Hmm. It may be art, but constructing a poor photograph is still... a poor photograph. It may very well be worth hanging in a gallery (perhaps *someone* might buy it), but a place calling itself a museum should be more selective (unless, of course, it was the Museum of Bad Photographs). If it was gifted, well, I'm sure several dogs have gifted various things on their front lawn occasionally, too. The curators will probably not exhibit them. Andrew On 01/27/2011 08:08 PM, Herschel Mair wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> ******* >>>> . . . . >>>> >>>> >> -- http://andrewsharpe.com
