tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post197259403232439495..comments2024-03-26T23:27:56.399-07:00Comments on B: Pinocchio's FurnitureBlake Andrewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-52559373178326902272014-12-10T06:44:01.519-08:002014-12-10T06:44:01.519-08:00The master of clickbait has returned with an artic...The master of clickbait has returned with an article arguing, apparently in all seriousness, that the high price some fool paid for a print by Peter Lik (!) shows that "Photography is not an art. It is a technology."<br /><br />Thank you, JJ. You've convinced me. Your column's titled "Jonathan Jones on art", so don't waste any more of your time on mere technology.<br /><br />That article has 338 comments, a number that I presume is continuing to rise. Good for JJ. But it makes me feel a bit sorry for Sean O'Hagan, that same website's photography critic, whose most recent, "The best photography books of 2014" http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/07/best-photography-books-2014 has got a total of just one comment in three days. Somebody please cheer him up by posting a comment or three there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-28182307013477774442014-11-23T06:57:57.635-08:002014-11-23T06:57:57.635-08:00I think Blake is right if one refer only to the sh...I think Blake is right if one refer only to the shitty printed exhibitions. I always respect the craft of printing. I like do my own prints. I still remember the first time I saw and exhibition of originals prints of Sarah Moon photos made by a lost lab in some place at France. Was shocking for me. Now I scan my negatives and print with inkjet pigment printer and I can tell that is not the same photo that I see in the screen. The screen emits light, the paper reflect it. And there are variables like the kind of paper you choose and the size you print. If is well done I don't think is only a flat thing. I don't care if some specialist call it art or no. But simple is not a two dimensional thing, for me a good print mean a lot more. Hernan Zentenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10827574143876112004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-47142708213855429452014-11-22T22:30:28.271-08:002014-11-22T22:30:28.271-08:00Maybe I read the wrong essay, but I didn't not...Maybe I read the wrong essay, but I didn't notice Jones being anti-photography. He just said it didn't make good "wall art."<br /><br />I think he's right, generally. I used to exhibit photographs in galleries, and eventually I quit for reasons similar to what he discusses.<br /><br />Galleries tend to be set up in terms of floor plan, proportions, lighting, etc. for viewing large single works that will be viewed from a "stand-off" distance. Certainly it's possible to make photographs that work in that type of environment, but that involves giving up the qualities that draw many of us to the photo medium: intimate detail, serialization, private relationship between viewer and work, etc.<br /><br />Maybe "flat, soulless and stupid" is just a more attention-getting way of saying "doesn't fit the context."<br /><br />Ranger 9https://www.blogger.com/profile/01529850752722200842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-29093448679886816532014-11-17T06:16:16.073-08:002014-11-17T06:16:16.073-08:00I suspect that Jones' knee-jerk rant is fueled...I suspect that Jones' knee-jerk rant is fueled by his reaction to this year's Taylor Wessing prize winner. Even so, he depends on an underlying assumption that public art spaces should be reserved for exhibiting only works deemed most valuable on some elitist scale. I think that's a perennial question that still deserves some discussion... i.e. What (and why) should public art museums exhibit?<br /><br />Your review is some ways fortifies Jones' position that ..."curators could provide iPads and let us scroll through a digital gallery that would easily be as beautiful and compelling as the expensive prints." But the important distinction that you strongly imply is the difference between pixel-based photographs and emulsion-based images. I can think of no reproduction methods that convey the same subtle beauty and power as a physical print created with a silver or other emulsion. As you note, the same cannot always be said of images made from pixels.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14254383630896410844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-47479458011410409412014-11-16T14:22:50.491-08:002014-11-16T14:22:50.491-08:00He states the obvious that photos are flat and sur...He states the obvious that photos are flat and surface only, then states the ludicrous- they look fine parallel to the ground, as opposed to the wall. Besides, paintings are just 2D representations of sculpture.Stan B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17381743002180926900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-34408222671301555872014-11-16T02:03:49.736-08:002014-11-16T02:03:49.736-08:00The one thing I think Jones got right is that phot...The one thing I think Jones got right is that photos don't always work when hung and exhibited the way paintings generally are shown in galleries, with very few exceptions. Quote "It just looks stupid when a photograph is framed or backlit and displayed vertically in an exhibition, in the way paintings have traditionally been shown" His mistake is that he has drawn the conclusion that photography doesn't belong there at all, not entertaining the idea that it is a different medium and could successfully exist in galleries in a more appropriate way. There is no universal answer or correct way to exhibit photos (in my unqualified opinion), but I do feel that the prolific creation of images of most photographers in contrast to the slow hand made production of painted works, sculptures etc. should be represented at the printed level. Fill the fucking walls with photos, cram them in together and show more, show your shit experiments along with your best, old with new, and don't be so fucking precious about them. I have seen low rent group and prize shows that have this aesthetic, and I will generally browse the walls three or four times around and linger only on what floats my boat. Solo shows should often group photo series' jammed close together when appropriate and museums/galleries should purchase whole shows not one frame. The single 'Tulsa' image in the national gallery looks awfully lonely to me. And don't even get me started on limited editions FFS, as if they wore out the fucking negative or JPEG file or whatever making those 5 prints, print 100 of them if they are in demand! On coffee mugs, T-shirts, bumper stickers you pretentious prats! Ok maybe not always that, but pretending an easily duplicated print is somehow a one off or deliberately making it so is a little embarrassing if you ask me. But then there are times when the tried and true gallery display works, the Bill Henson retrospective I saw a few years back springs to mind, exhibited as per painting shows, and worked as such.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-87537913058394324162014-11-15T15:55:07.970-08:002014-11-15T15:55:07.970-08:00Hi Andrew,
Greetings from Australia.
I enjoyed thi...Hi Andrew,<br />Greetings from Australia.<br />I enjoyed this post re the strange Mr. Jones.<br /><br />As someone once said "They don't build statues for critics".<br /><br />Perhaps Jones has the overwhelming feeling of approaching eternal legacy of being a long forgotten nonentity.<br /><br />Cest la vie.<br /><br />He can have his opinion, but history has already proved him wrong. That is the salient point.<br />His argument may have been made at the start of photography and then observers could have seen how right he was / or not.<br /><br />Too late now. While some photography meets his rather self important views, there is enough around and has been for over a century to render his idea all but worthless.<br /><br />Cheers.Williehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12340234422334227647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-86761109971361823652014-11-15T14:34:15.739-08:002014-11-15T14:34:15.739-08:00Admittedly I didn't look very hard for positiv...Admittedly I didn't look very hard for positive comments. But I think we can agree most were anti-Jones.Blake Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187987264904729243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935046131385109105.post-5080758367044662792014-11-15T14:31:32.985-08:002014-11-15T14:31:32.985-08:00"I can find no comments in support of Jones.&..."I can find no comments in support of Jones."<br /><br />Well, you missed my hard-hitting, in-depth, research-backed reply on the Flak Photo Facebook post about it: "I thought there were some good points"<br /><br />Then I muted the conversation because it's what reddit would refer to as a giant circle jerk.thechrisprojecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752179945636950788noreply@blogger.com