I seem to have stirred a mini controversy with my opinion on John Cage. While I stand by that opinion I have to admit I am not a musician and can only judge music from a listener’s perspective. I do know a thing or two about the technical and artistic sides of photography though, and herewith offer my opinion on the most overrated and underrated photographers.
Overrated: Cindy Sherman. Her work is self-indulgent, derivative and repetitive. She made a lucrative career of taking self-portraits imitating Henri Cartier-Bresson’s candid style, with a few mannequin porn photos scattered throughout her work. Sherman is proof of the argument from popularity logical fallacy.
Underrated: William P Gottlieb. Think of a black-and-white portrait of a jazz musician. Chances are Gottlieb took the photo. Using equipment today’s photographers would find technically challenging and operationally frustrating Gottlieb defined the art of candid portraiture, producing most of the iconic images of artists from Art Tatum to Ella Fitzgerald to Frank Sinatra. His works stand as masterpieces of photographic art.
Re. Cindy Sherman, I agree. A little of her work goes a very long way.
Contemporary photography artists I especially like: Gregory Crewdson, Uta Barth, Andreas Gursky, Bernd and Hilla Becher.
One artist underrated in the US (but not in Spain): Antonio López. His paintings of Madrid, of interiors, and drawings of quince trees, are spectacular.
Do any of these really capture "quality"?I'll tell you what: if you find a word you can put at the end of this question without having to put quotation marks around it, I think it'll be worth discussing. Until that moment, however, it's only fun and serves no other purpose. Just like art.
Well, it’s worth discussing if it’s fun to discuss, even if it serves no other purpose, right?
Also and more seriously, discussing art can be useful if (1) the person you’re discussing with knows artists and artworks that you don’t, and (2) the person you’re discussing with has taste similar to your own. That way you can learn about new artists and pieces that you might actually enjoy.
Unfortunately I don’t know of anyone writing nowadays who I can count on re. artistic taste. Hmph.
Well, it's worth discussing if it's fun to discuss, even if it serves no other purpose, right? ;-)Sure. :-) And perhaps there is another objectively good reason why it's worth discussing: conspicuous signal. Many girls probably think you are a pretty cool guy for knowing why Fernado Botero is an overrated artist. It takes time, intelligence and money to be able to waste spend on something as impractical as this. Being seen as a cool guy by girls is always a good thing.
Re. Cindy Sherman, I agree. A little of her work goes a very long way. Contemporary photography artists I especially like: Gregory Crewdsen, Uta Barth, Andreas Gursky, Bernd and Hilla Becher. One artist underrated in the US (but not in Spain): Antonio López. His paintings of Madrid, of interiors, and drawings of quince trees, are spectacular.Crewdson and Barth aren't my style. I understand why other people like their work, but I find Crewdson's work gimmicky and Barth's sterile. As for Gursky, aside from his F1 pit stop photo I'd throw the rest in my trash can and save the disk space for better work. Quite frankly, I have hundreds of images I will never post because they do not meet my artistic standards, and each of them equals or betters Gursky's photos. An overexposed photo of a grocery store interior is not good art, it is simply a bad photograph. Gursky's work is a perfect example of the pretentiousness that infects much of modern photography. The Becher's may have been pioneers, but their work is technically poor and artistically uninspiring. I just took a look at some of their photos, and one of the first I saw had a tilted horizon. Not one of their photos had texture in the sky. They needed Ansel Adams to teach them how to expose, develop and print. And Lopez? If you are referring to Spanish painter Antonio Lopez Garcia, I agree. The man could find and translate beauty in a washtub.
Also and more seriously, discussing art can be useful if (1) the person you're discussing with knows artists and artworks that you don't, and (2) the person you're discussing with has taste similar to your own. That way you can learn about new artists and pieces that you might actually enjoy.Excellent point.
I think your definition of "overrated" is rather subjective as well. What have you read by Tolstoy, Mike? And although Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker can be overplayed (especially in North America), I don't see how his music is not original.Well, something has either been done (and and people have to be aware of it), or it hasn't; most recent art history has been kept track of, so it is possible to check dates and places to a large extent. For example, the electric guitar was around for about 20 years before it became the primary insturment in rock music, but the artists who played it before rock and roll have mostly been ignored by music fans and critics - and few people care to investigate, so they continue to give undue credit to those who don't deserve it. I've read a collection of Tolstoy's short stories, and some of War and Peace.
Crewdson and Barth aren't my style. I understand why other people like their work, but I find Crewdson's work gimmicky and Barth's sterile. As for Gursky, aside from his F1 pit stop photo I'd throw the rest in my trash can and save the disk space for better work. Quite frankly, I have hundreds of images I will never post because they do not meet my artistic standards, and each of them equals or betters Gursky's photos. An overexposed photo of a grocery store interior is not good art, it is simply a bad photograph. Gursky's work is a perfect example of the pretentiousness that infects much of modern photography. The Becher's may have been pioneers, but their work is technically poor and artistically uninspiring. I just took a look at some of their photos, and one of the first I saw had a tilted horizon. Not one of their photos had texture in the sky. They needed Ansel Adams to teach them how to expose, develop and print.Well, chacun à son goût! Of course, I would say you're approaching each of these in the wrong way. But then I would say that, wouldn't I, and I don't know of an objective manner to determine the "right" way.
