Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2016 · NY Times Photography Show Description

  
 
Tom In Arizona
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · NY Times Photography Show Description


Hi All...

Wasn't sure where to post this, but thought I'd try here. I read this description in the NY Times review section today and I really had a hard time wrapping my brain around what this was all about. Just for fun, what's your evaluation?

"Guggenheim Museum: ‘Photo-Poetics: An Anthology’ (through March 27) Formally complex and expressively reserved, even hermetic, the work by 10 photographers in this stimulating show has roots in Conceptualism and takes language, history and speculative thinking as its raw materials. Photographs are structured with the equivalent of poetry’s metrical cadences and internal rhymes, and treated less as generators of translatable ideas than of suggestive metaphors."

My photography is never going to make it to the Guggenheim, but if it ever did, I think I'd want a clearer description.

Thanks
Tom



Mar 04, 2016 at 04:21 PM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · NY Times Photography Show Description


From what I saw online, I believe the quote describes the show perfectly. P.T. Barnum said it so well...


Mar 06, 2016 at 10:49 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · NY Times Photography Show Description


I think that's a bit of a cheap shot.

Describing the works of ten photographers-- particularly for a show titled "Photo-Poetics"-- in detail in a few lines is near impossible. This description isn't an attempt to tell you about individual photographers, let alone photographs. It's about providing a sense of what the focus of the show is. And it does just that.

These are photos that, broadly speaking, attempt to use non-visual concepts (history, language, speculative thinking) as a starting point with some metaphorical reach towards using the photograph as poetry rather than representation of the world visually.

Is it inflated, hyper-adjective, silly-sounding language? Sure. But welcome to the art world... not every visual artist as read Orwell on Politics and The English Language.




Mar 10, 2016 at 05:52 AM
leethecam
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · NY Times Photography Show Description


I think the art world breeds special people who can find long words to form almost unintelligible sentences. It's an art in its own right.

I wonder what percentage of the population can understand this drivel. Given that the statements are supposed to explain the meaning of the art, I'd wager the writers have failed if most of the intelligent audience can't work out what it means.

Certainly we shouldn't write for the lowest common denominator, but someone out there has spent too long looking up words in a thesaurus.



Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · NY Times Photography Show Description


Tom In Arizona wrote:
Hi All...

Wasn't sure where to post this, but thought I'd try here. I read this description in the NY Times review section today and I really had a hard time wrapping my brain around what this was all about. Just for fun, what's your evaluation?


Artsy-fartsy.

EBH



Mar 25, 2016 at 06:26 PM
Artscar2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · NY Times Photography Show Description


I read it as "an exhibition of photographs not realized as intended, but when viewed after a couple of beers seem like they have some potential..."

Just my 2 cents



Mar 29, 2016 at 12:58 PM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · NY Times Photography Show Description


leethecam wrote:
I think the art world breeds special people who can find long words to form almost unintelligible sentences. It's an art in its own right.

I wonder what percentage of the population can understand this drivel. Given that the statements are supposed to explain the meaning of the art, I'd wager the writers have failed if most of the intelligent audience can't work out what it means.

Certainly we shouldn't write for the lowest common denominator, but someone out there has spent too long looking up words in a thesaurus.


This demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of language choices in such descriptions. The writing is as much a description-- as it is a way to position or signal. Do a little more economics research in the area of jargon, and it'll make a lot more sense. Similar things exist in the language used in social sciences literature. And of course signaling exists in everything from the way people dress to the choices they make about what music they (are internally convinced they) like (even as it turns out what we like is a choice rather than an innate characteristic).



Jun 16, 2016 at 04:32 AM
tntcorp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · NY Times Photography Show Description




Artscar2 wrote:
I read it as "an exhibition of photographs not realized as intended, but when viewed after a couple of beers seem like they have some potential..."

Just my 2 cents


+ 1; well stated. however, the sophisticated palate of art lovers would demand wine and hors d'oeuvres in lieu of beers 😊



Jun 16, 2016 at 06:33 AM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · NY Times Photography Show Description


justruss wrote:
The writing is as much a description-- as it is a way to position or signal.


I believe what you are saying is that if one doesn't understand the signal, then stay away. If so, the general public will stay away in droves.

This use of ostracizing gobbledygook is just another example of the contempt art writers, editors, museum management, and many artists themselves have for the general paying public. Foisting fourth rate "art" on the public while writing obtuse signal code does nothing in the way of elevating art appreciation; it alienates.



Jun 16, 2016 at 11:30 AM
thebmrust
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · NY Times Photography Show Description


A major rule of marketing is "know your market segment". A rule of rhetoric, write to your audience.
I think it's written perfectly. For the intended audience and to reach the right market.



Jun 17, 2016 at 01:15 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · NY Times Photography Show Description


Bernie wrote:
I believe what you are saying is that if one doesn't understand the signal, then stay away. If so, the general public will stay away in droves.

This use of ostracizing gobbledygook is just another example of the contempt art writers, editors, museum management, and many artists themselves have for the general paying public. Foisting fourth rate "art" on the public while writing obtuse signal code does nothing in the way of elevating art appreciation; it alienates.


No, that's not what I'm saying. But of course it's fine if you take it that way and don't/didn't want to attend at the risk of maybe letting a little personal defensiveness or a little obtuse language get in the way of seeing something you might ultimately enjoy-- or might change your opinion.

