Vivian Maier

imahawki wrote in post #11583920
A study was done a few years back where they took a world class violinist who sells out concert halls at $100 a seat all over the world. They took this guy and put him as a "street performer" in the Washington DC subway platforms. The guy was largely ignored and made like $32 in spare change. No classical music aficionado recognized him, no one working in anything like talent management stopped and thought "holy ****, I've hit the mother lode". The fact is, not matter how capable we THINK we are recognizing something special, the population as a whole generally needs to "know" something is considered art before they will ooh and ahh over it. I'm not saying it is totally common but there are hundreds of people practicing their art who are AS good as the "masters" but don't have an agent or just haven't hit the lottery of fame. We (people as a whole) go to galleries or museums to see art but we completely ignore amazing talent simply because it hasn't been tagged as art... conversely, we often ooh and ahh over fairly common or even mediocre work simply because it HAS been tagged as art.

Sorry, got some of the details wrong... here's the story...

http://lovelivfe.com/2​010/05/17/perception/

Or better yet take the time to learn about art so you can recognize it for yourself instead of relying on anyone tell you what it is.

A great quote by Martha Graham.
"No artist is ahead of his time. He is his time. It is just that the others are behind the time."
Martha Graham

A true artist only creates for one reason. They have to. Its not about fame or money. Its about finding a way to express how they see the world and the need to express it. It first has to be real. Not to say that money or fame might not follow but for a true artist its starts form someplace real.

CJ, who is it that pays $100 to listen to this guy play? Certainly not the folks that commonly ride the subway, the ones that have a schedule to keep.
At the risk of sounding plebeian, in that environment, if that there fiddle player wasn't playing Charlie Daniels, he wouldn't have attracted my attention either.

Are we suggesting that art should be reserved for the elite among us? I suggest the opposite should be true, if the masses don't appreciate it, it is not true art.
Think of two diametrically opposed points on that Bell Curve of "art", Picasso's work and ARGO's black velvet paintings, they appeal to different folks...is one better than the other?

Or should it be somewhere between those two divergent points?

chauncey wrote in post #11584076
CJ, who is it that pays $100 to listen to this guy play? Certainly not the folks that commonly ride the subway, the ones that have a schedule to keep.
At the risk of sounding plebeian, in that environment, if that there fiddle player wasn't playing Charlie Daniels, he wouldn't have attracted my attention either.

Are we suggesting that art should be reserved for the elite among us? I suggest the opposite should be true, if the masses don't appreciate it, it is not true art.
Think of two diametrically opposed points on that Bell Curve of "art", Picasso's work and ARGO's black velvet paintings, they appeal to different folks...is one better than the other?

Or should it be somewhere between those two divergent points?

Art is for everyone and it should be. Most really great artists don't make a ton of money during their lifetimes. Most photographers don't make it on their art. Thats why Weston, Adams (though Adams did see more financial success from his art than most do) Bruce Davidson the list can go on and on all had to take commercial assignments to make ends meet.

I have sold work but its the commercial work that pays the mortgage, puts the food on the table and makes it all possible including the personal work.

Sometimes as Martha Graham suggested it take the masses tine to catch up. A true artist doesn't create for anything or anyone else but him/herself first. Sometime the masses get and sometimes it takes time for them to understand the communication. One thing that comes to mind for me is the Picasso sculpture here in Chicago. When it was first unveiled it took a ton of criticism from the masses. Now its a valued part of the city just as much as say a Mies van der Rohe or Louis Sullivan building.

Sometimes it takes an artist to educate the masses. In the mid to late 1880s the masses didn't like or appreciate the Impressionists.

When I started to get into photography seriously around spring 2005, I was probably only aware of six or so photographers by name: Herb Ritts, Helmut Newton, Man Ray, Robert Mapplethorpe, Annie Leibovitz, and Ansel Adams (whose photos I thought were from the 1970s and 1980s, don’t know why, but I was quite stunned to subsequently learn how much older they actually were).

As I started to plow through numerous books and magazines, certain photographs caught my attention based on their own aesthetic appeal; in some cases, I had no idea if the photographer was a professional or an amateur, it didn’t matter---and it still doesn’t. It was only later that I began placing names with photos, while also better defining what style I preferred. And the fact of the matter is that some of the ‘masters’ are considered such, because they deserve to be considered such.

Yes, there are countless artists (photographers, musicians, writers, painter, etc) who are exceptional, but for whatever reason, will never be recognized, but that is just the system, as unfair as it might be. In the fine arts world, it can be particularly political and pretentious; I recall some news program (60 Minutes, 20/20, not sure) doing a segment in which they allowed a group of art connoisseurs to view a set of abstract paintings that were supposedly created by a young and upcoming artist. Much praise was awarded with all the fluffy type prose that one would expect. Well, the artists were young, basically elementary school kids who slopped some paint on a canvas. By the way, some of the paintings were actually interesting.

In the Maier case, absolutely irrespective of when her work was produced or what medium was used, it is very good, exceptional in some cases, average in others; as noted, she did not, after all, have editorial control over the presentation. Are their folks producing great stuff on Flicker now...sure, not many, but of course, with 100 zillion photos being taken every second of every day worldwide, some goodies are bound to pop up. Is it fair that many of these folks will not receive the attention that Maier has...no, but this is to no fault of Maier or her photographs...she didn’t ask for any of this.