And Lopez? If you are referring to Spanish painter Antonio Lopez Garcia, I agree. The man could find and translate beauty in a washtub.Yep, that's the one. (The "García" often gets left off, since it's his second last name).
Well, chacun à son goût! Of course, I would say you're approaching each of these in the wrong way. But then I would say that, wouldn't I, and I don't know of an objective manner to determine the "right" way.There really is not an objectively right way, it is a matter of photographic philosophy. I am a photographic purist in the sense that I do not like photos that seek to imitate paintings. They are different media. That said, some of the best photos do look almost like paintings, but only because they are excellent photos, not because the photographer set up a studio to combine exposures into a Hieronymus Bosch inspired masterpiece. Other people love that style. While Barth's work is technically and compositionally excellent, I just do not connect with it emotionally. I am not her target audience. Gursky's work, however, can be judged objectively. I suggest you take a closer look at his photos, then compare them with John Sexton, William Neal, Michael Frye, Jack Dykinga or any number of photographers who understand how to compose a photograph and capture light, or simply get a proper exposure. Deliberately or not, the vast majority of Gursky's work is improperly exposed, has no center of interest, and uses flat lighting. He may be violating Photography 101 principles on purpose, but his photos suffer for it. The F1 pit stop photo, good as it is, was an easy shot to get. Making an artistic statement while capturing motorcycles at moving 70 mph is much harder than standing across from pit lane and waiting for a static shots. In fact, the F1 photo would be much more interesting if Gursky had used a slower shutter speed to show the pit crews were not posing for him.
Well … the whole point of Gursky is that he wants photos with flat lighting, no center of interest, etc. That’s what makes them the photos they are. (And they certainly don’t work except in full size, which is VERY large). Many of them are also severely digitally manipulated.
The problem is that there is a distinction between art and craft. Much great art isn’t great craft, and the reverse. Was Warhol a genius with the silkscreen? I dunno, but I seriously doubt it. I’m sure there are craft silkscreeners that could make the same kinds of arguments about his work. But it isn’t about technical excellence in silkscreening; it’s about something else.
Of course, having said that, the distinction between art and craft is just as arbitrary as anything else here.
(For full disclosure, I actually own a small piece of Barth’s. I’d love to own a larger piece but they are reeeeally expensive now).
So Gursky goes out of his way to take bad photographs and calls them art? Maybe I should break out my Hasslelblad this afternoon and take photos of dead leaves in my back yard.
My son just came out to talk to me after reading this thread. He’s a pretty good photographer, just getting ready to enter a photo program in a local community college, and he had several ideas on how to improve Gursky’s F1 photo. While the photo is composed and exposed well, it did not capture the action of an F1 pit stop. I had not talked to my son about the photo, and he was thinking of different angles and slower shutter speeds to capture the controlled chaos of the pit stop.
I can only conclude that Gursky is severely overrated.
I was thinking about some of the Warhol hate, and while he definitely made a lot of crap (and even farmed some out, or “collaborated”) I’ve always kind of gotten the impression that he simply didn’t care. His choice of subject matter, the way he acted around the media and fished for rich patrons. To me, he’s always come off as someone who thought the whole thing was a joke and just sort of churned out BS and screwed with the art community to see just how much he could get away with.
I think the better example for your point would be Bernd and Hilla Becher, whose photos are, I’d say, clearly intended to look anodyne, anonymous, almost artless (unlike Gursky’s, which do require a huge amount of technical skill to prepare and print). The Bechers were trying to capture a kind of industrial photography that is almost the sort of thing you would expect to find in a technical manual rather than on the walls of an art gallery.
Here’s the thing: their whole approach wouldn’t work if the Bechers took photographs a la Ansel Adams. It would prettify everything and give it a personal character that’s entirely out of keeping with the point of the work. Now, that’s not to say the Bechers don’t do beautiful artwork: I find their works extraordinarily beautiful, and FWIW they were even included in the Met’s tribute to their outgoing director, Philippe de Montebello, so at least I don’t think I’m alone in finding them so. But it’s an impersonal, industrial beauty.
For technical skill, sure, I’d go for someone like Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen, or one of my favorites, Alfred Stieglitz.
Apples and oranges.
