Museum panel asks, 'Is photography over?'

Museum panel asks, 'Is photography over?'

http://www.sfgate.com …2010/05/07/PKPU​1D5P9A.DTL

Interesting quote from article from a major museum curator:

"Keller mentioned that as a curator, she has seen in unsolicited submissions "an incredible decline in quality, because photographers don't know how to make their own prints."

Interesting article. I was at the Smithsonian museum of Natural History's photography exhibit a couple of weeks ago and there were quite a few moving photographs there. Maybe it's the selection process and the reputation they had to keep but it showed that the technical side of photography is still alive and kicking. It was gear, composition, and lighting that made the photos, not digital manipulation. There are still many people out there with serious talent that know how to use their gear every bit as well as the photographers in the early or mid 1900s where an intricate knowldege of how every dial on your camera worked was pretty much essential.

If any form of photography has taken a hit, it's likely from the GWC or PWC syndrome even what's been mentioned in pervious threads where these days just about anyone with a camera calls themselves a pro. I've seen many times on deviant art (I know, horrible place) and on flickr photographs or user galleries where really nothing more than a snapshot with little or artistic value is given "amazing photo!" because perhaps the model is attractive or the like. Submissions like that may be what the curator is referring to, something done to the photo digitally that affects it's quality instead of the print. One of the other panelists did mention he couldn't tell the difference between film and digital.

IMO, there's nothing in photography that's really over, it's just been exposed to the masses and is going through growing pains much like everything else where with high usage you get the good and the bad.

There has always been an element of art photography where some person with a strong sense of visual design blasted away with no technical sense, but the images were strong despite that and gained some increased traction because the artist had a "process". More common though were art photographers who owned their entire image creation process. These people crafted an image starting by selecting a particular film, shot to accomodate a process, then followed that in exacting detail all the way through the printmaking and mounting. The dedication to the craft made a huge difference.

There is nothing to say that in the digital world this same dedication isnt, or cant be present. But often its not. The process part, is so easy now that we rarely spend the kind of time crafting an image like film photographers were required to. Once again not saying it was better, but I think it affects the way we create. There are a lot of the first type of shooters now, blast away with a good eye, jazz it up a bit in post to create an effect and call it art. I think the ratio of crap to cream might be higher now because more people have the tools to declare themselves artists.

MrWho wrote in post #10139924
Interesting article.

IMO, there's nothing in photography that's really over, it's just been exposed to the masses and is going through growing pains much like everything else where with high usage you get the good and the bad.

That's exactly what I think too. And just because that question was ASKED, doesn't make it true. With photo taking being made so much easier, there are more people out there taking them and thinking they are Ansel Adams. Doesn't make it so....

over analyzing hacks

But Karl, what else are they to do with their time but analyze; other than standing around eating Brie, sipping Chardonnay and trying to guess what went thru the artist's mind when he squatted over a canvas, took a dump, hung it on a wall and named it "After Apocalypse."

if i were in their shoes I'd invest in things known as "hobbies" or "families"

such as snowboarding, or kayaking, or sking, or tennis.

i bet they secretly all wish they could be kayaking right then instead of going to another rhetorical meeting

CH this is 7 mins or so but stay with it because the great Ralph Gibson has something interesting to say about the current state of photography.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=NzMQcE2E-1o

CannedHeat wrote in post #10139126
Interesting quote from article from a major museum curator:

"Keller mentioned that as a curator, she has seen in unsolicited submissions "an incredible decline in quality, because photographers don't know how to make their own prints."

"unsolicited submissions" sounds like people with digital cameras that think they know what they are doing, and that their photos are top notch, don't really know what they are doing and hence are making poor prints. I can't imagine photographers that sell their work would go about making "unsolicited submissions". So it's likely hobbyists that think their photos are museum quality submitting these poor prints.

Has there been any new movement in fine art since Calder, Warhol, and Pollack? Art is moving out of the museums and galleries and becoming more personal. My house has original art on almost every wall, but you would not know any of the artists. Just like my veggies, I try to buy local. I guess thats why I love this place. Sometimes when artists don't know the "rules" fantastic things happen. I have been impressed with an artist here that goes by the handle Damn Rican. The other day he posted that he needed help picking a new lens and didn't know what the numbers meant. This guy rocks an XS with a kit lens like a hasselblad. I can't help but think to myself. I hope he never figures it and keeps down his current path. This guy has the eye.

lol at these idiots (curators) sitting trying to make decisions.

friz wrote in post #10144032
Has there been any new movement in fine art since Calder, Warhol, and Pollack? Art is moving out of the museums and galleries and becoming more personal. My house has original art on almost every wall, but you would not know any of the artists. Just like my veggies, I try to buy local. I guess thats why I love this place. Sometimes when artists don't know the "rules" fantastic things happen. I have been impressed with an artist here that goes by the handle Damn Rican. The other day he posted that he needed help picking a new lens and didn't know what the numbers meant. This guy rocks an XS with a kit lens like a hasselblad. I can't help but think to myself. I hope he never figures it and keeps down his current path. This guy has the eye.

Actually there have been several major art movements since abstract expressionism (Pollack) and Pop Art (Warhol) and (Calders) abstract 3 D pieces.

The one thing I constantly remind myself about the art intelligentsia is that there is no intelligence in intelligentsia.

friz wrote in post #10144032
Art is moving out of the museums and galleries and becoming more personal.

This is exactly what's happening in multiple modes of expression. Photography is just one example.

We're at a point in time where anyone with access to a few hundred dollars in technology and access to some form of telecommunications can self-publish virtually anything they want. Photography, writing, music, visual arts, you name it... I don't think this is a bad thing.

At some future time the landscape will change again. As consumers we're going to reach a point where we say "enough!" We'll get fatigued from wading through billions of instances of "art" to find that *one* piece that speaks to us. We'll turn, once again, to the services of curators and other gatekeepers to steer us toward the things we're most likely to appreciate.

For now, though, the inmates are in control of the asylum.