The ‘Vulgar’ Photographer — Trespasser on the Sacred Ground of Fine Art?

Maisie Broadhead, 'Keep Them Sweet', 2010.

Maisie Broadhead, 'Keep Them Sweet', 2010.



The Fine Art world has always been an interest of mine. In fact, I was pursuing a graduate degree in the philosophy of art before I quit to pursue photography full time. Quitting was the result of a waning interest in learning about dead white guys — and it was a good move for me in the long run. Humans have been creating art for our entire history as a species. Creativity is baked into our brains. The proof of this innate need to create dates back more than 30,000 years as evidenced by cave paintings. The art of painting is ancient, storied and deeply textured. Fine art photography, in comparison, is in its infancy. As such, the institutions and art critics are outspoken with their assessment of photography being a “vulgar trespasser” by hanging in the same hallowed halls as paintings. To be honest, I am asking myself, are the critics right? Does fine art photography belong in the same museums as the time-tested art of the brush? My friend Sohail, who will be dropping by the blog from time to time with deep insights on fine art and technology articles, dives into the subject in the following paragraphs. -Chase

It’s a battle that’s been fought since photography arrived on the scene as a medium of visual expression. To its critics, it’s been nothing more than a glorified means of copying or reproducing something. To its proponents, it’s every bit as legitimate an art form as painting and sculpture. Regardless of which side you come down on, photography has always had to struggle to gain acceptance in the fine art world, especially in museums.

Now, one of the most prominent museums in the world is adding a photography exhibit to its repertoire, and there are quite a few folks who aren’t happy about it.

“The truth is,” writes Andrew Graham-Dixon, “that very few photographers have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings.”

Graham-Dixon writes for the Telegraph, and he’s talking about “Seduced by Art: Photography Past and Present,” a photography exhibit at the National Gallery in London.

This is the National Gallery’s first major exhibit of photography, and for a number of reasons, it’s being heavily panned by critics. That criticism is stretched into a critique of the place of photography in the world of art.

“Photography,” says Graham-Dixon, “lacks the depth and heft, the thinking sense of touch, that painting possesses.”

Another critic, Brian Sewell, is even harsher in his column for the London Evening Standard.

“Vulgarity is, indeed, the almost common factor among these present-day photographers (most of them fiftyish or so) — the vulgarity of the commonplace subject, the vulgarity of colour, the vulgarity of scale (now common in every current form of art) and the vulgarity of surface, too often utterly repellent.”

The exhibit, he concludes, is “Shoddy, mischievous and gravely mistaken, intellectually the work of students at some post-polytechnic university, those who devised it have seduced the National Gallery, led it astray, debauched and corrupted it.”

Ossian Ward, writing for Timeout London tosses his share of brickbats at the National Gallery as well.

“…they tend to overcomplicate matters and look for obscure lines of influence instead of plumping for the bigger names – why no grandiose Andreas Gursky, no Cindy Sherman self-portraiture, no iconoclastic Andres Serrano, fer chrissakes?”

To be fair, not every review is negative, and Ward does allow that “some of the curatorial discoveries are worth making.”

Some reviews are even positive, like Laura Cummings’ review for The Guardian.

“Seduced By Art is an enthralling show,” she writes, “beautifully selected to express the numerous ways in which painting has inspired or affected the evolution of photography.”

The core argument, though, is one that Graham-Dixon lays out clearly – that the lens is no match for the brush when it comes to art. For those of us who call ourselves photographers, this is a hard claim to swallow.

Richard Learoyd, 'Man with Octopus Tattoo II', 2011. Image Courtesy: The National Gallery, London, UK

Richard Learoyd, 'Man with Octopus Tattoo II', 2011. Image Courtesy: The National Gallery, London, UK

The traditional art vs. photography debate isn’t new, but every time photography makes major inroads into the art world, it flares up again.

To be fair, some arguments may be legitimate. As Ossian Ward pointed out, this is the National Gallery’s first outing when it comes to displaying photography, and they may have indeed overthought it, as he suggests.

It’s also possible that the criticism of the photographs, some of which have been commissioned specifically for this exhibit, has a lot to do with the subject matter of those photos. It’s worth wondering why the National Gallery would commission work specifically to fit the theme of their exhibit, which was primarily about drawing a connection between photography and painting.

