Is any art photography simply rubbish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
linux99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,151
Re: Alfredo Garcia. Sells through the Saatchi Galley.

knickerhawk wrote:

linux99 wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Rambow wrote:

Klaus dk wrote:

The more you study, the more you realize how little you know.

Exactly. And this is why people go to college. Not art college, don't know what they do over there these days.

IMHO, art is not good or bad, but it can appeal to you or challenge you on many different levels, dismissing it as rubbish is to deny yourself the opportunity of developing your world view.

If i take a picture of a blotch or a trash can and say they represent "human choices" is that art? Why, because i say so? Is pop art art because it contains the word "art"?

Generally speaking art died somewhere after the beginning of the 20th century. For any domain there is a beginning, an apex, and a decline. For the last century we have been living the decline of arts.

I have a friend who works in a museum. She sent me pictures. You want art? This is art:

And now there's this:

Don't need my degrees to tell which is which on this one, ask any 12 year old. Coincidently, the same 12 year old could have been the artist behind the second example. I've seen better stuff spray painted on walls. Hey, graffiti is real art!

So just to make it clear, if a 12 year old can reproduce a "work of art" by randomly doodling with a brush on canvas for 20 minutes, the resulting piece and the one it copies are not art, but at least the kid has an excuse.

Who painted your second example ? Certainly not a 12-year-old. Twelve year olds paint as realistically as they can.

Alfredo Garcia. Sells through the Saatchi Galley. This picture sold for $1,250 US.

I actually quite like his work: https://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/a/alfredo90640/ - he's relatively prolific and I like the colors and energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI9GELTU6bA&t=18s

It's sad to find in 2021 that there are still people who hate non-figurative paintings on principle.

Don Cox

I have to disagree with you there. Although it's dangerous to judge art based on a small JPEG, I'd still have to say that this work looks pointless and derivative. Why the Warholesque Marilyn Monroe stencil? What meaning does that bring to the work? It just looks like a quickly produced wannabe kind of piece and that's reflected in the price of the work.

Compare it to the work of Julie Mehetru, who now has a major retrospective at the Whitney (I can hardly wait to see the show. I love her work, and it will be my first trip to a museum in over a year.) If you put that Garcia painting next to one of Mehetru's, despite the somewhat similar style, the difference in execution, intentionality and overall quality would leap out at you. For instance (from the Whitney show):

Agreed. Different league entirely.

Most of her current works start out as photos. It's well worth reading up on her technique and why she embeds those photos.

There is a big difference between "Art" and "Good Art". But to say that something is infantile and thus not worthy of the label at all (as did the person who first introduced the picture under discussion) seems to be entirely wrong

How do you feel about the work of someone like Henry Darger? Who has almost no technical merit whatsoever to his craft skills but still produced compelling art?

 linux99's gear list:linux99's gear list
Sigma DP2x Canon PowerShot S100 Sigma DP3 Merrill Nikon Coolpix A Fujifilm X100T +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow