I like Rineke Djikstra
casioc...@gmail.com
What a true Zen master; mindboggling minimalism.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Rineke+Dijkstra
>From the Guggenheim's website
"Rineke Dijkstra documents people in transitional moments: mothers
shortly after giving birth, young people entering the military,
matadors still bloody from a bullfight, young club kids just off the
dance floor, and preadolescent bathers on various beaches in the United
States and Eastern Europe. Formally, her images resemble classical
portraiture with their frontally posed figures isolated against minimal
backgrounds. Despite their uniformity, however, Dijkstra's pictures
deftly expose the emotional state of her individual sitters. Although
she isolates the subjects in her Beaches series (1992-96) and frames
them with only sea and sky, the artist reveals much about them by
capturing a subtle gesture or expression in these unguarded moments
that reside somewhere between the posed and the natural. In
photographing the already awkward young subjects in their bathing
suits, Dijkstra sets up a situation marked by a self-consciousness that
parallels the uneasy passage between childhood and adulthood."
>From the Tate Modern's website
"Dijkstra concentrates on single portraits, and usually works in
series, looking at groups such as adolescents, clubbers, and soldiers.
Her subjects are shown standing, facing the camera, against a minimal
background."
b.ing...@shaw.ca
images, I know that I am a great photographer!
Bob
casioc...@gmail.com
You just don't get it ;-)
Bill K
Actually, I rather tend to think Bob does in fact get it. I agree with
him and I've never seen his photographs. As a wise woman wrote
recently, these examples are "breathtakingly bland."
Cheers
--
Bill in Lake Charles
casioc...@gmail.com
Look at this picture
Rineke Dijkstra
Pontland Highschool, Newcastle, UK,
February 17, 2000, 2000
C-Print
24½ x 20½ inches
Courtesy of the artist and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York
Estimated retail value: $13,000
http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/Choice_Art/artist_pic_Dijkstra_live.jpg
Let's see your print of a recent simple shot of two highschool girls in
their uniform against a bland wall (you can recreate this shot on any
English afternoon within minutes perhaps - the street are littered with
highschoolers and all the walls in England are bland - nevermind that
the picture looks like it was shot with a disposable point and shoot
film camera) be in such high regard. Her work is in the best of the
best museums.
This is the Rineke Dijkstra self-portrait
http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images_184989_183625_rineke-dijkstra.jpg
casioc...@gmail.com
And what's wrong with "breathtakingly bland"?
Andrew Haley
> What a true Zen master; mindboggling minimalism.
> http://images.google.com/images?q=Rineke+Dijkstra
She is absolutely brilliant; the best contemporary portrait
photographer I know of. Little 480 x 625 images on the 'net really
don't do it for me, though. The real prints are fantastic.
In particular, the recent exhibition in the Tate Modern showed her
images of new mothers and their babies opposite her young bullfighter
pictures: extremes of masculinity and femininity.
There were many other big-name photographers in that exhibition, and
IMO Dijkstra was by far the best of the lot [*] with the possible
exception of Eggleston. Much as I love Winogrand, Dijkstra's images
were phenomenal.
Andrew.
[*] Thomas Ruff, August Sander, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Thomas Struth,
Fazal Sheikh, Michael Schmidt, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, Walker
Evans, Nicholas Nixon, William Eggleston, Philip-Lorca diCorcia,
Robert Adams, Albert Renger-Patzsch, Lee Friedlander, Lewis Baltz,
Paul Graham, Garry Winogrand, Andreas Gursky, Boris Mikhailov, Diane
Arbus, Martin Parr.
Neil Ellwood
Nothing is wrong with them being 'breathetakingly bland', it is the
publishing of them that is the trouble. Publishing a beginners snapshot
and claiming it is wonderful must take a lot of nerve.
--
Neil
Delete l to reply
Paul Heslop
> >From the Tate Modern's website
>
> "Dijkstra concentrates on single portraits, and usually works in
> series, looking at groups such as adolescents, clubbers, and soldiers.
> Her subjects are shown standing, facing the camera, against a minimal
> background."
If the Tate modern think it's cool it's probably crap and from what i
can see it's probably crap. And saying "You just don't get it" is also
typical Tate Modern crap.
--
Paul (Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Heslop
>
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > > I used to think that I was an OK photographer. After viewing these
> > > images, I know that I am a great photographer!