There’s a real debate worth having here about whether there *is* such a connection, and if there is, why did the National Gallery feel the need to commission new work? Moreover, there’s also a debate to be had about whether photographers need to follow the same mores painters do, both in terms of subject matter and technique. The National Gallery’s attempt to draw this connection in what could be construed as an attempt to legitimize their exhibit may be considered a failure simply because this connection may not exist.

Martin Parr, 'Signs of the Times, England', 1991. Image Courtesy: The National Gallery, London, UK

Martin Parr, 'Signs of the Times, England', 1991. Image Courtesy: The National Gallery, London, UK

The “subject matter” argument is one that Graham-Dixon makes pretty persuasively when he highlights a moment in his personal experience when he found photography to actually transcend painting.

As for photography equalling, even exceeding, art, I will admit to one moment when I know that it happened — in the work of those photographers who accompanied Scott and Shackleton in the Antarctic, men who in those then unique circumstances had eyes to see that with the coolly calculated technology of their clumsy cameras, they could enhance the ice and snow, the darkness and the light, even the numbing chill of the deep distant south, in ways far beyond the dramatic romanticism of Caspar David Friedrich and Frederick Church, and the dabbing of the Impressionists, their near contemporaries.

Still, he stays close true to his basic premise, claiming that “When the photographer pretends that he is an artist, he is a trespasser.” And, if you define art very narrowly, as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,” then you could argue that photography, as a medium where an image is captured, as opposed to being created, is not art.

Yet part of that definition of art, the part about art being “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination,” can easily be applied to photography. Furthermore, that certain subjects are best left to one medium or another is, again, a hard claim for photographers to swallow.

Of course, it’s also possible that the jeers thrown at National Gallery’s exhibit is just a knee-jerk reaction from old-world critics. After all, it’s only recently that photographs commanding seven-figure sums have become more normal, whereas Paul Cezanne’s “The Card Players” fetched the tidy sum of $267 million from the Royal Family of Qatar in 2011. Photography’s most expensive work, on the other hand, is Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II”, sold for a comparatively paltry $4.3 million.

Andreas Gursky's Rhein II (not part of the National Gallery exhibit) Image Courtesy: Wikipedia

Andreas Gursky's Rhein II (not part of the National Gallery exhibit) Image Courtesy: Wikipedia

Photography as an art form is still young, while painting has been around for thousands of years. It’s pedigree stretches back to pre-history and the cave paintings in Grotte Chauvet, France, that are about 32,000 years old. The next few years will continue to see accelerated evolutions and revolutions in the world of photography, which is barely two hundred years old.

Nonetheless, many of us would argue that it’s time the art world as a whole recognized that the photograph as a piece of art isn’t a fad. It’s not going away. Someone who thinks that photography isn’t as elevated an art form as painting clearly doesn’t have an appreciation of the level of effort that goes into a truly great photograph, and that as more than a few of our photographer friends would say, is quite simply their loss.

__________

Reporting from Sohail Mamdani

You may be interested in:

31 Responses to The ‘Vulgar’ Photographer — Trespasser on the Sacred Ground of Fine Art?

  1. Sergiu December 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    I’ve seen the exhibition and it was a first for me to see expensive paintings and photography in the same room.However, photography can become art just as much as a soap sculpture or any other medium that can be used to create something esthetic.Photography is not and should not be shadowed by graphics, paintg or any other art form.You may find similarities in photography and painting, you may also find them in photography and words.You can use words to write crappy Hollywood news or you could use them to be Tolkien.You can shoot dental shots, mug shots, or you could be Jan Saudek.It is all relative, and no, photography, in it’s true sense is not easier to create that a painting or a drawing.You deal with existing physical light, not the one your will creates as it pleases.If there should be any resemblence between photography and other forms of art, photography is closer to film than anything else.It is what film was born from, and last time I checked people didn’t have a problem with calling movies art.A photographer may or may not call himself an artist, it really depends on his work not his looks or mood that day.Why should someone who can paint or draw technically ,but may not have any concept or feeling transmited in their work, deserve to be called an artist?And why doest it matter so much what people refer to you as?Shouldn’t it be your work that’s doing the talking?Photography belongs in museums and galleries just as much as some apparently stupid and abstract instalations at Tate Modern.It has to take its place as a self suficient form of visual experience, and , in time will.

  2. Daniel Lowe December 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    Photography belongs in museums; it is absolutely an art form. Photography doesn’t HAVE to be a strict interpretation of reality – it can be “subjective” the same as any other art form.

