« an appropriation or an homage? | Main | Hyphantria cunea »
Sunday
Sep072008

fight the power

Is it it's ubiquity, or it's multiplicity, or it's technology that delegates photography to second class citizenship in the Art world? Or has it changed? Well, certainly to a degree. Look at the prices in the big name galleries. But the problem is a prevalent  attitude through the culture. I encountered it again in the final story in David Foster Wallace's Obivion collection, "The Suffering Channel." He heads in two distinct directions with the piece, but finally brings them together at the end. In a sense, the piece might be considered a mini Infinite Jest.

The story is a blatantly subversive discussion about art and its authenticity, which anyone involved in the art process or production would be wise to read. On the surface it's about the inner workings of the magazine publishing culture. During a brainstorming session, two very smart interns at Style magazine have this exchange,


     'But is the physical, so to speak handmade character of a piece of art part of the artwork's overall quality?'
     ...The executive intern responded: 'Do we all really value a painting more than a photograph anymore?'
     'Let's say we do.'
     The executive intern laughed. 'That's almost a textbook petitio principii.'...
     'A great painting certainly sells for more than a great photograph, doesn't it?'
     The executive intern was silent... Then she said: 'Why not just say rather that Style's readership would not have a problem with the assumption that a good painting or sculpture is intrinsically better, more human and meaningful, than a good photo.'
     ...Ellen Bactrian said: 'But now, if we agree the human element's key, then does the physical process or processes by which the painting is produced, or any artwork, have anything to do with the artwork's quality?'
     'By quality you're still referring to how good it is.'
     ...'Good quote unquote.'
     'Then the answer again is that what we're interested in is human interest, not some abstract aesthetic value.'

As producers of such consumables - photographs - with such a wide range of effort expended and results achieved, it's going to be difficult to ever disagree with this conversation.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>