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > You just don't get it ;-)
>
> Look at this picture
>
> Rineke Dijkstra
> Pontland Highschool, Newcastle, UK,
> February 17, 2000, 2000
> C-Print
> 24½ x 20½ inches
> Courtesy of the artist and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York
> Estimated retail value: $13,000
>
> http://img.getactivehub.com/act2/custom_images/Choice_Art/artist_pic_Dijkstra_live.jpg
>
Sorry, it's crap. There are thousands of people who can and do take
better pictures. It looks like a bad snapshot taken during the
shooting for an episode of Catherine Tate.
> Let's see your print of a recent simple shot of two highschool girls in
> their uniform against a bland wall (you can recreate this shot on any
> English afternoon within minutes perhaps - the street are littered with
> highschoolers and all the walls in England are bland - nevermind that
> the picture looks like it was shot with a disposable point and shoot
> film camera) be in such high regard. Her work is in the best of the
> best museums.
And that makes it good? It's a snapshot, and not a good one at that.
>
> This is the Rineke Dijkstra self-portrait
>
> http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images_184989_183625_rineke-dijkstra.jpg
and this is pure ugly garbage.
It's not even minimalist as you claimed, just boring and incredibly
ugly. And yes, you can take pictures of ugly and make it stunning, but
these are just rubbish.
And, no, I am not claiming I can do better.
To ask people to recreate the same boring pictures is pointless, as
pointless as the originals but sums up much of 'modern' art.
joe mama
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44D0BEAD...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >From the Tate Modern's website
>>
>> "Dijkstra concentrates on single portraits, and usually works in
>> series, looking at groups such as adolescents, clubbers, and soldiers.
>> Her subjects are shown standing, facing the camera, against a minimal
>> background."
i get it and it's very well done, but i can see how folks would dismiss it
as bland, pedant, morose, etc...the same way people initially found diane
arbus' work.
transformation and juxtoposition will always sell...no matter how bland it
looks.
but "artsy" types do tend to drive "normal" people mad. especially when the
art looks like a fifth grader did it ;=)
but--come on guys--it is GOOD. For art's sake, that is.
Frank ess
Yes, it is good.
Having seen it is good and valuable.
It adds to one's background of experience, and influences future
perceptions; however, after a hundred or so iterations of the same
slight-of-hand, the chance to see some more slips down the priority
ladder. It's still good, but it no longer adds enough to warrant the
time spent appreciating it, my view.
Unless you are, or are acquainted with, one or more of the subjects.
--
Frank ess
Paul Heslop
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:44D0BEAD...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> >From the Tate Modern's website
> >>
> >> "Dijkstra concentrates on single portraits, and usually works in
> >> series, looking at groups such as adolescents, clubbers, and soldiers.
> >> Her subjects are shown standing, facing the camera, against a minimal
> >> background."
>
> i get it and it's very well done, but i can see how folks would dismiss it
> as bland, pedant, morose, etc...the same way people initially found diane
> arbus' work.
>
> transformation and juxtoposition will always sell...no matter how bland it
> looks.
>
Maybe so.
> but "artsy" types do tend to drive "normal" people mad. especially when the
> art looks like a fifth grader did it ;=)
>
Heh, for sure. It's the emperor's new clothes thing. We're told it's
cool, we look and see crap, they say no, it's cool, you just don't see
the new clothes!
> but--come on guys--it is GOOD. For art's sake, that is.
I am told I should not dismiss something as not being art so I'll go
along with that except I reserve the right to say it is BAD art :O)
Paul Heslop
I think that says so much, I couldn't even be bothered to open more
than a couple of images up to full size, the thumbnails all looked the
same and none looked worth a second of my time. There may well be
something hidden in the lighting etc but for me it just didn't do
anything except make me wonder why people spend good money on it. But
it's THEIR money so bully for them :O)
Bill K
Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> I think that says so much, I couldn't even be bothered to open more
> than a couple of images up to full size, the thumbnails all looked the
> same and none looked worth a second of my time. There may well be
> something hidden in the lighting etc but for me it just didn't do
> anything except make me wonder why people spend good money on it. But
> it's THEIR money so bully for them :O)
> --
> Paul (Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs)
No one claims the work isn't art. It just sparks no emotion one way or
the other for a lot of the posters. For others, it may. I find the
photos boring. Then again, I wouldn't pay a million plus dollars for
Steichen's pond photo unless I could flip it for a nice profit. Maybe
Mr. Mama and the OP might form a joint venture and buy it.
