-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Kemper Museum revisited
From: Herschel Mair <herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, January 27, 2011 11:08 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
>>>
>>> *******
>>> . . . .
>>>
>>>
>
