On 2011-01-24 17:33, Herschel Mair wrote:
Art is confusing
And sometimes not directed at me. Which is of course fine -- I don't
have a big enough art purchasing budget that I would suggest to anybody
directing their art at me, really!
Picasso was able to make a painting of one thing that brought another
thing to mind in the viewer.
His hard-lined cubist portraits, although they weren't likenesses in the
conventional sense, still managed to capture aspects of the sitter's
personality.
Haven't ever been able to see that myself; then again I don't know the
sitters, so I'm missing half the equation there.
Ask yourself how you could make a photograph of something that would
cast light on something unrelated. A picture of an apple that led you to
better understand a man.
There's something ambiguous called "Gesture" which says that the image
kinda sorta doesn't really say anything out loud but has a "Something"
about it that challenges the viewer or opens a dialogue with the
viewer... kinda like it waved at you when you walked past...
I like that concept. And yeah, sometimes they do. I periodically get
my eye caught by things I never would have made myself, and find them
interesting.
Note that art doesn't require any technical excellence... they don't
need to be in focus or be well exposed etc. One must leave all that behind.
Eh; sorry, out of the question.
Art Photographs" should not make you say "Nice lighting" or "Great
detail" any more than great paintings are great because of the brush
strokes.
They also shouldn't make me say "three stops underexposed, and out of
focus".
Being a commercial photographer is a big minus if you want to enter the
world of art.
Probably true.
Somewhere around here we're entering the land of parody, and I'm liking
it better :-) .
You first need an artist statement and then you need an intellectual,
socio-political, standpoint on which your work is based. How well the
BODY of work meets the intentions of your artist's statement and how
well they interpret the intellectual observations... AS A BODY of work
(Maybe 40 to 60 images) will determine whether a museum/gallery will be
interested. MAYBE
Art is only ART if somebody absolutely HATES it. Rather that approaching
a photograph with a preconceived idea of what it SHOULD be, accept it
for what it is and ask yourself what stories it brings to mind. How
could you be in a conversation with it....
Mostly it's a matter of Bullshit-baffles-brains. If you really want to
be in galleries you have to devote a good chunk of time working on stuff
specifically for that purpose.
1. Find a museum you'd like to be in
2. Go to the parties that the "NEW MEDIA" buyer goes to.
3. Strike up a friendship and let her know you're deep and miserable
about art and the status quo.
4. on the 3rd or 4th party let it slip that you're working on a project
that screams on behalf of mother earth as she's raped by the corporate
Poisoners.
5. Call her up at the office and ask if you can come round and show her
some work.
6. Take all the frames that you threw in the garbage (The first 2 as you
load a roll) and print them to 2x3 inches, Black and white SILVER prints
mount them in 20" square mattes and submit them.
Buy wine and cheese
See, I *like* wine and cheese. I probably do belong in the art world.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