Paul Heslop
No, I meant that in the past when I find something to be what I would
consider little better than pretentious nonsense I would simply say it
wasn't art, but have come to reconsider that as I guess there will
always be someone who finds something worth looking at so it then
becomes art. What concerns me is that it seems total garbage is
sometimes bought up by certain top people to make it appear of value
simply so they can be the ones to make a profit on what is,
essentially either very bad or deliberately antagonistic.
Would you ever consider a photograph to be worth a million anything,
leaving aside ones obviously historically important but simply for
their looks?
--
Paul (Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs)
Bandicoot
news:1154524756.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It's the 'breathtaking' that's the point, of course.
Peter
casioc...@gmail.com
Well, personally, I had no case of Emperor's new clothes in liking her.
None whatsoever. I had never heard of her before. I was looking up
"Dijkstra", that is, Prof. EW Dijkstra when I found her pictures.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=dijkstra&sa=N&tab=wi
I knew at first sight that I was seeing no ordinary thing. Take this
picture for example
http://www.aspenartmuseum.org/images/rineke%20dijkstra.jpg
The composition in this shot is painstakingly perfect. That's pure
perfection.
Paul Heslop
> Well, personally, I had no case of Emperor's new clothes in liking her.
> None whatsoever. I had never heard of her before. I was looking up
> "Dijkstra", that is, Prof. EW Dijkstra when I found her pictures.
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=dijkstra&sa=N&tab=wi
>
> I knew at first sight that I was seeing no ordinary thing. Take this
> picture for example
>
> http://www.aspenartmuseum.org/images/rineke%20dijkstra.jpg
>
> The composition in this shot is painstakingly perfect. That's pure
> perfection.
Nope, sorry, even if the composition is perfect the subject is boring,
the photography boring and I'd have to say I could spend a few minutes
searching google and come across pictures which actually look good,
which is a heck of a lot more than I can say about any of hers and
particularly the ones you have chosen to post as examples. If they're
her best I would hate to see her worst.
That's not saying you don't have the right to find her stuff
interesting or even charming, each to his own crap :O)
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > > > > > > > > Tedious
> > > > > > > > Transcendent
> > > > > > > Derivative
> > > > > > Delightful
> > > > > Cold
> > > > Cool
> > > Stupefying
> > Sublime
> Boring
Beautiful
It seems the more I like something the less everyone else does. I think it
is like a suit of clothes: the better it fits me the worse it fits anyone
else. An old Army jacket will fit anyone; a bespoke Saville Row suit will
fit only one.
Paul Heslop
Certainly so. If we all liked the same thing the world would be an
awful boring place.
It's still crap though :O)
Bill K
Good point, Paul. But, remember, it's arty crap as opposed to run of
the mill crap.
Bill K
Also, one can put lipstick on a pig and call it Jennifer Lopez but it's
still a pig. But, at least it appeals to those who profess to march to
the beat of a different drummer.
Paul Heslop
I'm not sure i could go for a lipsticked pig, but a pic of a different
drummer might be okay... Is this a different drummer?
http://www.drummer-cherry.com/title_22.gif
casioc...@gmail.com
Bill K wrote:
> Also, one can put lipstick on a pig and call it Jennifer Lopez but it's
> still a pig. But, at least it appeals to those who profess to march to
> the beat of a different drummer.
>
> --
> Bill in Lake Charles
A lipsticked pig and Jennifer Lopez? I'm not sure I'd tell the
difference.
Paul Heslop
Oh yeah, and sometimes there's nowt like a bit of arty crap. i did
take a further look and there were one or two images that I didn't
mind. I can;t say they grabbed me but I didn't dislike them.
Paul Heslop
The pig can act? :O)
Bandicoot
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
http://www.aspenartmuseum.org/images/rineke%20dijkstra.jpg
> > > > > > > > > > > Tedious
> > > > > > > > > > Transcendent
> > > > > > > > > Derivative
> > > > > > > > Delightful
> > > > > > > Cold
> > > > > > Cool
> > > > > Stupefying
> > > > Sublime
> > > Boring
> > Beautiful
> >
> > It seems the more I like something the less everyone else does. I think
it
> > is like a suit of clothes: the better it fits me the worse it fits
anyone
> > else. An old Army jacket will fit anyone; a bespoke Saville Row suit
will
> > fit only one.
