to walk outside to an adjacent halfway-closed metal "garage door" (which you had to CRAWL under), to find a constructed alley-like claustrophobic space which was very unnerving. It was open 24-hours, it could only be found by word of mouth.

I'm just trying show you that these galleries are not always interested in "something they can sell for wad's of cash" like you said. Of course there are galleries which sell art for the sole purpose of decorating ones home...I guess that's another "type".

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Who exactly decides who is an artist? I could be an artist to one person and not to another.

Anyone can call themselves an artist. This is not disputed. You can also call your output 'art', which again would raise no dispute. But...
The questions 'what is an artist' and 'what is art' have been hotly debated for a hundred years now (you really should acquaint yourself with Marcel Duchamp) and are no nearer resolution. What is certain, though, is that there are artists (and their work) who are of much greater significance and importance than all the rest. A good understanding of Art history will make it clear to you what makes this so.

I disagree with you about galleries and their quest for money. I do AGREE that there are those who purchase artwork merely for the increasing value of it. But I don't agree that you can generalize the entire art buyer populace with that statement.

I don't know if you seen the galleries here in NYC, but there are dozens of galleries here that do not "sell" any type of material work to the public. For example, those who routinely host performance art like the Sean Kelly gallery who represents Marina Abramovic...I'd suggest you look up her work. One interesting piece "Rhythm 0", she invited her audience to do whatever they wanted to her body using any of the 72 items she provided: pen, scissors, chains, axe, loaded pistol, and others.

If not performance art, then installation art which can't be "bought", as they are only temporary, later to be dismantled and "discarded". I believe it was the Matthew Marks (or Gladstone?) gallery which hosted the installation artist Gregor Schneider last year. He's work often deals with the alteration of interior spaces which confuse the viewers sensory experiences.

For this particular "exhibition", if you went into the actual gallery space itself, there was LITERALLY NOTHING there...rather you had to walk outside to an adjacent halfway-closed metal "garage door" (which you had to CRAWL under), to find a constructed alley-like claustrophobic space which was very unnerving. It was open 24-hours, it could only be found by word of mouth.

I'm just trying show you that these galleries are not always interested in "something they can sell for wad's of cash" like you said. Of course there are galleries which sell art for the sole purpose of decorating ones home...I guess that's another "type".

You are exhibiting the most amazing degree of naiivety. All galleries exist to make money - otherwise they go out of business very quickly. If they are not selling work then they are getting funding from somewhere. Even when an artist, or a group of artists, pay for their own exhibition space they do it to raise their profile so they can get commissions and charge more for their work.
Your view of the art world seems to be informed by going to galleries and looking at exhibitions. My view comes from having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists.

 

[Mumfandc]

What is certain, though, is that there are artists (and their work) who are of much greater significance and importance than all the rest. A good understanding of Art history will make it clear to you what makes this so.

Art History has always been of huge debate. WESTERN/EUROPEAN art has ALWAYS been considered "of greater significance" than the art of primitive "lesser" cultures. And yet major figures in art history, like Picasso, have borrowed heavily from primitive cultures like in Africa. There are plenty of critics who debate this, and what's written in the book not everyone agrees with.

Your view of the art world seems to be informed by going to galleries and looking at exhibitions. My view comes from having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists.

What's wrong with going to galleries and looking at exhibitions? These things are FREE, I don't pay to see them...and I don't buy the work either. And I never straight out said that galleries DON'T earn money from other sources, (I only mentioned the selling of a product)...but that doesn't mean these gallery owners are using that profit to buy themselves Lamborginis.

You SERIOUSLY need to take a second look at what you typed above, I guess you just admitted yourself, that YOU don't care about viewing Art. As you said, MY view of the artworld comes from viewing exhibitions, you stated (quote above) that YOUR VIEW of the artworld comes from "having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists"...I see no ART in that equation! You're just focusing on the character of INDIVIDUALS of the art world. That doesn't make YOUR view right...OR mine. But the way you put it, the viewing of a particular piece of artwork comes second, and the business and politics behind the work come first. Then there's the complete opposite, but I feel in reality galleries can operate in either way.

That's not to say that I DON'T care about what's behind the work, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote the things I said about Joel-Peter Witkin. But if you claim to have had so much first-hand experience with these evil gallery owners and everyone else you mentioned, why on earth are you WASTING YOUR TIME around them if you're against them so much??? For "stories"...?! I may not have as much experience as you, but have temporarily interned at two galleries here in NYC.

You can call my opinion NAIVE all you want, but I'd take caution labeling people that because a direct antonym of naive is "pretentious".

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Art History has always been of huge debate. WESTERN/EUROPEAN art has ALWAYS been considered "of greater significance" than the art of primitive "lesser" cultures. And yet major figures in art history, like Picasso, have borrowed heavily from primitive cultures like in Africa. There are plenty of critics who debate this, and what's written in the book not everyone agrees with.


What's wrong with going to galleries and looking at exhibitions? These things are FREE, I don't pay to see them...and I don't buy the work either. And I never straight out said that galleries DON'T earn money from other sources, (I only mentioned the selling of a product)...but that doesn't mean these gallery owners are using that profit to buy themselves Lamborginis.

