Jenna Garret Photos...Art or Not.

table1349 · Mar 23, 2014

Jenna Garret photos. Art or not? Discuss..........................

Designer · Mar 23, 2014

Don't care.

Sure, it's "art", but is it art that you would want to take home to your mother?

Trever1t · Mar 23, 2014

anyone who has the patience and thought to create a set of images with a concept gets some credit.

Nevermore1 · Mar 23, 2014

This is one where I think opinions will vary greatly. Personally, I wouldn't consider it to be "art" in the sense that it would be something I would display for people to see in my home or office. For me this looks to be some project that a new college grad is doing to get some attention. A good theme idea if you have the time to do it but not something I would do and show to anyone but family and friends.

Sent from my SM-N900T

minicoop1985 · Mar 23, 2014

Lighting on some of those is god awful (can I do better? Maybe, not sure, to be perfectly honest). That being said, technical perfection isn't everything, and the photos definitely fit the theme, even if some are kinda corny (the cheese on the apple pie, but I can't think of a better way to illustrate it).

limr · Mar 23, 2014

Hrmm...political, for sure. Thought-provoking, possibly, but not so much if you don't know the context. For example, if one didn't know that apple pie picture was protesting a silly law, would it provoke any thought? Well, any thought beyond, "Wha? I don't get it." I'm not so sure it would. Maybe the David Bowie kid might, or even the ice cream cone in the back pocket one, but I'm still not convinced that any of those shots would provoke any but the most superficial thoughts. ("Well, it's a woman's ass and a melting ice cream cone...I guess she's supposed to be hawt? Okay, next!")

As for whether or not the pictures are 'artful' - in the sense that they show something visually stimulating (either positively or negatively) either through technical or emotional merit? Meh. As someone said, they don't really display a lot of technical merit. They're not so horribly done that I'm appalled at the lack of skill, but none of them stand out as being particularly well done either. Neither are any of them shocking in the image they portray - not even the one with the dildos - so they don't stimulate any strongly negative reactions like some art tries to do.

Ultimately, then, I guess I'm leaning towards "No."

tirediron · Mar 23, 2014

I don't think this is really supposed to be about the technical perfection of the images, rather it's a group of images which are supposed to allow you to 'see' what the artist considers bizarre or unusual laws. It's interesting, and I suppose it's art of a type.

Steve5D · Mar 23, 2014

I actually really dig the concept, and I don't think that the photos need to convey anything on their own. Actually, given what the point of the photos is, the back stories on them are actually integral to the photos...

Designer · Mar 23, 2014

minicoop1985 said:
Lighting on some of those is god awful (can I do better? Maybe, not sure, to be perfectly honest). That being said, technical perfection isn't everything, and the photos definitely fit the theme, even if some are kinda corny (the cheese on the apple pie, but I can't think of a better way to illustrate it).

Anybody knows that the only cheese that belongs on apple pie is cheddar.

Derrel · Mar 23, 2014

I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws. It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are not officially considered pickles by some state's idiotic law?

OMG...I can feel the anxiety building.

limr · Mar 23, 2014

Derrel said:
I have always thought that true art is designed to cause people to THINK. And her photos do that when seen with the paired ridiculous laws. It's an interesting concept she's working with here. And with that said, now I am off to see if the Vlasic Classic Kosher Dills that I love so much actually bounce when dropped. Hmm...the more I think about that pickle law, the more worried I am becoming! Cripes on a cracker, what if the salt-and-vinegar-soaked cucumbers I love so much are not officially considered pickles by some state's idiotic law?

OMG...I can feel the anxiety building.

I agree that they are thought-provoking when paired with the ridiculous laws. But without that context, they don't seem to be particularly thought-provoking or visually stimulating. For me, that tips me in favor of "no, they're not art". How many times have folks here railed on about how, for example, the title shouldn't matter in the interpretation of the image? Or about how art is like a joke - if you have to explain it, it's no good? "It's all about the image!" I read again and again. Don't these pictures need the explanation (the pairing with the laws) to be fully appreciated? Can they stand on their own? I'm not so sure.

MartinCrabtree · Mar 23, 2014

Sure it's art. Not great art that will stand the test of time however that description fits most art produced now.

BTW to illustrate the Wisconsin cheese law I would have a suit and tie guy with a chunk of cheddar in one hand and a noose in the other facing a old woman sitting with a slice of pie on the table in front of her. The sex toy thang I'd have three scantily clad girlies drawing straws from a nude man.

Derrel · Mar 23, 2014

Let's play Devil's Advocate for a second. Imagine if the show (or book, exhibition, collection, or portfolio) had the simple title "Illegal Activities", or "Banned By Law", or "Illegal", or "Against The Law", or "Misdemeanors".

You see the title, "Misdemeanors, by Jenna Garrett". You look at the photos. You wonder, "What the hell do these images mean? How can an ice cream cone in a pocket be a misdemeanor?" Boom! Made you think.

As far as the tired old saw, "A photo must stand on its own," that is silly. Titles do matter, on each image that HAS a title, the title can easily lead the viewer in a direction. WORDS CAN BE PAIRED with images; there's no written rulebook for art, but if there were..it would be written in words, not in pictograms...

It's pretty well-accepted to title collections, exhibitions, and portfolios, as well as individual works of art. MOST of the classic high renaissance paintings have an accepted name, almost universally related directly to the subject of the work.

JUST for fun, Google search on this string [ How can an ice cream cone in a pocket be a misdemeanor? ]

gsgary · Mar 23, 2014

2 dildos per house is a terrible rule

table1349 · Mar 23, 2014

It's a shame she didn't represent some of these as well.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
A female shall not appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state.
In Baltimore, It is illegal to take a lion to the movies.
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

And my personal favorite:
Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face up to five years in jail.
Kind of puts a damper on a wedding night.