>
> Certainly so. If we all liked the same thing the world would be an
> awful boring place.
If you believed that - which is true and you should believe it...
>
> It's still crap though :O)
...why have you spent so much time trumpeting your own belief as an
absolute - which despite your half-hearted calims to the contrary is the
point of your endless repetition of a view expressed in terms that hardly
contribute to meaningful debate. I think football's crap, but I don't feel
the need to say so _repeatedly_ to every fool who thinks otherwise.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:1154638078.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Miss Piggy has better dress sense?
Peter
casioc...@gmail.com
What?! I didn't understand.
Oh, okay. So, good point. Let's have a debate. I'll start it.
1- I find it apt that so many pictures look similar. See, I've come to
realise that a mediocre amateur would take a random picture and then
he's proud of it for the rest of his days. A true artist though, when
he has an idea, makes a body_of_work about it. Enough that would fill a
book. And the whole body_of_work about this idea would be congruent,
you won't find a portrait of a woman and then a macro of a snail.
2- I see nothing wrong with the technique. It's flawless. True work of
a master. Exquisite composition. Amazing composition.
3- Now, ... I don't know what 3 would be. In terms of the content, I
find the content captivating and perfect. I hear some say it's bland.
What does bland mean? You wanted a peacock included in the frame? It's
a portrait of a man, girl or woman. What more is there to it? And it's
done to perfection. What more did you want? A backflip?
Paul Heslop
Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
casioc...@gmail.com
Paul Heslop wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's still crap though :O)
> >
> > ...why have you spent so much time trumpeting your own belief as an
> > absolute - which despite your half-hearted calims to the contrary is the
> > point of your endless repetition of a view expressed in terms that hardly
> > contribute to meaningful debate. I think football's crap, but I don't feel
> > the need to say so _repeatedly_ to every fool who thinks otherwise.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
> --
> Paul
Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop it
for your own sake. This isn't even about taste, this is the classical
essence of art. It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
amount of art. Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
I want and what I call art is art", no, but the "I studied the content
of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".
Paul Heslop
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's still crap though :O)
> > >
> > > ...why have you spent so much time trumpeting your own belief as an
> > > absolute - which despite your half-hearted calims to the contrary is the
> > > point of your endless repetition of a view expressed in terms that hardly
> > > contribute to meaningful debate. I think football's crap, but I don't feel
> > > the need to say so _repeatedly_ to every fool who thinks otherwise.
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
> > --
> > Paul
>
> Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop it
> for your own sake.
Oh good, I like being called ignorant, it just proves my point about
emperor's new clothes. Just because you think something is cool
doesn't mean I have to and in this case I most certainly don't. Now
you can call it art if you like, and you can say it is good in your
eyes, if you like, but don't assume that it will appear so in
everyone's eyes nor that those who don't see what you see should be
ignorant. In my eyes it is crap. It is soulless, pretentious, ugly,
and pretty much without worth, but that's all in MY eyes.
This isn't even about taste, this is the classical
> essence of art.
Yup.
It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
> amount of art.
Like I said, I am told I should not say something isn't art, and
that's fine, but I also have the right to say it is awful and not
worth the kind of money nor attention being lavished on it.
Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
> I want and what I call art is art", no, but the "I studied the content
> of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
> and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".
? Whose quote is that? I haven't 'studied' art at college, but I have
always enjoyed the stuff to the extent that I know what I like and
what I don't. There should NEVER be a case that because an elite says
something is good that everyone should agree. Much modern 'art' is
about upsetting people, be it because it is tasteless, talentless,
ugly, pornographic or whatever. Now I know that art should always
surprise and delight, and it can shock when it wants to and needs to,
but everyone has their own view on every single piece of art, and if
someone looks at my stuff and says it is talentless or whatever that's
their opinion and their welcome to it (and I'll often agree with them
too) and just so it is my freedom to choose that which I think is good
and that which I think is bilge, and this is bilge. Even if I agreed
that the form of the pictures or the lighting of the pictures has
something to it the rest leaves me cold, mainly because she seems hell
bent on showing her subjects as lifeless objects rather than
individuals. And i think that's my problem with this work summed up,
this isn't a series of pictures of people with lives and souls, it
could just as easily be a series of bored sheep.