    Here’s a photo (of mine) that has been compared to Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night.

    Landscape photographers and landscape painters.. the only difference I see in these is the medium itself.

    http://flic.kr/p/cRJKX1

  3. Tommy December 11, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    The specific problem with this exhibition is its comparison of photography to painting in an attempt to validate it somehow.

    Why do photographers feel the need to say that their work has been favourably compared to this or that painting?? Sculptors do not, installation artists do not, but we do. Is it simply because they are both representations on a flat plane? We should be more broad-minded. Photographers (and curators) need to take pride in the medium’s difference, not similarity to painting.

    As to the critics: there are countless mediocre paintings and drawings in the world, but that is not seen as a point against the medium but rather one in favour of real masters. And similarly too often are photographs ill-considered and mediocre.

    I do think the critics are right to be affronted in some cases, and they focus on the method rather than the artists ability because it is simpler.

  4. Val Mohney December 11, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    Every time I look at the “what is art” question it robs me of my enthusiasm. I capture so-called reality in my camera, and then typically spend 45 minutes to 10 hours or more making it fit my vision of what I wish had been there when I snapped the photo. Probably I should be called a photoshopper instead of photographer and I haven’t even scratched the surface of what I see other photographers do.

    I’m sure this point is arguable, but I fail to see how my photo/photoshopping process is any better or worse than what anyone else creates in their medium of choice. If anything the process I go through to acquire the raw images is as much as an art as any other medium…considering timing, weather, equipment, players, etc etc. I leverage my skills for synergy, activating and loving on people to make it happen.

    Using all my electronic tools to augment reality is a creative process, I don’t care what anyone else says about it. I guess that doesn’t imply it’s art though, right?

    To take a leap forward, after considering the question a great deal, looking at what I consider to be powerful expressions of people’s spirit and lame expressions of mere intellect I’ve decided I no longer care if what I’m doing is considered “art” by anyone else. If nothing else I’m getting paid increasing sums to do what I love and used to do totally for free…how awesome is that?

    What matters is: how can I take everything I’m doing further? How can I take it all off the wall and make it real time, affecting people in the moment and in a lasting way? How can I maximize my enjoyment and happiness in the process?

    If I die never hitting the walls of a major art museum, I’m good with that. Were I to die tomorrow I already have the joy of countless happy photography given and related experiences to savor on my way to the other side.

    All that said, I’m glad this article got posted and I can’t wait to see what people have to say about it.

  5. Tadeo December 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    It´s probably an effort perception issue. A great painting is supposed to be a well tought and long-term efffort. a great paint is also a “one-shot” article impossible to recreate. Photographs on the other hand are perceived as “theguymadeaclickandit´sdone” things. photographs are also perceived as reproducible artifacts, by that mean replaceable items (did it broke? no problem bro, made another copy). My speculation goes as follows: people aren´t educated in photography and often overlooks all the training, trial and error, planning, taking, processing, printing, framing, etc. involved in making an image. on the other hand, everybody can draw something or try to paint something but most people realize they suck as drawers or painters and hence percieve it as a difficult subject which only the most talented can master.
    I should also blame camera companies. all the time you see advertising campaigns telling you how the camera is so awesome you can make pro looking pictures: so the camera is what makes the picture meanwhile everyone is a photographer. you never ever will see advertising telling you how if you buy this canvas then your paintings become art ipso-facto or this brush paints by itself or so.

    So blame camera companies, they bring us great tools and terrible education!

  6. Philipp Ulrich December 11, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    I had the privilege to visit a Gursky exhibit this year and I can tell you, as soon as you have seen his photographs as originals in their intended size you’ll no longer have the slightest doubt that photography is art.

  7. O'Ryan McEntire December 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    “The truth is, that very few photographers have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings.”

    The same can be said about painting or sculpture:
    “The truth is, that very few painters have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings.”

    I think deep down the reason many fine art purists dislike photography is that in a single click of a button an image can be captured that the equivalent in paint or clay would have taken weeks or months.

    The time it took to create or learn something does not define it’s ability to move people.

