Re: [Leica] What is fine art photography?

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>>may still be hope for the "brainwashed masses." (i personally believe that
>
>Guy,
>
>OK, I was too quick with the "brainwashed masses". What I tried to say was
>that
>just because the work of the mentioned artists/photographers sells in large
>numbers (as evidenced by the auction results), it does not mean it is great
>art/photography. I have nothing against people trying different forms of
>expression (I enjoy work of Bruce Nauman, for instance). And I hope that I did
>not give an impression that "anyone who disagrees is an idiot".
>
>Jiri


jiri,

i agree - an artist's potential sales reflect pretty much one thing: that
at a given moment, people are willing to spend more money on his work than
on that of other artists. as to the quality of work, that would seem to be
debatable. we all know of artists who were ignored during their lifetime
and became "great" after death, and likewise artists who were celebrated
while alive only to be forgotten later; though in both cases, the work
remains the same. clearly there's a change in public perception that
results in a change of status attributed to a given artist's work: it
becomes "great" or ceases to be so. to me, this suggests that, to a great
extent, it is public perception that defines what art is.

to come back to cindy sherman, imo, she will continue to be a significant
artist as long as people (museum curators, gallery owners, magazine editors
and readers, collectors and the art-viewing public) perceive her to be so.
it is my feeling that if so many people find value in her work, there must
be value to it, whatever i may think about it. (i do not subscribe to the
"brainwashed masses" theory.) i also believe that would be worthwhile if
those of us who don't care for her work to try and explain why, just as
martin, who does like her, took the trouble to share his point of view
yesterday. posts that read: "cindy sherman bad nasty me no like" tell us
little about c.s. they do tell us something about the poster. to me they
say that the poster is either incapable of understanding and/or expressing
why he find c.s.'s work terrible, or can't be bothered to do so. and if
this is the case, why post anything at all?

one last point and i'll step down from my soapbox. yesterday the question
of what made art "fine" came up. (i don't recall if it was in your post or
not.) if i'm not mistaken the term "fine" in relation to "art" was simply a
qualifier intended to distinguish arts like painting, sculpture, dance,
etc., from the "applied" arts like graphic design, industrial design,
illustration et al. it had nothing to do with quality.

guy