Now, as my opinion obviously isn't worth a toss because I don't agree
with you we may as well leave it there.
Bill
Naw. Looks pretty much like a run-of-the-mill drummer. Now, Ginger
Baker--that's the beat of a different drummer.
Paul Heslop
> Naw. Looks pretty much like a run-of-the-mill drummer. Now, Ginger
> Baker--that's the beat of a different drummer.
> --
> Bill in Lake Charles
I really enjoyed the drumming on Chicago's 'I'm a Man' but I haven't a
clue who was the drummer.
Lou Pecora
"Bill" <msuw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Naw. Looks pretty much like a run-of-the-mill drummer. Now, Ginger
> Baker--that's the beat of a different drummer.
> --
> Bill in Lake Charles
Yep. See the recent Disraeli Gears DVD where Baker is compared (very
favorably) to the great jazz drummer Elvin Jones.
-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own) REMOVE THIS to email me.
Paul Heslop
I'll take a look thanks
Bill
That sounds like a must have DVD. Daniel Seraphine was on drums for
that Chicago song. Please don't ask how I remember that obscure piece
of trivia.
Paul Heslop
Thanks to you too Bill. I am amazed sometimes that i can find out all
sorts of stuff on the web but little things I just never took the time
to learn I still just don't look up.
J. Clarke
Must have ruined her eyes with all the studying.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
pelican
You all don't get it! Can't you tell art from snapshots?
In snapshots, the subjects are smiling. In art, they aren't smiling.
That's it. Everything you ever needed to know about photographic
portraiture art.
Thanks,
Bob
Paul Heslop
:O)
no_name
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:31:50 -0700, casioculture wrote:
>
>
>>Bill K wrote:
>>
>>>casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I used to think that I was an OK photographer. After viewing these
>>>>>images, I know that I am a great photographer!
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob
>>>>
>>>>You just don't get it ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I rather tend to think Bob does in fact get it. I agree with
>>>him and I've never seen his photographs. As a wise woman wrote
>>>recently, these examples are "breathtakingly bland."
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>--
>>>Bill in Lake Charles
>>
>>And what's wrong with "breathtakingly bland"?
>
> Nothing is wrong with them being 'breathetakingly bland', it is the
> publishing of them that is the trouble. Publishing a beginners snapshot
> and claiming it is wonderful must take a lot of nerve.
>
And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all
He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall
The birds of a feather all the phonies and all of the fakes
While the dealers they get together
And they decide who gets the breaks
And who's going to be in the gallery
no_name
> pelican wrote:
>
>>You all don't get it! Can't you tell art from snapshots?
>>
>>In snapshots, the subjects are smiling. In art, they aren't smiling.
>>
>>That's it. Everything you ever needed to know about photographic
>>portraiture art.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Bob
>
>
> :O)
Well you forgot the part about art photographs having the horizon tilted
at a dizzying angle.
Paul Heslop
and they should be ever so slightly fuzzy/blurred
William Graham
> no_name wrote:
>>
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>>
>> > pelican wrote:
>> >
>> >>You all don't get it! Can't you tell art from snapshots?
>> >>
>> >>In snapshots, the subjects are smiling. In art, they aren't smiling.
>> >>
>> >>That's it. Everything you ever needed to know about photographic
>> >>portraiture art.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Bob
>> >
>> >
>> > :O)
>>
>> Well you forgot the part about art photographs having the horizon tilted
>> at a dizzying angle.
>
IOW, if you take blurry, black & white photographs at a tilted angle of
people who are not smiling, you will instantly be recognized as a great
artist, and you will be on the road to fame and fortune.......But I took
these kind of pictures when I was 5 years old....I have spent my whole life
learning to take straight, sharp pictures of smiling people.....Now you tell
me that I have wasted my whole life learning how NOT to be an artist......
[Anon] Hubert de Viro
server at winnie.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact winnie...@winstonsmith.info
-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
Ask Daniel Rocha he will back Paul up.
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Bill
That's a good point. Same applies to fashion photography. Most of the
models look like they have an appointment after the shoot to have a
colonoscopy.