So instead of begrudging her posthumous ‘fame,’ we should be grateful that at least one other person, an amateur nonetheless, was spared from obscurity, and yes, deservedly so...I know this because like Allen, I have good taste in photographs. If you don’t care much for her work, fine, move on, go back to Flicker or elsewhere and enjoy the good stuff that these venues have to offer.

And who is it that determines who these "really great artists" are? Is it not the "educated curators" that select the works, for the enjoyment of "their peers", to hang in our museums, often subsidized by our tax dollars.
I would submit that, oftentimes, their "educated palate" leaves a lot to be desired.

chauncey wrote in post #11584210
And who is it that determines who these "really great artists" are? Is it not the "educated curators" that select the works, for the enjoyment of "their peers", to hang in our museums, often subsidized by our tax dollars.
I would submit that, oftentimes, their "educated palate" leaves a lot to be desired.

Chauncey, first there is a history of several thousand years of two dimensional art and there is also 184 years of photography that we have to help. I would suggest if anyone is having trouble getting it there are plenty of books and lots of work that one can read and look at to help them learn as much as they need to.

For all the crap that gets through there is far more amazing work that winds up in museums. I saw the Bresson exhibit a few months back and it was truly amazing. I have also taken a stroll through the Impressionist wing recently and was equally impressed again. Remember that the Impressionist were creating what the masses considered crap at the time.

chauncey wrote in post #11584210
And who is it that determines who these "really great artists" are? Is it not the "educated curators" that select the works, for the enjoyment of "their peers", to hang in our museums, often subsidized by our tax dollars.
I would submit that, oftentimes, their "educated palate" leaves a lot to be desired.

I would submit that these curators don't select the works for their "peers", that museums are for everybody, and that an "educated palate" is a good thing.

There's no reason that you have to agree with that "educated" viewpoint but you ought to at least ponder what these folks, that have spent some time and due dilligence in study, might know that you don't.

I would also wonder about your inclusion of an irrelevance like tax subsidies.

bpiper7 wrote in post #11584271
I would submit that these curators don't select the works for their "peers", that museums are for everybody, and that an "educated palate" is a good thing.

There's no reason that you have to agree with that "educated" viewpoint but you ought to at least ponder what these folks, that have spent some time and due dilligence in study, might know that you don't.

I would also wonder about your inclusion of an irrelevance like tax subsidies.

Agree and If you look at art from a capitalist point of view to create art for art sake and not for money is not a sane endevor. But to me life is so much richer because Mr Van Gogh still decided to create though it not a great capitalist venture

Also think of all the great works of Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Gordon Parks, Arthur Rothstein and all the FSA photographers and all the incredible photographs that they made wouldn't have been made without the governments support. And we as a society are much richer for it.

I'm simply saying a vast portion of the population can't identify art (or skilled art) AT ALL. The only way they know something is art is if it is in context (either in a gallery or everyone else around them is ooohing and aaahing.) I think that was more the point of the study. We often take things in context. Would you recognize the CEO of your company in the halls at work (I would)? Would you recognize him in jeans, a t-shirt and a ball cap at a bar?

imahawki wrote in post #11584375
I'm simply saying a vast portion of the population can't identify art (or skilled art) AT ALL. The only way they know something is art is if it is in context (either in a gallery or everyone else around them is ooohing and aaahing.) I think that was more the point of the study. We often take things in context. Would you recognize the CEO of your company in the halls at work (I would)? Would you recognize him in jeans, a t-shirt and a ball cap at a bar?

If there was no history, education or background to draw upon then you wont recognize him or art. But if you have seen him in a baseball cap and jeans and just seeing and understanding many aspects of art then you would recognize him and art.

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Is really a loaded word, the meaning could be overwhelming, and it really depends on who you ask, most would agree that music is a form of art, yet there's modern music out there of a certain genre that's considered art by many and to me is just noise. The media or record labels will go to the end of the world and back trying to convince whomever they can that that particular music is another form of art and eventually they succeed with many, people just get tired and accept it.

My definition for art is definitely not the same as my own wife for instance, it really varies from one side of the spectrum to the other. I love black and white photography, I love a story in the photograph, there's many ways for one to admire the art of photography, many with today's technology and software such as Adobe Photoshop create their own version of art, I don't like it but it doesn't necessarily mean is not art, is just another form of art expression through an image.

Chauncey I would also rather have a society with system that some crap get through than a society with a system like this.
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Degenerate_art

You are correct in that I've had little interest in "art"...been to busy following my dreams, see public profile.

Can't argue with that Allen.

imahawki wrote in post #11584375
I'm simply saying a vast portion of the population can't identify art (or skilled art) AT ALL. The only way they know something is art is if it is in context (either in a gallery or everyone else around them is ooohing and aaahing.) I think that was more the point of the study. We often take things in context.

But that's the way we learn about what's art. By going to a museum and seeing what the "educated palate" has chosen and listening to what people say when they "ooh and aaaah".

That's part of the process, isn't it?

After they've exposed themselves they can use that exposure to discern.

imahawki wrote in post #11584375
Would you recognize the CEO of your company in the halls at work (I would)? Would you recognize him in jeans, a t-shirt and a ball cap at a bar?

I know I'm echoing Allen but, yes, I would know him (and art) because I have become familiar with who he is and what's considered art by paying attention.

chauncey wrote in post #11584779
You are correct in that I've had little interest in "art"...been to busy following my dreams, see public profile.
.

Well there you go. The dream that some folks have followed is to educate themselves about art and learn how to present it. Don't dismiss their dream. Use it.