    • Graham Hughes December 11, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

      I couldnt agree more with O Ryan, or disagree more with the statement….when you look at the work of the pictorialists at the turn of the century, the images of Stieglitz, Steichen to name but a few…many many european photographers, there images drip with emotion and thought…even if they were captured in a moment. This is such a stupid debate……snobbish almost. I guess all the patrons who were the wealthy and kept the artists in keep……still have a voice perhaps.
      The whole question, when based on my equally deep response to painted and photographic images………………….is pathetic really. When you know about the chemistry and the technology of the process, the breadth of photographic processes…………..and you elevate brush skills……………..its a bourgoise argument………and you know the world…….it takes generations to change. What is art anyway? They were debating this 100years ago..so whats changed……..watch this and tell me its not equal with the painting…………… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YhwYgdtphE

  8. Samzara December 11, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Photography lacking of depth and sense of touch? For God’s sake, just a couple of nights ago I was enchanted, bewitched, bemused, deeply moved by the images shown at the beginning of Terrence Malick’s “Days Of Heaven”: a set of intriguing photographs in sepia showing ordinary people captured in different moments of their “ordinary” lives. And I have said “intriguing”, because as I was appreciating the beauty of what was been presented before me, I couldn’t help but ask myself about the hidden truth behind the faces, the gestures, the smiles, en fin! the story untold, just like I did the first time that I saw “Duel after the Masquerade” by Jean-Léon Gérôme, for example, or any other Van Gogh’s or Rembrant’s work. So maybe is not a lack of depth what we’re discussing here, maybe what is been rejected is the usage of a mechanical device to create beauty. Maybe these criticts think that grabbing a camera and pressing the shutter is all it takes to take a good photograph. That anyone can do it. Well, I can’t do it, but I do appreciate those who can, and I will always consider them real artists.

  9. Jesse Briggs December 11, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Not all photography is “capturing.” Some photos are made. To deny that is simple, “vulgar” ignorance.

    But who cares about the approval or acceptance of those who won’t give it? Let them wallow in their blindness, while we paint with the best brush yet.

  10. Steve Deschenes December 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Fine art “We are” I believe in us …. we are just too young for now

  11. Mike Warth December 12, 2012 at 12:30 am #

    Art is truly subjective, the medium an artist chooses is personal, and the vision, execution, and technical skills one must master are similar to putting the pieces of a puzzle together. As an oil painter and photographer I struggle with my creative yen and yang existence. The two provide me with a synergy I would not have if I were simply one or the other. As I see it, photography is a medium, a technical and scientific art form exploiting light and shadow with only three codependent variables (shutter, ISO, and aperture). The critical “fine art” key to the photography argument is the photographer’s eye, his compositional skills, and desire to create something he envisions in his mind — but he must use real life as the canvas and paint. In essence, the camera is the tool, the artists is still in control and mastering his craft.

    I love painting in oils and I love creating with my camera. I never understood why critics love something or hate something, but I can honestly say this; if they are commenting on it, they must “feel” something. Many of them probably don’t understand it, or are trying to relate it to something they think they understand. I for one, don’t like any of the photographs in this particular post. The man with a tattoo looks like a photographer’s attempt at making a photo look like classical realism in oil. The couple in the living look like a family snapshot taken with a point and shoot…they are both boring and we’ve all seen it. I think the work found in National Geographic is far more “fine art” in relation to what photography can give the crusty old “art world” critics and their ancient establishment brethren.

    Traditional art such as oil paintings, etchings, drawings, etc have their place, and photography does as well. I strive to keep my paintings a bit “painterly” and avoid too much photo-realism in the final product. Moreover, I try to make my photography clean a pure, with the largest range of light and shadow I can get. In other words, I try to use the right tools for the product I am trying to make.

    Let the critics say what they will…those of us who ignore them and remain true to our craft, true to our artistic vision, shall remain real artists. Let the masses call our work “fine art” if they will, it is our duty to ourselves to be an artist.

  12. faisal December 12, 2012 at 5:26 am #

    Vulgar for you might not be Vulgar for someone else.

  13. Matt December 12, 2012 at 6:41 am #

    I still can’t believe the dollar amount Rhein II sold for.

  14. bradbell.tv December 12, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    The art world criticisms of photography quoted in the post seem to rely on the assumption that particular media are better at producing “images with weight of thought and feeling” than others. Historically, sculpture was considered the most elevated media – it’s 3D and life sized! – and painting was regarded as a step above putting on mascara. But while the battle for the one true medium has been raging for hundreds of years, it ends, for the moment with cinema, the undisputed champion of multi-channel communication. So the ‘ painting is the best medium’ angle amounts to nothing.