[Anon] Hubert de Viro
Project Dantooine mixminion server at Dantooine.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
ad...@winstonsmith.info. For more information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
In <O5OdnX6MQIbvokvZ...@comcast.com> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
Ask Daniel Rocha he will back Paul up.
Paul Heslop
:O) I do enjoy looking at old photographs yet when I do now I am
struck by how bad they are aswell as how much I still enjoy them.
Paul Heslop
or are on some serious drugs... oops, no point in explaining the
obvious :O)
mark.t...@gmail.com
> > Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
> > --
> > Paul
>
> Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop it
Call me ignorant too. I think they are woeful. You said yourself,
quite early in this thread:
"..you can recreate this shot on any English afternoon within minutes
perhaps.."
"..nevermind that the picture looks like it was shot with a disposable
point and shoot.."
Don't those words tell *you* something?
Sadly a significant amount of art is an accident. Sometimes it has
nothing to do with quality images - a series of blurred/mangled rubbish
can often become 'art'. Why? Why NOT? Art is all about desirability.
Not about being technically, or even artistically good. And it can
also be about luck (or luck-by-design - if you happen to know an art
gallery curator/collector/raconteur, pretty well *anything* can be made
into a desirable collection...)
And if you *want* drab/boring/fuzzy/technically incompetent images for
effect/mood (and they *can* be very effective, don't get me wrong -
I'll Holga with the best of 'em!) - why not use *exactly* that type of
image, and call them art?
Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.
Is there anything wrong with people like Paul (and me) calling it
rubbish? Nope.
Should images like these be promoted as something to aspire to? (grin)
Why don't *you* answer that, casio? - and tell us how *you* would go
about it. Or if you don't ewant to, why not exactly? You've already
indicated that it should be easy to take similar shots... so.... ???
> It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
> amount of art.
On what basis precisely? That they are in a *few* museums/collections?
That they sell for a lot of money? They are pretty bad/sad criteria
in my opinion, so I'm hoping you have other reasons.
I think a much better test for art is that the object/image invokes
emotion in a powerful way... For me, these don't even come close to
doing so.
> Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
> I want and what I call art is art"
So you are saying that doesn't happen? Or just *here*..?
> no, but the "I studied the content
> of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
> and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".
Then can you briefly summarise your conclusions for us about what makes
a fine art piece, or did you mean *Rineke* did that (and that ergo we
must accept that whatever she does is art to the finest degree)..?
Signed,
The Devil's Avocado... (O;
Paul Heslop
> I think a much better test for art is that the object/image invokes
> emotion in a powerful way... For me, these don't even come close to
> doing so.
>
but this is where they say it is art, because it annoys people. They
don't care HOW it annoys, but that it does. Even if it comes down to
crass incompetence, or deliberate use of a controversial subject with
no artistic merit other than that it IS controversial then it is art.
I can enjoy pictures from all sorts of photographers and painters and
they're not even always technically good, or even really interesting
but just something that catches the eye. I don't mind that casio says
he thinks these are brilliant, if that's how he feels about them then
great, but I kind of get the feeling that he posted these knowing
exactly the reaction he would get, as the Tate shows art knowing
exactly the reaction it will get. Then they can run around shouting
"They must be fools because they just don't see!"
J. Clarke
They do me. The emotion is amazement that anybody would actually pay good
money for such crap. And awe for Rineke's abilities as a con woman. And
disgust with myself for not thinking of so obvious a scam.
>> Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
>> I want and what I call art is art"
> So you are saying that doesn't happen? Or just *here*..?
>
>> no, but the "I studied the content
>> of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
>> and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".
> Then can you briefly summarise your conclusions for us about what makes
> a fine art piece, or did you mean *Rineke* did that (and that ergo we
> must accept that whatever she does is art to the finest degree)..?
A friend of mine studied the content of hundreds and hundreds of years of
art over some decades of her life, even ran a major museum for a while, and
she does not even pretend that that gives her the ability to _create_ art.
> Signed,
>
> The Devil's Avocado... (O;
--
Lou Pecora
"Bill" <msuw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds like a must have DVD. Daniel Seraphine was on drums for
> that Chicago song. Please don't ask how I remember that obscure piece
> of trivia.
Yes, it's a good DVD (Disraeli Gears by Cream). Not only do you get the
songs, but you get the history of how they did each one with interviews
from the past and recently with Cream and others who know them.