9 / Everything is Art !?

I had this email exchange with a young photographer who put up a new website. She had a lot of arty out-of-focus/blurry pictures on her site, which I criticized her for … I advised her to be more commercial
  

I respect what you're saying about the out-of-focus stuff, I think it might be a generational thing perhaps? My intention is to capture an emotion or a feeling about a place or its colour. It's not about making a record or document with the utmost detail … and also, commercial work is not something I'm focusing on right now. Don't worry about it, do what you like, that's your prerogative and keep changing your personal work … but remember: Out-of-focus-day-dreamy type of work is school/student type of stuff; you're in the real world now and you may have to look at more sophisticated ways of expressing this …  (an emotion or a feeling about a place or its colour.) 

She responded saying,  "some of Annie Leibovitz's most beautiful personal work is also blurred, out of focus …there's also Gerhard Richter, Bill Henson and Uta Barth (whose work you’ll probably hate), who are successful artists/photographers.”  

You're right,Bill Henson is a very good example of blurry-out-of-focus-uncommercial stuff that is extremelysuccessful (I have to say, I can't stand his work and, furthermore, I am green with envy at his success.) I didn't know Uta Barth  … but your assumption is right (though I don't hate any art, not even pretend-art.)

Some of Annie Leibovitz's most beautiful personal work is also blurred, out of focus … you know, I think it is o.k. to use successful, arty photographers as guides (and if they're commercially successful, it's probably a good idea to emulate them). But when you cite great photographers who no doubt have mastered the craft, as having produced out-of-focus/blurry photographs, you have to be careful - just because someone who knows the rules very well and breaks them to great effect, does that mean anybody can go and point at that very small out-of-focus/blurry aspect of a limited (probably not even typical) selection of their work and thus justify doing the same?

My favourite photographer of all time is Edward Steichen. When he visited Europe and meetings were set up with other photographers, he requested, "don't get me together with art-photographers." Now, he's one of the greatest art-photographers ever, but he made the point that you have to apply your art to assignments.

Surely it would be silly to argue against a certain photographic style, any style; even if it is out-of-focus pictures (one of my favourite quotes in photography is by Cartier Bresson - in an interview with Helmut Newton, who gently pointed out that some of his recent photos were blurry - "Oh, you know, I think sharpness in photos is so bourgeois.") But when I say that style of photography … is unsophisticated then I mean you can put a style of play with motion and depth of field to good use, if it serves a purpose. That's what I mean (and, I think, Steichen did.) 

I believe there is a fine line between artful and trivial (Bill Henson is unaware of it, in my opinion … but I'm quite alone here, since his work is so celebrated.) Like Steichen, I am of the opinion that photography as 'Art' for art's-sake is a waste of time … it often is much too self-indulgent for me (I don't have much time for artists who use photography as a medium, produce tedious, incompetent work and excuse it as 'Art'.) 

In Germany in the '70th we had a photographer, Charles Wilp, a prolific advertising photographer and contemporary of (and co-creator with) Joseph Beuys, who indulged himself by producing a shit (literary) on a door step, photographed it (out of focus, if I remember right), proclaimed it 'Art', hung the picture and sold a heap of them - I have little more than contempt for that angle on art. (Joseph Beuys, artist and art professor at the time, is famous for proclaiming that 'everything is art'). 

That is why I often don't like modern art (a trip to the MCA may only take me ten minutes). The point is, you can produce successful modern art, that makes you a bundle, and at the same time is entirely inconsequential; and you'd probably laugh about 'inconsequential', 'tedious', 'trivial', 'unsophisticated', 'incompetent', 'self-indulgent' all the way to the bank.

It is good to have an idea - as an artist - where you stand in respect of, on the one hand, your intentions with your work and on the other hand, the impact of your work as it is experienced through the observer's eyes (because, remember, that is where art happens, within the observer, not in the art-work); there may exist a great discrepancy. For me this issue is clear (I take my cue from Rauschenberg, of all artists, who said "The artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history") … I want to produce work that in 100 years serves the purpose of helping people to understand the time and place I lived in; for that reason (most of) my pictures will be (largely) in focus (but, as you can see in my sample, not all.)


Of course you can argue that it doesn’t matter what an art-work depicts - it can even be an out-of-focus photograph, depicting nothing - as long as it moves someone, and thus is art to them. But then you enter Joseph Beuys territory: “Everything is art” and in reality you’re moving away from art into a different realm. Say you’re lying under a tree and as you watch a leaf meandering to the ground you experience satori (Zen enlightenment), which is a similar encounter to experiencing art (where it explains life to you). But that is not art - we are not talking about art anymore, but something else (subject of a different discussion.) 

There is an aspect of art that has to do with artistry and mastery of a craft … and that is the crux of my argument. If it is removed from artistry then even a shit on a doorstep may be considered art (because someone, somewhere in the world, at some time will be moved by it) (especially if they step on it.) But for me it always will remain a pile of shit. So, yes, any art-work can potentially be considered art; but by virtue of my definition some artistry, a certain quality and minimal quantity of craftsmanship has to be involved. Again, this is where I can’t stand Henson’s work. For a start, any photograph that needs to be blown up to three meters for impact, probably is no good to begin with; and if you need to cut up your pictures and stick the bits together again for effect, chances are your photograph is lousy, as it needs ‘something’ to lift it and create interest. I live in a different world.

So, this is where I'm at. We're probably coming from opposite ends of the art-spectrum and it's quite likely that you totally disagree with me - and that's fine, of course; that's why I said before: "Don't worry about it, do what you like, that's your prerogative."hopefully I will progress from that terrible art school type of thing very soon ... careful, don't do yourself any harm; if to express yourself is what's most important (if not all-important) to you about your photography (and that is probably what you learn at art school … though I wouldn't know, I've never been to one), that's cool; but you will come across the opinion that it is self-indulgent. Of course you'd be just one of many modern artists to say, 'so what', 'tell someone who cares', 'whatever.'

In case you like my contradictions, here's another one: I think Gerhard Richter's picture (in the AGNSW) of that woman coming down the stairs (totally out of focus) is compelling; in fact I have a fair few 'totally out of focus' works myself … so there. (Remember: The truth about the truth is that the opposite is true too.) On another note, I have a little anecdote about Richter: in the 70th I once went to our local art gallery in Essen (where I grew up - close to Düsseldorf, where Richter worked.) His paintings were a backdrop to a modern jazz concert by a German drummer, Klaus Weiss, who had a whole lot of percussionists with him … and a second drum kit on the stage. When the music started, the second drummer walked on … Charlie Watts (from the Rolling Stones); I used to play in a Stones cover-band, on drums … I nearly fainted! Great concert; boring paintings.