Curtis Miller
New member
Ken,
Herein lies the problem with judgments of artistic merit. I'm not one to argue that artistic judgment is entirely subjective. I think people who know something about art will likely generally agree on what is good and what not. But, with that said, it's a delicate proposition nonetheless. I don't take any offense at your remarks. In fact, I appreciate the compliment that it is nicely crafted and beautiful.
It's certainly true that my photography is not offensive or challenging. Whether it's purely scenic and appealing only to a simple rural aesthetic is another matter. In truth, I have little interest in purely scenic photography. You'll find no pretty sunsets or waterfalls among my images. I think they all speak to an existential mood that is very specific to me, but which I think others will respond to. There is certainly a risk that the subject matter will distract or misdirect some from the meaning of the images but that's a risk I have to take along with my feeling for what these scenes convey to me.
As I said earlier, my photography is not about clever ideas or high concept. You could easily say the same about many of the classic photographs in history. I don't think that means it's without merit. Working this kind of ground is difficult, but it's the ground I want to work. I don't doubt that at the highest echelons of the fine art world, this work would not get any attention. But I'm not necessarily aiming there. I'm aiming higher than where I am now but have no interest the kind of audience I suspect you are thinking of.
I'll have to think about the music. Your point is well taken as to the audience's expectations.
I approach the photography as an art, but the business as a business. I have to have a business model, pay attention to profitability, work to accomplish my financial goals. But the photography is done purely for art's sake. I wouldn't dream of shooting something just because I thought I could sell it.
Thanks for the suggestion about FotoFest Paris. Paris is a beautiful city with lots of beautiful art. I spent a few weeks there a couple of years ago. As a painter, it was really inspiring. All the wonderful work at the Musee d'Orsay, the Monet water lilies at L'Orangerie, the Louvre of course and the Pompidou. I got to stand in the field where Van Gogh shot himself and see his and Theo's graves. A bit romantic perhaps, but still pretty cool.
I'm a fairly traditional, romatic, expressionist kind of artist. Not too traditional mind you. My last art heroes were the Abstract Expressionists. Pop art was fine, but too cool for me. But Conceptual art is complete drivel as far as I'm concerned. Stuffing your hand in your mouth repeatedly and videotaping yourself may make an intellectual statement about art, but it's not very interesting to me and I certainly wouldn't want to own the video. I am an artist for what are now pretty traditional values. Give me Motherwell, Rothko, Morris Louis, Ad Reinhardt, even Monet and Van Gogh.
I know I have to do something to distinguish my own particular version of what I do. I know that I'm not breaking any new ground. In time, I expect to deepen and clarify my vision and make it more distinctively mine. For now, I'm learning to make beautiful images, learning to compose, to control value and contrast and color. There may need to be something more distinctive that separates my photographs from the gardens, for example, from others. But the landscape photographs mostly say just what I want them to say.
Herein lies the problem with judgments of artistic merit. I'm not one to argue that artistic judgment is entirely subjective. I think people who know something about art will likely generally agree on what is good and what not. But, with that said, it's a delicate proposition nonetheless. I don't take any offense at your remarks. In fact, I appreciate the compliment that it is nicely crafted and beautiful.
It's certainly true that my photography is not offensive or challenging. Whether it's purely scenic and appealing only to a simple rural aesthetic is another matter. In truth, I have little interest in purely scenic photography. You'll find no pretty sunsets or waterfalls among my images. I think they all speak to an existential mood that is very specific to me, but which I think others will respond to. There is certainly a risk that the subject matter will distract or misdirect some from the meaning of the images but that's a risk I have to take along with my feeling for what these scenes convey to me.
As I said earlier, my photography is not about clever ideas or high concept. You could easily say the same about many of the classic photographs in history. I don't think that means it's without merit. Working this kind of ground is difficult, but it's the ground I want to work. I don't doubt that at the highest echelons of the fine art world, this work would not get any attention. But I'm not necessarily aiming there. I'm aiming higher than where I am now but have no interest the kind of audience I suspect you are thinking of.
I'll have to think about the music. Your point is well taken as to the audience's expectations.
I approach the photography as an art, but the business as a business. I have to have a business model, pay attention to profitability, work to accomplish my financial goals. But the photography is done purely for art's sake. I wouldn't dream of shooting something just because I thought I could sell it.
Thanks for the suggestion about FotoFest Paris. Paris is a beautiful city with lots of beautiful art. I spent a few weeks there a couple of years ago. As a painter, it was really inspiring. All the wonderful work at the Musee d'Orsay, the Monet water lilies at L'Orangerie, the Louvre of course and the Pompidou. I got to stand in the field where Van Gogh shot himself and see his and Theo's graves. A bit romantic perhaps, but still pretty cool.
I'm a fairly traditional, romatic, expressionist kind of artist. Not too traditional mind you. My last art heroes were the Abstract Expressionists. Pop art was fine, but too cool for me. But Conceptual art is complete drivel as far as I'm concerned. Stuffing your hand in your mouth repeatedly and videotaping yourself may make an intellectual statement about art, but it's not very interesting to me and I certainly wouldn't want to own the video. I am an artist for what are now pretty traditional values. Give me Motherwell, Rothko, Morris Louis, Ad Reinhardt, even Monet and Van Gogh.
I know I have to do something to distinguish my own particular version of what I do. I know that I'm not breaking any new ground. In time, I expect to deepen and clarify my vision and make it more distinctively mine. For now, I'm learning to make beautiful images, learning to compose, to control value and contrast and color. There may need to be something more distinctive that separates my photographs from the gardens, for example, from others. But the landscape photographs mostly say just what I want them to say.