Over on the Soth blog, there has been a hullabaloo about flickr. Earlier, Alec posted a comment Stephen Shore made about flickr and posed the question "where are the great pictures on flickr?"; today, he emailed and received Shore's response, calling for any ire to be redirected and for a truce to re-establish the "thoughtfulness and civility of debate." For me, as it always is on Soth's blog, it was the hope of higher discussion that inspired me to throw my 2 cents in. With 227+ comments and counting, I thought I'd highlight a few quotes, including my attempts to explain my fascination with such things, as both a form of introduction and closure.
From Shane (not in comments, but on his blog): Venue aside, it’s really just a fact that all the greatest work is generally found hiding amongst everything that’s not; how could a single piece of art be particularly moving or especially nice to look at if all art was? ...It can be rather tragic to witness any previously tangible practice go digital (as Flickr is, for many, a replacement to a dusty photo album) and perhaps this is part of Shore’s frustration?
From me: As has been echoed by now hundreds of times, flickr is a tool. Some use it for marketing, some for games, some for documenting, some as a diary, and some for art - just like photography itself. It’s not so much individual images for me, but the great uses that are so brilliant, much like an amazing archive or a powerful database. This is also similar to the purpose, function, and now renewed interest in vernacular photography. With the patina of time, will all flickr images gain such collector status (that is, if they can be retained later and perhaps become physical)? Flickr for me is a giant box of photos at a flea market that I can dive in, sort through, and take what I want from it and perhaps use or think about images in new ways...Signing off - WWST (What would Stieglitz think?)
From Ryan A: Being someone who is in the process of studying cultural anthropology, i think flickr and other online sites like it are amazing–and yes, i think they are fascinating insights into people’s lives. im not sure about the images gaining some kind of artistic collector status though. i like your flea market comparison though. it seems to me that photographers, writers, and many others are always going around trying to understand humanity and life. well, sites like flickr (whether art, vernacular shoebox nonsense, or what) give pretty amazing views/slices of SO MANY lives that it’s mindblowing really. when have we ever been able to access so many people? anthropologically, flickr is a gold mine. i dont really care how much great art is there. great art is so personal anyway. who knows.
From me: Hi Ryan! I think we’re coming at this from similar angles (from art history and anthropology). What I meant by collector status was really the fascination of an image divorced from its original use. i.e., if someone came across a shoebox full of some neat square photos that had circles in them (a group on flickr) but didn’t know about its origin, man would it draw a lot of interest, both money wise and in a museum! We showed a great documentary film a while back in conjunction with a show. Other People’s Pictures followed snapshot collectors and dealt with why people collect what they do. In a way, flickr allows folks to both photo and collect, groups and pools take that one step further. And yes, it is fascinating. This weekend I will go to Home Movie Day at the Harvard Film Archive (to find where and when in your city, go to http://www.homemovieday.com/). Will I see stunning art films? No. Will I see some glints of art and brilliance in someone’s old super 8 kodachrome? Yes. Will I see some amazing pieces of history, culture, and windows into people’s lives? Most definitely!
And lastly, from Ryan's blog, this comparison is apt: To me, it's a great tool, and it's incredibly fascinating to see the multitudes of ways that people employ it. Fine art be damned; I like Flickr. Speaking out against it is like coming out and saying you don't like paper. It's a tool. Some people use it to mail off their bills, some people use it to write the Grapes of Wrath.
Showing posts with label collections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collections. Show all posts
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Antiques Roadshow meets Robot Wars
Anyone who know me knows I love stuff. My apartment looks like a Victorian parlor. I am also an Antiques Roadshow geek. I was thrilled when a friend started working for them and got Bruce and I behind the scenes at a show in Philadelphia. I was disappointed that our stuff wasn't worth anything (and the appraisers weren't as excited about them as we were), but my heart beat fast when we were allowed to hang out in the green room where those who were chosen for taping were being prepped. We got to see their objects up close and hear even more stories. I keep hoping that I will discover a treasure someday, something that the shop owner won't recognize. So, I read with a mixture of horror and glee about a new Chinese television show in my latest Kovel's Komment's e-newsletter (seen below). What's next? Antiques Roadshow survivor? Wait, they've come close.
"'Collecting Everything Under Heaven' is the latest hot TV show in China, according to Reuters. It starts out like the Antiques Roadshow -- bring in an antique and get it appraised. But this is literally a "hit" show. If the piece is deemed a fake by the experts, it is smashed to bits with a hammer by Wang Gang, host of the show, famous actor, and collector. Since China is the largest source of fakes in the world -- everything from DVDs to medicine -- the show claims to be symbolic. Wang says, "We must eliminate the false and retain the true. I want to shock people with a smash." We bet this is one show that won't be copied in the U.S." - from Kovel's
"'Collecting Everything Under Heaven' is the latest hot TV show in China, according to Reuters. It starts out like the Antiques Roadshow -- bring in an antique and get it appraised. But this is literally a "hit" show. If the piece is deemed a fake by the experts, it is smashed to bits with a hammer by Wang Gang, host of the show, famous actor, and collector. Since China is the largest source of fakes in the world -- everything from DVDs to medicine -- the show claims to be symbolic. Wang says, "We must eliminate the false and retain the true. I want to shock people with a smash." We bet this is one show that won't be copied in the U.S." - from Kovel's
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Seldom Seen or Aberrant Photo
While in Rochester, we made the mandatory stop at the Eastman House and saw the Ansel Adams exhibition. This proved an interesting comparison with another collection-based exhibition from the Museum of Fine Art, Boston. The GEH offering was a wonderfully comprehensive exhibition that also included photographs taken in and around the University of Rochester, which I had never seen before. This grouping as well as "The Black Sun," a long exposure of landscape of a stream and tree, leads me to ponder the issues surrounding the seldom seen and the aberrant photograph - images that don't quite fit neatly into a series or haven't seen as much exposure.
