Poor quality in galleries - Water's comments
MR AS WELZ
It was interesting that when jurying a show you were biased against artists
who showed no contiguous style through their prints. I feel that this is not
much of a factor, if each of the prints is well done and obviously not just
a lucky shot. It is often far easier to get locked into a particular style
than to experiment with others - what is the inherent merit in having a "
style" anyway? I value versatility.
Adam in Africa
Glenn Woodell
Thanks Adam. My sentiments exactly.
Glen Woodell
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
I would takr a slight twist on that, saying that while one
must not get locked into a style, nor should one adopt a
style, most reasonably prolific and/or serious workers have
at any particular time "a style" even though their versatility
causes this style to evolve and change over time.
This evolution and change leads me to be concerned, as is Adam,
about a juror rejecting work for lack of contiguous style within
the sample seen. What if the sample "samples" the artist's work
over a long period ? Chances are there is, even over a long
period, some sense of continuity but a small sample may just not
adequately present it to the juror in a brief inspection.
I know that people who see a major body of my work feel that it
is somewhat cohesive, but I can easily select fifteen prints that
may fail to demonstrate this cohesiveness, especially over decades.
Fifteen prints from one or two years would more likely show
themselves to obviously be the work of one person.
Regards, David Rosen
dr8192@albNYvms
dr8...@uacsc1.albAny.edu
My name is Albert Ayler
themselves into a particular style but I don't think Tom Waters
was suggesting that. I think the question is, what presumably tiny
selection of your work should you submit to a gallery/show whatever?
I would agree that if you have to cut it down to say 3 images it's
best to have them be related in some way (whether by style, subject
matter, or you name it).
Sure, if you have three really wonderful pictures they ought to be able
to each stand on their own. But first of all what makes sense to you
the artist may not come across to the judge or viewer. After all, you have
looked at all of your own pictures, so there's a context in the back of
your head which is not available to the viewer. Several pictures which
cohere in some way make it easier for the viewer to get a context and
figure out where you're coming from. Especially if your pictures say
anything more than just "look at me 'cause I'm beautiful." (I don't
mean "say" in the limited sense of documentation/subject matter, I mean
in the less definable sense of artistic communication.)
I find that even looking at the work of Great Photographers (tm) I often
get a stronger impression from several coherent photographs. The whole
is more than the sum of its parts. Take Walker Evans's _American
Photographs_ or Robert Frank's _The Americans_ as an example. Much as
I love many of the individual photographs, especially Frank's, the books
are considerably more than convenient collections of photographs I like.
(On the other hand, I've looked at books where I felt like if I'd seen
one picture I'd seen them all. That's a failure of the photographer.
Although no doubt there are people who love those photographers and hate
my faves, and so on.)
IMHO there has to be more to creative photography than creating a
scattershot assortment of images that look good. What that "more" is
is completely personal which is why people develop styles ... and why
their styles evolve. A few pictures hanging on the wall are a chance
to get to the viewer. They are not nor could they be a retrospective
or fair sampling of all your work as a photographer. It's best then
to choose images which reinforce each other. Save the documentation
of your evolution as a photographer for your big one-person show
(or your career retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art or the
National Gallery ...)
Ben
twater
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
> I would takr a slight twist on that, saying that while one
> must not get locked into a style, nor should one adopt a
> style, most reasonably prolific and/or serious workers have
> at any particular time "a style" even though their versatility
> causes this style to evolve and change over time.
Well, per haps a discussion of style is now in hand. But the point to
my original post seems to have been missed by most people, and
sentiments are being attributed to me that are not in accordance with
my thinking.
I want to focus on your comment above that "one should not adopt a
style."
I totally disagree with this. I do believe that an individuals style
evolves and grows and is not something that one just chooses. But
IMHO, serious image makes do indeed develop a style that is noticable
in there work. A Mary Ellen Mark image looks like a Mary Ellen Mark
image. I saw Cindy Sherman's new work in a NYC Gallery some time ago,
and even though it was very very different from her older work, it
still showed her style. Style does not leave from subject matter to
subject matter. I believe an individual's stlye will still be seen no
matter what they are photographing. I think I had been making
photographs for about 8 years before I could begin to see what others
described as my style. Several years ago, I met Don McCullum(sp) the
war photog and saw several portfolios of his work from several wars and
some of the work he had done since Vietnam. There was a style, a "way
of seeing" prevelant in all his work.
I too, want to comment on your reference to "serious workers". It is
important to remember that the orig. poster was talking about photo
competitions. We are not talking about photography in general or all
photographers... or at least I wasn't.
>
> This evolution and change leads me to be concerned, as is Adam,
> about a juror rejecting work for lack of contiguous style within
> the sample seen. What if the sample "samples" the artist's work
> over a long period ?
If this were the case you would see a progression of thought, or
process, concept. In addition, many if not all competitions require
work to have been completed within a certian time frame.
>Chances are there is, even over a long
> period, some sense of continuity but a small sample may just not
> adequately present it to the juror in a brief inspection.
And therefor, the selected three images are not the best ones for the
submission to a juried exhibition.
>
************************************************************************
*****
Let me try to explain this again. Please read this carefully:
When I am jurying a compitition, I do judge each art work individually,
and accept or reject an artwork based upon the value of that individual
work. Most jurors I know or who I've worked with or who I've met do
this.
It has been my experience, however, that beginning photographers(but
not limited to beginners) often will submit a group of images that are
totally unrelated. They do this because they are afraid trhat they
won't get accepted and are trying to insure their odds by entering
something of types in hopes that one of the types will be what the
juror likes. An example would be an entry that consists of a color
print of a rose, machine print, a basic B/W photograph image of
buildings with shadows folling accross the buildings, and a B/W infared
landscape. All three are OK, basic, run of the mill images. There is
nothing spectacular or even rweally good about any of them. There is
nothing really terrible about them either. They are all good
begginning photographs. That the photographer has chosen this
combination shows that he/she has little if any idea of the
meaning/value of their images. Choose an image because it is a great
image, not because you wanted to enter a color one just incase the
juror likes color.
Get the point??????
Most if not all image makers, after some time of making photographs,
gain an understanding of what they do well and what they do not (well
some figure this out). Most image makers find that they do not do all
types of images with equal competence. As, an example, I find my early
colr work to be much much stronger than my early B/W work. Because I
didn't really understand B/W, nor was I technically very good. ANY B/W
I might have entered back in 1984 or 85 didn't deserve to get accepted
because my B/W wasn't very good. But.. my color work back then was
great. My way of seeing, composing, led to strong dynamic color
images, and I was generally always getting stuff accepted and was
winning awards. Over the years, I have concentrated on B/W till now, I
"see" it much better and my B/W work is not weak like it used to be.
I was talking with a Gallery owner who frequently juries photo shows
about orring workshops to discuss how to select work for entering
competitions. He said he didn't think it was such a good idea, because
as he put it, "most photographers don't really want to learn that...
they think they know it all."
I understand what he means a little more after this thread.
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
"The opinions expressed are my own, take what you like and leave the
rest."
"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm sick of
it!"