    The old art world then suggests that what’s unique about old media is it reveals the trace of the hand of the artist, which obviously makes the images much more emotive. Plus we can pile on lots of baggage about it being an actual trace of the painter, who himself is constructed as half celebrity, half god, and mostly mad. “Van Gogh actually touched this canvas (which is now a pseudo-religious relic, painted with sweat, blood, despair).” Meanwhile, in photography, there is no trace of the artist at all. But so what? We have Hipstamatic, so fuck you.

    I would argue Photography should not even try to be part of Art. It has tried in the past, which has led to things like fetishising the moment the shutter is clicked. In a common sense way, choosing the moment to capture is essential to photography, but in the ‘construction of the photographer as artist,’ it is wildly over-stated. There is also an undue focus on printing, as photography half-pretended mechanical reproduction didn’t exist. In short, photography has always tried to be something it’s not – and it should stop trying. Photography has never fully embraced the uniqueness of it’s medium and just *been* art on it’s own terms. Photographers may be artists, and photographs may be art, but as a historical discourse, Photography hasn’t ‘grown up’ and defined for itself the art of photography.

    Besides, at this point in history, Art is anything you put in a museum. Because context is everything. And increasingly, art is anything a hedge fund manager will buy. Because context is everything and Goldman Sachs rules the world. The art world of the museum and the professional painter is as dead as the rock star and EMI. We go through the motions, but these are dying worlds. Media has been democratised. Everyone is able to approach the world in an artful, creative and imaginative fashion. It sounds like techno-babble, but it is changing your world right now. Computer technology pushes the obsolescence of the art industry as much as the recording industry, Hollywood, newspapers, commercial TV and all the other media that converges on the digital network – the internet, ie. the medium that can simulate every medium; the meta-medium; the one true god.

  15. Jeff Cruz December 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    I was shooting a festival and a GWC (guy with camera) came up to me and started to dictate what I should shoot. I told him I was busy shooting what I wanted to shoot and that if he liked the shot so much he should go shoot it. He then proceeded to tell me that if he had my gear he could show me a thing or two on how to use it. I told him I could do the same with his gear, a Rebel and a kit lens. Nothing wrong with his gear, I was merely emphasizing it’s not only gear, it’s the eye of the photographer. Then he said, “I doubt that because I am an artist.”…….. that floored me. I told him I am an artist as well (I have works shown in galleries and I sell my fine art prints). Then he tried to explain that he’s a “REAL” artist and that he graduated from the local (I won’t name names) art school. I just walked away.

    Later on I looked at his website on Facebook (found out his name through a mutual acquaintance). They were the shittiest photographs I have ever seen. If he calls himself an artist then I don’t want to be one because I don’t want to be associated with the snobby artist.

    If someone wants to label me as an artist fine. If someone asks what I label myself as I say I make images that evoke emotion. I create emotion.

  16. David Noceti December 12, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    As someone that went to art school for animation and only came to photography by accident, I have to say that there is something about this discussion of art that most photographers simply don’t get. They’ve never labored over a piece for hours, days, or weeks on end just to finish it, toss it to the side, and then start all over. They haven’t done studies of a single hand over and over so that when it’s put into the final piece it’s as close to perfect as it can be. It’s a totally different beast. And while many photographers will say that it’s the rest of the art community that doesn’t get it, as someone that has been on both sides of that fence, I have to say that it’s the photography community that’s wrong on this one.

    • Chris December 15, 2012 at 9:28 am #

      Actually, photographers do that all the time.

      The typical workflow is to take as many photos as possible, then spend hours triaging them, then shortlisting them, then more hours preparing them for presentation.

      I have watched photographers sit for half an hour comparing two identical (to my eye) photographs, then select one, and cast away the other, because of the tiniest difference.

    • Tadeo December 16, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

      In spanish exists a popular proverv which states: De tu arte a mi arte, prefiero miarte.
      I sense you are judging by means of the technique and not by means of the results. stated ths way you can conclude that the more time you spend on a particular work the better it becomes, which is of course not true. you can work for years on a piece of crap or get inspired and finish a masterpiece on a matter of hours.

      If it moves your emotions and bears the message intended by the person who created it, why won´t you call it art?

      Aaaaaand of course there´s a lot of self-called “artists” who produce lots of crap on any “art” subdiscipline.