I was thinking about some of the Warhol hate, and while he definitely made a lot of crap (and even farmed some out, or "collaborated") I've always kind of gotten the impression that he simply didn't care. His choice of subject matter, the way he acted around the media and fished for rich patrons. To me, he's always come off as someone who thought the whole thing was a joke and just sort of churned out BS and screwed with the art community to see just how much he could get away with.Yeah, that was kind of the point of his movement: Pop Art. It was art that dealt explicitly with popular imagery, and he was definitely a salesman. But (here we go again) at least he was somewhat original, and did his own work. You look today at someone like Jeff Koons who isn't even original, and who doesn't do any of his own work ... he just farms it out to subcontractors, making statues of Michael Jackson with Bubbles the Chimp, or of himself having sex with his ex-wife Cicciolina, now you're talking about someone who doesn't care, making a lot of crap, with trash subject matter, fishing for rich patrons. Though I don't think he or Warhol thought it was a joke. Warhol at least was somewhat intelligent. Koons comes across as a bubblehead; perhaps he's just a canny bubblehead.
I was thinking about some of the Warhol hate, and while he definitely made a lot of crap (and even farmed some out, or "collaborated") I've always kind of gotten the impression that he simply didn't care. His choice of subject matter, the way he acted around the media and fished for rich patrons. To me, he's always come off as someone who thought the whole thing was a joke and just sort of churned out BS and screwed with the art community to see just how much he could get away with.Yup, not only that, he made a great living at it; got to hobnob with the most interesting successful people in the world; and get his picture splashed in all the glossies. The birth of celeb for the sake of celeb. Great gig if you got the cahone's to pull it off.. . . well and the shallowness - it would drive me crazy being obsequious to people non-stop. Still, how's that joke go: laughing all the way to the bank. ;-P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pollack there's an interesting case. Besides sounding like he was a total jerk to the people around him, and doing art that never grabbed me. I'm pretty sure I saw some of his stuff at the Chicago Art Museum in the 60s as a kid and never got it. You know, there's some stuff that I don't like at all, but if it makes an emotional impact on me, it's successful art. That sort of stuff never grabbed me one way or the other, it seems contrived to me... I guess. BUT, then I read about the fractal thing. I still don't particularly like his stuff, but I've definitely looked at and thought about it differently ever since reading that stuff.
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/9_18_99/mathland.htm The researchers discovered that Pollocks patterns could be characterized as fractalsshapes that repeat themselves on different scales within the same object. In a fractal object or pattern, each smaller structure is a miniature, though not necessarily identical, version of the larger form. Fractals often occur in nature, from the meanderings of a coastline, in which the shapes of small inlets approximate the curves of an entire shoreline, to the branchings of trees and the lacy forms of snowflakes and ferns. A fractal pattern, whether in nature or in a Pollock painting, is subconciously pleasing, Taylor suggests. In the June 3 Nature, Taylor and his colleagues present the results an analysis of paintings that Pollock made between 1943 and 1952. They quantified the fractal content of the paintings and calculated a fractal dimension for each one.
Did Cage ever explain that?Yes. Cage wrote about it repeatedly in essays and lectures. One of his favorite memes was a story of his experience in a special, soundless room, and he was still able to hear his circulatory system working and a high-pitched sound that was apparently a byproduct of the human nervous system working. Ergo, as long as you're alive, sound is always being experienced at some level - and more generally (for example, for the deaf) as long as you're alive, life is always being experienced through some kind of senses.
For example, the electric guitar was around for about 20 years before it became the primary insturment in rock music, but the artists who played it before rock and roll have mostly been ignored by music fans and critics - and few people care to investigate, so they continue to give undue credit to those who don't deserve it.You mean Charlie Christian? That dude was a badass, and joined the unfortunately long ranks of artists who died too young. Ignored by music fans and critics, yes. Not by other musicians - he's legendary. I am an admitted ignoramus when it comes to photographic art. Not too long ago, I ashamedly thought that photos weren't anything more than point-and-click. My mother has developed photography as a hobby and she's in a photo club. I've learned a fair amount of what I don't know from her and developed a lot more respect for the craft. But I don't know the photographic artists. As far as the visual arts, probably my favorite genre is 19th century American landscape paintings, and the Detroit Institute Of Arts has a fantastic room of them which I always check out when I'm there. But, those probably aren't underrated or overrated, just given a great deal of well-earned respect.
You mean Charlie Christian? That dude was a badass, and joined the unfortunately long ranks of artists who died too young. Ignored by music fans and critics, yes. Not by other musicians - he's legendary.Not particularly Christian, but yeah he's one.
You look today at someone like Jeff Koons who isn't even original, and who doesn't do any of his own work ... he just farms it out to subcontractors, making statues of Michael Jackson with Bubbles the Chimp, or of himself having sex with his ex-wife Cicciolina, now you're talking about someone who doesn't care, making a lot of crap, with trash subject matter, fishing for rich patrons. Though I don't think he or Warhol thought it was a joke. Warhol at least was somewhat intelligent. Koons comes across as a bubblehead; perhaps he's just a canny bubblehead.Maybe his "work" is affecting you the way he intends. 8-/ I'm not familiar with Koons, but after quickly looking him up, it seems he's just screwing with what he perceives as highbrow sensibilities.