Re: Kemper Museum revisited

Herschel Mair <herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:08:25 -0700



    Yoram, Of course you seem right and logical.... can "Bad art"
    suddenly become "Good art"? 

    
    Only if we personalize it.... "I thought there was nothing there but
    now I see something that I didn't notice and it's changed my opinion
    about its artistic merit"

    
    The question "Is it art?" is so loaded that there can be no answers,
    but the question "Do I think it's worth hanging in a public place to
    be admired?" is answerable. We may not all have the same answer but
    nevertheless we have answers.

    
    The work of Cindy Sherman, staging herself as female stereotypes and
    others, is very well repected and in the collections of all the
    biggest galleries and museums. 

    
    I think the bridesmaid image is worth hanging because, knowing that
    it is staged forces me to realize that there is something in this
    seemingly mundane scene that was powerful enough to attract the
    artist's attention and enduring enough to inspire him to recreate
    it.  An invisible slice of life. How trivial it looks here... but
    ask a bridesmaid the day before the wedding and see if it seems
    trivial to her.... Many a girl has been found sobbing about how
    she'll look.... It's a human conundrum. We pay too much attention to
    things that are inconsequential, and in retrospect realize that they
    are fleeting. Like the ridiculous question "Is it art"

    
    There are things we glance at, know subconsciously, but never see.
    The artist points us at those, but often we refuse to look. I didn't
    see it until I knew it was staged... That information added
    enlightenment. The picture is the same but I m not

    
    We see things not as they are, but as we are, Einstein

    
    Herschel

    
    On 1/27/11 8:14 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
    Well, from what I gather some folks are saying, the
      fact that it was staged mollifies our judgement.
      

      In that case, here's a question: Does creating a "bad" piece
        of art make it a "good" piece of art because its intent was to
        make the viewer ask "why did the artist want to do that?"

        
        I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that.   To quote Lea,
          "Hmmmmm".
        

        In one of the photo groups I attend, a photographer created
          a series of photographs on the theme of marriages gone bad
          just after the ceremony.  For instance, one bride with her
          bouquet still in hand is shown thumbing a ride alongside a
          road.  Another shows three bridesmaids sitting in a field of
          tall grass on a hill, with various expressions on their faces.
           It was obvious that all the photos were staged, of course;
          some photos were better than others.  But the series told the
          story, which was very funny.  
        

        But a single photo, such as at the Kemper, does not have a
          story and so must rest on its own.  My own view is that it
          should rest in peace.  Lea wrote "... it doesn't move it to
          the level of art...".  So why should it be in a museum of art?
           Perhaps . . .and only perhaps . . . the fact that the photo
          was part of a larger exhibit may help justify its presence in
          the museum, but Lea's description of the exhibit seems to be
          merely a back-handed excuse for, at least, that photograph.
        

          -yoram
        

            On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Herschel Mair wrote:
            

               Very interesting
                that it was set up. So the image in all it's randomness
                is actually carefully designed and constructed to look
                the way it does, so that a dialogue is set up with the
                viewer... The viewer is challenged by the image to make
                commentary and thus (At least on this list)  a very
                successful work. 

                
                From the perspective of one who makes a living out of
                "Faking reality" in photographs I have a new
                appreciation of what a great photograph it is... Totally
                believable... 

                
                Advertising photography relies very heavily on pictures
                that look UNconstructed. Like a random snap. If you look
                at it and say "Great composition" then the photographer
                has failed. The photographic work needs to be totally 
                invisible. This means taking a huge amount of gear to a
                shoot and doing a lot of construction. Paradoxically.

                Herschel

                
                On 1/27/11 3:19 PM, Lea Murphy wrote:
                I took a long lunch and revisited the
                  Kemper hoping to find a docent available. I was told
                  that docent visits are by appointment only.
                  

                  The woman at the desk asked if she could help me
                    and I was only too happy to let her know I had some
                    questions about how two particular pieces of art
                    came to be hanging in the museum.
                  

                  She asked which two and when I told her she
                    agreed that the woman with the red face was a piece
                    she didn't care for at all, either.
                  

                  Here is a link to the image: http://messengerbird.com/news/2008/12/15/jaimie-warren/
                  

                  But HOW did it land here, I asked.
                  

                  It ends up that the creator, Jaimie Warren,
                    GIFTED it to the museum. 
                  

                  Jaimie lives in Kansas City, is more of a
                    performance artist than a photographer (as I think
                    of the term photographer) and does workshops in
                    collaboration with the museum, especially programs
                    aimed at interesting children in art. As best I
                    understand it Jaimie does her 'performance art' by
                    setting the stage for herself then hands her camera
                    off to someone else who takes the photograph. Is
                    THAT a being a photographer? Hmmmmm.
                  

                  The very helpful woman at the desk further
                    informed me that the Kemper Museum has a team who
                    recommends what purchases to make to the the
                    acquisitions team who in turn make recommendations
                    to Mr. Kemper who writes the checks and buys the
                    art. The Kemper is privately owned and open to all,
                    free of charge.
                  

                  Desk Helper completely understood my interest in
                    how something so unarty (my words) could be hanging
                    in a museum.
                  

                  She assured me that many voices and many sets of
                    eyes look at each piece acquired.
                  

                  Gifting. That answered a lot of my questions.
                  

                  So far as Tina Barney's wedding photograph is
                    concerned, I sent an email to a friend who is a
                    docent at the Kemper and she wrote this in reply:
                  

                          That's
                            a piece by Tina Barney. Love her or hate
                            her.  Anyway, she takes photos that are
                            posed to look as if they're NOT posed--sort
                            of a huge snapshot.  She chooses the
                            clothing (bridesmaid ca. 1965?) and hair,
                            and then goes for a story telling shot. 
                            When I've toured it with kids, I've asked
                            them to tell me what's going on--who's mad
                            at whom, etc.  They love it.  Great
                            photography?  I'll let you be the judge of
                            that. 

                            
                    Knowing it's a staged photo completely changes
                      my perception of it. It doesn't move it to the
                      level of art in my mind but I can appreciate that
                      the photographer was striving to say something,
                      get a rise out of the viewer, that it wasn't an
                      accident blown up really, really big and hung on
                      the museum wall.
                  
                  
                  These pieces, by the way, are part of the exhibit
                    called Make it Strange, Developing a Medium which
                    presents images curated in order to show
                    photography's ability to represent things for 'what
                    else they are', the distanced approach to reality
                    that offers viewers an alternate mode of seeing. It
                    hopes to demonstrate how photography disrupts
                    perception with a defamiliarizing effect.
                  

                  *******
                  . . . .