RE: Kemper Museum revisited

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Quite right. Einstein and George Carlin seem to have more wrongly attributed quotes than most people. But it has to be good for people to think so-and-so must have said that because it is so wise. Nobody would ever think I said that.
Don

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:26:16 -0500, Rene M Hales <rene@xxxxxx> wrote:
I believe that quotation is by  Anais Nin, French Author
Rene

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:08 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Kemper Museum revisited



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

Excellent quote for this thread Herschel!

One has to ask about their own work. Is their anything here for others to feel? Much of the stuff hanging in museums is there for people with specialized knowledge. Lacking that, the viewer is stuck with whatever impression their thoughts will allow. We most often look for some formal quality we are used to. We reflexively go "YUCK!" at things that don't
have that.

AZ

LOOKAROUND - Since 1978
http://www.panoramacamera.us

-------- 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.
>>>
>>> *******
>>> . . . .
>>>
>>>
>



[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux