🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

Discussion: Museum worthy?

doziergraphic

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
383
Reaction score
6
Location
Indianapolis
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Have to admit I was very disappointed this past weekend when I went to the Chicago Museum of Photography. I have been looking forward to going to the 'big city' and seeing these amazing works of art as to be inspired - wow what a joke!

Either I'm too intellectually inept to 'get it' or something but every display I saw looked like a beginner's attempt at photoshop. No REAL photography. I expected Ansel Adams-type impressions, instead I got some cheesy '60s-style 'art.'

the 'featured' photographer was John Baldessari - photos with cutout sections replaced by color circles????

There was a reception for this display and NO ONE was there. NONE of the food had been touched and I was there later in the afternoon.

My opinion, that museum is run by the elite artsy-fartsy crowd and NOT by photographers. How disappointing. I kept searching room by room for SOMETHING that didn't look like a high school class project - NOTHING!

Anyone else feel this after visiting a local photo exhibit?
 
Yes, I have felt this way. I don't "get it", either, usually. Not just photographic displays, either. I'm still trying to figure out the success of Pollock, lol.
 
Take some art history classes.

And, no, not everybody "get's" conceptual art.

I have to add...
Petraeo Prime would be proud, but I tend to agree with him. While Ansels images may be stunning, they are also boring. You aren't required to think much when viewing his photos. Baldessari, on the other hand, pushed the envelope for that time period. His work makes you think. It challenges you. Ansel? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know who he was so I did a search, and I think his art is very beautiful.

Sounds like your expectations were way out of line.
 
this may be a case of "he did it first" art.
like one of those...white box on white background pieces. we can all scoff, but that artist laughed all the way to the bank.

but i havent seen his work, so it may very well be beautiful.
 
Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence and which tends to display a rather - what I would call - childish level of talent to produce.

So yes I would say its both art that isn't that impressive to behold and doesn't make me want to think about it.
 
Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence
Only for people who stupidly believe art must have technical excellence in order to be "good".

It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside when people judge art purely on the basis of technical excellence when that might not have been the artists intention in the first place.

One has to wonder who the elitists really are.
 
this may be a case of "he did it first" art.
like one of those...white box on white background pieces. we can all scoff, but that artist laughed all the way to the bank.

but i havent seen his work, so it may very well be beautiful.

Ah, but so many of the great masters were also the "he did it first" type of artists. So many were rejected during the time they were producing, because they went against standard conventions of the time.

Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence and which tends to display a rather - what I would call - childish level of talent to produce.

:biglaugh:



So yes I would say its both art that isn't that impressive to behold and doesn't make me want to think about it.

So many of the comments here, and I am sure in future posts, say so much more about the viewer, rather than the artist.

:lmao:
 
Well I did a little look at his work and he's what I'd class *and upon further searching it appears he even is* what I would call Tate Modern level art - that is art which requires a lot of essays to justify its existence
Only for people who stupidly believe art must have technical excellence in order to be "good".

It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside when people judge art purely on the basis of technical excellence when that might not have been the artists intention in the first place.

One has to wonder who the elitists really are.

I'm out of "Thanks" at the moment. :grumpy:
 
I took a peak at some of his work that is on the net. Art can be a strange thing sometimes. Not everyones art is loved or enjoyed. I would have been dissapointed also.
 
His work is not to my liking, but then I could never understand Why people liked Picasso to me he had no talent at all and his work is worthless and better off in the trash than on display. But then it's not about just me and some people could say the same about my stuff. On the other hand I have seen work by people at fle markets and yard sales that I though progressed amazing talent and vision. True art affects and moves you. Makes you think and maybe look at something differently than the way you would of looked at it in the past. This is different for everyone what makes art so fascinating to me. Nobody sees it the same way.
 
this may be a case of "he did it first" art.
like one of those...white box on white background pieces. we can all scoff, but that artist laughed all the way to the bank.

but i havent seen his work, so it may very well be beautiful.

Ah, but so many of the great masters were also the "he did it first" type of artists. So many were rejected during the time they were producing, because they went against standard conventions of the time.

you are so right, and it's likely most of it is right over my head. i can view it and certainly appreciate it. but will i always get it?...probably not.
admittedly, im a bit dim. :(
 
you are so right, and it's likely most of it is right over my head. i can view it and certainly appreciate it. but will i always get it?...probably not.
admittedly, im a bit dim. :(

Art isn't created for mass appeal.

Just because Ansel Adams can be seen everywhere, doesn't mean he was visionary.

True art affects and moves you. Makes you think and maybe look at something differently than the way you would of looked at it in the past.

So then, Picasso, by your standards is indeed true art. He makes you think at look at something differently than you have in the past. But then, you think it's rubbish, and can't even appreciate his point of view, like it, or not.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Have to admit I was very disappointed this past weekend when I went to the Chicago Museum of Photography. I have been looking forward to going to the 'big city' and seeing these amazing works of art as to be inspired - wow what a joke!

Either I'm too intellectually inept to 'get it' or something but every display I saw looked like a beginner's attempt at photoshop. No REAL photography. I expected Ansel Adams-type impressions, instead I got some cheesy '60s-style 'art.'

the 'featured' photographer was John Baldessari - photos with cutout sections replaced by color circles????

There was a reception for this display and NO ONE was there. NONE of the food had been touched and I was there later in the afternoon.

My opinion, that museum is run by the elite artsy-fartsy crowd and NOT by photographers. How disappointing. I kept searching room by room for SOMETHING that didn't look like a high school class project - NOTHING!

Anyone else feel this after visiting a local photo exhibit?

Soooooo, what you're telling us is that you got FIRST PICK OF ALL THE FOOD ITEMS THEY HAD TO OFFER!!!!! Wooo-hoooo!
 
Either I'm too intellectually inept to 'get it' or something but every display I saw looked like a beginner's attempt at photoshop. No REAL photography. I expected Ansel Adams-type impressions, instead I got some cheesy '60s-style 'art.'

the 'featured' photographer was John Baldessari - photos with cutout sections replaced by color circles????
Viewers of art have responsibilities, too. You are judging his art based on what you see happening now, but that is not how it goes. You're not supposed to look at daguerreotypes and dismiss them because they don't measure up to today's standards. That's idiotic because they were created a hundred years ago.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top