@ Joe:
My remarks were directed toward art
photography, not towards the contemporary art world in general. I think that if you survey this relatively small niche of the art world closely you'll agree. Look, for example, at the work of artists such as Greg Crewdson who redefines the notion of "over-produce" to create a single image. Ditto Jeff Wall. Edward Burtynsky scouts and plans his scenes often years in advance. Even the apparently casual landscape images of Robert Adams are the products of great premeditation, often to convey a finger-waving environmental message. As photography continues its never-ending search for high-value legitimacy in art circles its practice actually seems to be circling back to practices more commonly found in 16th and 17th century painting. In my opinion, this is a wrong path that strips the medium of some of its strongest characteristics, particularly spontaneity. But that's a broader topic for another time and venue.
Still, it is true that in the general contemporary art world there are plenty of artists, particularly "sculptors", who claim that their work is essentially the product of the materials at-hand and perturbations of their neuro-muscular systems. Some of this work is held high ... for a time. But the often ephemeral nature of so much of it means that it's destined to evaporate as it so often does. (We recently had an exhibition in Chicago that featured a piece consisting of a few stuffed toy animals tossed into a corner with a thin rope hanging above them. Poof!)
Cy Twombly is an example of an artist who generally follows his feelings but to more durable (and profitable) ends. The Art Institiute of Chicago here has recently featured quite a bit of his work in conjunction with the opening of the new Modern Wing. We currently have an
exhibition of some of his sculptures as part of the Stone Collection.
@ Mike: The average camera owner is hooked on conventionality. He's hooked on visual balance, on trying to swallow whole meals with nothing left to imagination. Most of all he's hooked on
pretty. And why shouldn't he be? That's what's been used to sell him everything his whole life. Toys, candy, cars, clothing, lifestyles. And that's fine. The images that most folks hold as trophies basically mimic this conventionality or some sub-set of what's considered conventional. I am not criticizing this, merely observing. Just look around here at the images folks post. Mostly pretty or cute or charming. And that's just fine. Most folks have limited time for this hobby and if they can get a charming photo of their baby or a pretty photo of the beach where they walk their dog that's more than satisfying enough to propel them forward to the next frame.
But when people begin talking about photography at higher levels than personal keepsakes, at levels where they can use it to express something premeditated, now they're looking at using that camera as a more surgical tool. And for that you need to get a good grounding in what makes the eye-brain connection tick in planar works. That's often a byproduct of a good art education. It's sometimes the byproduct of intuitive talent. But for most of us it's the product of intentional, exclusive study and intensive practice and review.
Whew! Too much writing here for the week! Gotta go!