  17. Mike Moss December 13, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    Every picture my camera spits is art.

  18. Russell December 13, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Ansel Adams wasn’t an artist then? Sounds like some people don’t know what they are talking about.

    Also, a lot of these so called art critics are jumped up toffee nosed prats with the sensibilities of spoilt teenagers, Brian Sewell being a prime example.

  19. Chris December 15, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Anyone who has ever spent time with a true professional photographer, working in their medium, is aware that they are in the presence of an artist; someone who works every bit as hard as any brush artist.

    I am an artist, photographer, technologist and graphic designer, among other things. I don’t claim mastery in any of these disciplines. However, it certainly gives me a platform from which I can make some type of judgement.

    Photographers are artists. Like any artistic endeavour, you have masters, who can shape light, shadow and composition so deftly that it is breathtaking, and you have rank amateurs and pretenders, whose clumsy, malformed abominations cause actual retinal burns.

    You also have the issue of personal taste. Some folks will just never like, nor acknowledge, the artistic value os some work; simply because they don’t/won’t/can’t understand or like it.

    I don’t like cubist art. That doesn’t mean that I refuse to admit that it’s art. However, there are many, many critics who say that cubist art is an abomination, and should be removed from all museums.

    Another field that is truly under appreciated, is that of 3D rendered art. The amount of work involved in this can be staggering; easily dwarfing that lavished on an oil painting.

    This guy worked for over a year on this: http://radoxist.deviantart.com/art/Worth-enough-73247873

    As tools become more accessible to those with more vision than technological chops, the quality of all these mediums will increase exponentially. As schools and tradition form around them, they will become more and more refined.

    When any discipline appears, the tools tend to be used by the tool-makers, who don’t necessarily have the vision of an artist. As the tools mature, and become easier to use, and a school of knowledge aggregates around technique, people with vision start to use the medium.

    They may seem crude now, but so were the French cave paintings.

  20. Abelardo December 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    I agree with Mike Warth.

    There’s a kind of misunderstanding here. As cameras are just tools, like brushes to painting and chisels to sculpture, photography is just a medium to express anything you want to. Then you can be an artist and use any “artistic” (or not so) mediumm like photography. So is not about photography against any other arts forms because the most important thing in art are ideas, then you choose how you will communicate o develop those.

    If you focus the (sometimes endless) discussion on technical aspects, you lose the origin, the concept or ideas that cause your artwork.

  21. Isabel Maria December 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    There is something about the argument that isn’t clear yet. Who are these critics? Who made them critics? Art’s best critic is time. Part of the value of those paintings we all admire is their cultural and social context in the time they were made.
    Maybe, as photographers, we should forget about the critics and the question about wether what we do is art or not, and just keep at it. Who knows, perhaps in a couple of centuries when digital becomes obsolete we would be able to stand tall to these “critics” and say: I told you so.

  22. Michael Rasmussen (@MichaelRpdx) December 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

    As vulgar as Manet’s Olympia?

  23. Charlie....bored at work December 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Kind of interesting read. Many people still think you are capturing reality exactly when taking a picture and a good photo is taken easily by pressing a button. I imagine some art critics are just as ignorant about photography as most people. But I am guilty about being ignorant about many things which do not interest me. So I am not judging. But from my reading of art history it is my understanding that art critics can be like that with new art.

    Now I think everyone should just go out and create and forget what the critics say……..Now go do that voodoo that you do so well!

  24. cateyecreations December 20, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Very Nice and beautiful Post…

  25. Daniel kappelle December 22, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Interesting post, I would say that we don’t have to compare photography to painting. Painting is one branch of art and photography is another. The whole thing about art is that it can be anything, isn’t that right? Music is art, and so is wrapping Pont Neuf. So I would definitely say that photography can be art. But indeed, I don’t really care what some might say, I enjoy photography as an art form anyway :)

  26. katalog December 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Superb post, I think we have to look on it like Daniel says – Art can be anything!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Vulgar Photographer --- trespassing on sacred ground of fine art institutions - the brush vs the lens | Chase Jarvis Blog | Steve Troletti Photography and Environmental News - December 12, 2012

    [...] on blog.chasejarvis.com Share This Page: This entry was posted in News and tagged Draft, maire, Mayor, Montreal, [...]

Leave a Reply

Highslide for Wordpress Plugin