Interestingly enough, an extensive internet search did not reveal an image of Adams's THE BLACK SUN, TUNGSTEN HILLS, OWENS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 1939/print ca. 1970. I could find a few references here and there in terms of solarization and Sabatier effects, but no image - not on GEH's online collections not Ansel Adams gallery's website and not on yahoo or google images. It seems this photograph is reproduced in his book, The Negative, likely as a teaching tool, but are such images deemed too aberrant to showcase online?
Over on his See, Hear, and Remember blog, Christian Patterson recently discussed the idea of "difference vs. sameness" within constructing a series and Shane Lavalette followed up with a post that garnered many comments and another on repetition. I'd like to take up another angle on this discussion: Is the aberrant image within a body of work or portfolio perhaps not one of intentional variety, but an issue of quality, editing, or maybe style, or rather, is it not understanding the role of this particular image at that particular time? Or, is it simply blind luck to capture something so disparate from one's style? (Is the latter even possible?) Further, are such images deemed unfitting by the photographer, the curator, the collector, or the museum, and thus put away and then overlooked? Are the images that are taken for a different reason or as an experiment, relegated to the metaphorical and physical shelf to be "discovered" later? Conversely, do such square pegs simply need to gestate, find their mates, and thus make sense later in one's life, oeuvre, or even decades later from the perspective of a third party? As a juror and reviewer, I must admit some guilt, as often I recommend that photographers build and submit a series that holds together in a juried situation. In such a quick fire method, straight-up aberrant images simply don't hold up and thus often result in the elimination of the whole series. This is not to say that an image cannot be different from others, it can and still fit, but it is the "fittingness" that is hard to explain and a definition of "style" not easy to teach or communicate. As an art historian, we often benefit from looking through the long lens of history when analyzing such groupings (or creating them?).
On the other hand, do such seldom seen images or those created for other purposes lead to new avenues and series? Do these transitional images sow the seeds of a later style shift or are simply accidents? Robin Kelsey, photohistorian at Harvard, gave us a sneak peak at his musings on photography and chance as well as art and accident at the Clark symposium and Boston's CAA respectively. I look forward to what hopes to be a pending book!
Interestingly enough, an extensive internet search did not reveal an image of Adams's THE BLACK SUN, TUNGSTEN HILLS, OWENS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 1939/print ca. 1970. I could find a few references here and there in terms of solarization and Sabatier effects, but no image - not on GEH's online collections not Ansel Adams gallery's website and not on yahoo or google images. It seems this photograph is reproduced in his book, The Negative, likely as a teaching tool, but are such images deemed too aberrant to showcase online?
Over on his See, Hear, and Remember blog, Christian Patterson recently discussed the idea of "difference vs. sameness" within constructing a series and Shane Lavalette followed up with a post that garnered many comments and another on repetition. I'd like to take up another angle on this discussion: Is the aberrant image within a body of work or portfolio perhaps not one of intentional variety, but an issue of quality, editing, or maybe style, or rather, is it not understanding the role of this particular image at that particular time? Or, is it simply blind luck to capture something so disparate from one's style? (Is the latter even possible?) Further, are such images deemed unfitting by the photographer, the curator, the collector, or the museum, and thus put away and then overlooked? Are the images that are taken for a different reason or as an experiment, relegated to the metaphorical and physical shelf to be "discovered" later? Conversely, do such square pegs simply need to gestate, find their mates, and thus make sense later in one's life, oeuvre, or even decades later from the perspective of a third party? As a juror and reviewer, I must admit some guilt, as often I recommend that photographers build and submit a series that holds together in a juried situation. In such a quick fire method, straight-up aberrant images simply don't hold up and thus often result in the elimination of the whole series. This is not to say that an image cannot be different from others, it can and still fit, but it is the "fittingness" that is hard to explain and a definition of "style" not easy to teach or communicate. As an art historian, we often benefit from looking through the long lens of history when analyzing such groupings (or creating them?).
On the other hand, do such seldom seen images or those created for other purposes lead to new avenues and series? Do these transitional images sow the seeds of a later style shift or are simply accidents? Robin Kelsey, photohistorian at Harvard, gave us a sneak peak at his musings on photography and chance as well as art and accident at the Clark symposium and Boston's CAA respectively. I look forward to what hopes to be a pending book!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)