You SERIOUSLY need to take a second look at what you typed above, I guess you just admitted yourself, that YOU don't care about viewing Art. As you said, MY view of the artworld comes from viewing exhibitions, you stated (quote above) that YOUR VIEW of the artworld comes from "having known a lot of gallery owners, exhibition promoters, critics, art buyers and artists"...I see no ART in that equation! You're just focusing on the character of INDIVIDUALS of the art world. That doesn't make YOUR view right...OR mine. But the way you put it, the viewing of a particular piece of artwork comes second, and the business and politics behind the work come first. Then there's the complete opposite, but I feel in reality galleries can operate in either way.

That's not to say that I DON'T care about what's behind the work, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote the things I said about Joel-Peter Witkin. But if you claim to have had so much first-hand experience with these evil gallery owners and everyone else you mentioned, why on earth are you WASTING YOUR TIME around them if you're against them so much??? For "stories"...?! I may not have as much experience as you, but have temporarily interned at two galleries here in NYC.

You can call my opinion NAIVE all you want, but I'd take caution labeling people that because a direct antonym of naive is "pretentious".

I really do think that it is you who need to read what you have written - but more importantly you need to read what I have written.
You are getting confused between talking about Art and the Art World. There is a distinct difference between these two which you seem to fail to recognise. For an Artist to be able to produce Art he needs to eat and buy materials. The Art World is the machinery that makes this possible to a large extent. This has always been the case.
One could argue that without the Art World they would be very little Art - and certainly no galleries in which to show it.
I was making the point that the Art Gallery system has taken over - now it is a big business and Art and artists have just become a commodity, devaluing both terms in a number of ways and relegating Artists to second class citizens in the system.
You also make a number of other assumptions that have no basis in fact.
Where, in what I have written, did I say that I was against anyone making money?
Where did I say it was wrong to go to galleries and look at exhibitions?
Where did I seperate out Western Art from the rest of the world? I made no distinction - but I would agree that the Art World has become much more important and powerful in the West.
And where did I 'admit' that I don't care about viewing Art?
As for why I should 'waste my time' around 'evil' gallery owners - that is just such a silly comment that I won't even bother answering.

Now this is the last I am going to write in this thread for a number of reasons.
Firstly, other people might want to put their views.
Secondly, a lot of your 'argument' comes from claiming that I have said things that I have not, and it is a waste of time to try to talk sensibly in these situations.
Thirdly, you are starting to get personally insulting (and using CAPITALS) and it is certainly a waste of time talking to people when they behave like this.


And of course gallery owners don't use their profits to buy Lamborghini's - they don't usually earn that much. They tend to buy Porsche's.

 

[Mumfandc]

I really do think that it is you who need to read what you have written - but more importantly you need to read what I have written.

Are you sure about that? Afterall, as your signature says: "I used to be indecisive....but now I'm not so sure."

Thirdly, you are starting to get personally insulting (and using CAPITALS) and it is certainly a waste of time talking to people when they behave like this.

Well initially, I was personally insulted by you calling me naive. I guess I'll admit that I did waste my time talking to a person like yourself.

 

[omalley]

Now, now, let's play nice. It was getting to be such a stimulating conversation.
I'll admit that most galleries are in it to make money, but some (not all) are in it also because they like art. Some galleries pretend that they do not care about making money and only show reductionist garbage twenty years out of date. These people are what we call socialites. They need to feel important and cultured, and rub lots of elbows, and have trendy openings where the people who attend wear name brand and barely remember what they learned in Art History 101. So they open a gallery, not caring one whit if their sales are any good. These people are the scum of the art world. They are the ones who fob off "installations" which consist of a pile of cookies dumped onto the floor, on the viewing public. This is why average people are so confused about "what art is". But my views are probably more conservative than that of others here, and I tend to agree with Julian Spaulding ('The Eclipse of Art') on many points.
Getting back to the first category of gallery owners, those who are in it to make money, some are more driven by this than others. Those are usually the ones who stay open longer, unfortunately. Time and again I've seen galleries close because they are too fixated on showing quality work. It's unfortunate. Of course, when we are taken on by a gallery, we like to pretend that it is solely on the quality of the work. But, of course, the owner is hoping that we will sell out the show. It is also accurate that artists are treated like second-class citizens by the gallery system, otherwise why would we feel like they are doing us a favor when we are accepted for a show? It is a fact that even highly talented artists feel "lucky" to have adequate representation, even though sales of their work is why their gallery is staying open.
If all this is true then why keep doing it, you ask? Because eventually the pendulum has to swing the other way. Postmodernism is the worst thing to have happened to art. Like Communism it was a great idea for a little while, but it quickly soured. At this point educated people are becoming tired of seeing the same "statements about the nature of art" being made again and again ad infinitum. Wonder where all the art critics went? They had nothing left to talk about. You can only write so many articles titled 'Is It Art?' before everyone gets bored. Now we are completely stalled in this gray area of "what comes next?" Sooner or later people will get sick of viewing work that is completely devoid of craft (and its accompanying rationalization "proving" that it can be art if it wants to) and they will start demanding to see something better. Or they won't and we will all just continue getting more stupid.
Hey, come to think of it, how about a new thread where we all speculate about what will come next? I think I will start one.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here's David Hockney's take...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html

 

[danalec99]

Here's David Hockney's take...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Wonder what Hockney thought of Jerry Uelsmann!

[/font]
I know nothing about art or its history, but Russel Roberts sounded interesting:
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]

Russell Roberts, head of photography at the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, said Hockney's argument was "simplistic".

[/font]

 

[ksmattfish]

An article...

http://wilson.dynu.net/dilution.asp