Briefly, what I'm saying is that a number of fields have taken to a sort of jargon arms race. This has been documented in the social sciences in particulars. In part, it has been suggested, to make one sound more science-y in comparison to the hard sciences. Yes, it does make things less understandable to laypeople (and that's a fault of sorts). And it might have some negative, knock-on impacts as a result. Language becomes a signal of one's standing in a field or milieu-- if one can pull off the right language without one's peers seeing it as a fraud. The exact same thing happens with clothing, cars-- yup, even art descriptions. We all do this in our own social, and work, circles without being aware of it. And, I'll note, you also employ some of these techniques, in writing, in the description on your smugmug page. Really, we all do it (me too!).

If you see my other comments in this thread, you'll notice that I'm not exactly a fan of convoluted, tired, jargon-filled language. And I think such language, in certain contexts, can be dangerous (hence the Orwell reference; an excellent piece). But all that comes with a big, big, big dose of: that's what artists and those in the industry do as a form of signaling, and it's not such a big deal that it should make us skip attending an event we might otherwise be interested in (are you going for the little cards next to the photos, or for the photos?); it's also hard to describe evocative things in short spaces, so maybe we should cut that starving artist/intern/event organizer a break for not having the writing skills or bravery to be the one who risks his/her job by totally ignoring the language used by peers.

Finally, I'd love it if professional photographers and galleries hired professional writers to craft easy to understand, concise, meaningful descriptions in those short spaces. Teapot meet kettle: As photographers we definitely employ a little hypocrisy when it comes to demanding professional pay for our professional services, and snarling when non-pros think they can do our job instead of hiring us-- yet when it comes down to it, how many of us fork over for the real deal in the periphery of our work worlds?

It's complicated, is all I'm saying, and there are reasons such language is used. And in this case the description, perhaps overwrought, does actually describe, in a short space, what the event is about.



Jun 17, 2016 at 01:39 AM
thebmrust
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · NY Times Photography Show Description


There's another perspective that hasn't quite been covered: Photographers are not always artists.


That being said, I believe it is a completely different mindset for "gallery curation" and promotion than what the vast majority of photographers understand. Just because we think it needs to be displayed, there's a different connection in the context of a gallery than on the wall of your office. As well as the audience that will view the "art" in a gallery.

The cards, titles, description are also a point to talk about. When we hung some work for an art walk, we got into several differences of opinion about titling the work. I personally don't like titles. But the curator said art buyers do like titles. So we agreed to title the groups rather then individual works.

Gallery's also deal with more than just the visual-ness of art (in this case, photographs). It's a rare person that can span those chasms effectively.



Jun 17, 2016 at 04:12 PM
leethecam
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · NY Times Photography Show Description


When I eventually put up my own exhibition, the description will just read:

"Lee Christiansen - does really nice snaps..."




Jun 18, 2016 at 04:34 AM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · NY Times Photography Show Description


justruss wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. But of course it's fine if you take it that way and don't/didn't want to attend at the risk of maybe letting a little personal defensiveness or a little obtuse language get in the way of seeing something you might ultimately enjoy-- or might change your opinion.

Briefly, what I'm saying is that a number of fields have taken to a sort of jargon arms race. This has been documented in the social sciences in particulars. In part, it has been suggested, to make one sound more science-y in comparison to the hard sciences.
...Show more

Having worked in a couple fields professionally in my career, I understand the use and importance of jargon
within the particular field itself. Even then I agree with you that it gets old and tired in a hurry. However there is a certain point, as I have found, that jargon transitions to gobbledygook and communicates nothing. It may sound learned and make certain people gasp in awe, but is nothing more than covering up a failure of imagination and / or trying to elevate the banal (to use an artsy term).

As thebmrust noted, the notice may have reached the target market. Yet most museums rely on public funds, if not taxpayer dollars, and need to be more inclusive than a small segment of artists and public wannabe's. Why even the Guggenheim advertises for public donations and volunteer help despite whatever endowments it may possess.

It is not a question of lowering any bar. It is a question of educating (and entertaining) the paying public so that they can appreciate the role of the public institution, its mission, and the various arts in its collections.



Jun 19, 2016 at 02:43 PM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · NY Times Photography Show Description


To me, sounds like a lot of up themselves wankers trying to impress and gain the approval of a lot of other up themselves wankers, none of which have the sophistication or credibility they like to pretend they have.

The several Multi Millionaires I know whom are somebody's in the world and I call my friends, are the most down to earth People imaginable and would have more scathing opinions of this crap than I do.

While a couple of them would be the types to go to art shows and the like, a description like this would be a gilt edged guarantee would stay away out of sheer embarrassment.

This a painfully obvious case of being way too clever just for the sake of it and doing far more harm than good.



Jun 19, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · NY Times Photography Show Description


Target audience: rarefied.

Run of the mill art-wank jargon. It has its place, but it's also fun to mock.

I went through art school - hilarious.



Jun 19, 2016 at 11:55 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · NY Times Photography Show Description


Paul Mo wrote:
Target audience: rarefied.

Run of the mill art-wank jargon. It has its place, but it's also fun to mock.

I went through art school - hilarious.


not so much as you may think. this is NYC. somewhat different a crowd then where you are.

I must say though the writer does tend to be thesaurus happy.



Jun 20, 2016 at 10:13 AM





FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.