[Leica] 'art' photography

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>I never have figured out most "art" photos.  I have to be moved by
>content.  Guess that is why the documentary traditions are the "art" I
>love.
>
>I spoke to currator at the local La Jolla Museum of Comtemporary Art and
>he explained that most of the art in the museum were really inside jokes
>based on other art, so you had to know your art history to understand
>anything.
>
>But I have to get them credit for showing some great art--Salgado's 250
>print exhibit of "Workers."  But those images were based on inside
>understanding of life and the human condition, not art.
>
>A critical difference.
>
>donal


lugfolk thick and thin,

i feel i have to weigh in on the issue of 'art' photography. while i agree
that a lot of it is rubbish (the same is true of much 'non-art'
photography, by the way), i certainly do not agree that so-called art
photographers are all a bunch of sloppy or talentless photographers whose
work is essentially incomprehensible unless we 'get' the inside jokes that
inform it. to say this is to denegrate and oversimplify a very rich and
complex thing (i.e. art), to misunderstand what that type of photography
has to offer, and misrepresent what many artist photograhers are doing in
their work. i don't think it is fair to imply that artists like ralph
gibson, michael kenna, and nabuyoshi araki are essentially misguided or
'inaccessible' simply because their work does not follow the documentary
tradition or seek to draw our collective attention to human suffering.

to take up an anaolgy already used in this thread, some of us (myself
included) do not particularly value the 'abstract expressionist' work of
painters like jackson pollack, but that does not mean that all painterly
abstraction is without value. i don't think that most of us would reject
artists like mondrian, kandinsky, malevich, et al, simply because their
work does not overtly address issues directly related to social realities.
before some object that painting and photography are two totally differnt
fields and what is true of one is not necessarily true of the other let me
just say that similar arguments as are being developped in this thread are
frequently made against abstract and 'avant-garde' painting, literature,
etc. i.e. that it somehow or other lacks humanity, that it is inaccessible
and, if not worthless, at least worth less than those other types of
painting and literature that move us because we can recognize in them
something we know and respond to profoundly: the human condition.

i'm probably going to take some flak for this statement, but i feel that
work by artists like ralph gibson is every bit as 'important' as that of
artists like sebastiao salgado: it may not be 'socially relevant,' to use
that term, but it is certainly 'culturally - even spiritually - relevant,'
and that too is a part of the human condition that also needs to be
addressed.

now wait til i've donned my asbestos wetsuit before responding...

guy