Excellent idea. While I liked Elkins collection of essays on Art Criticism, I think he really struggles to understand the internet in any form. His thought that nobody reads art criticism doesn't seem to extend as far as blogs or various web-based journals.. God knows what he makes of net.art?
M On 21 Aug 2011, at 15:18, Michael Szpakowski wrote: > Hi > If you make still images of any sort with the intention of making art and > post them to Flickr, > please join the new Flickr group: Bollocks to James Elkins. > http://www.flickr.com/groups/bollocks_to_james_elkins/ > and add a single image... > I'm pasting the rationale ( which is also on the group page) below. > If you don't use Flickr but see what I'm on about consider joining and > posting an image.... > cheers > michael > PS if it takes off I'd like to think about organising a physical show of the > same name, no promises of course, lets see what happens... > > ***** > In his new book on photography (‘What Photography Is’, London and New York > 2011 ISBN 978-0-415-99569-6) James Elkins, a writer always worth reading and > to some extent an art world iconoclast (though at every critical instant > perhaps a little less so that he imagines himself to be) gives vent to a > magisterial rant about those who post on Flickr, which is characterised by > both a sad lack of imagination and an unpleasant vein of snobbery. > > It climaxes: > "If you are active on Flickr, if you read popular photography magazines, if > you enjoy National Geographic, if you use Photoshop to create effects, then > this is a critique of your work. It may not seem pertinent, buried as it is > in the middle of a book on many other things, but this is what a critique of > your work looks like." > I particularly relish the idea that anyone who chooses to use Flickr or > Photoshop, merely by that choice, is not only cast out from the > photographic/art world elect but is implicitly also rendered incapable of > recognising the majestic subtleties of Elkin’s thought without some nose > rubbing... Remember, just so you know, "this is what a critique of your work > looks like." > > The banality of a criterion that is solely based upon the use or otherwise of > a technique or channel (a bureaucrat’s delight: "Photoshop!? Tick the box > here: not art!") won’t be lost on anyone with a little bit of wit, academic > or no, even we plebeians, above whom Elkins floats , Zeppelin-like, in such > majestic and Olympian disdain. > > The criteria for rejecting a putative work of art cannot be solely how it is > made and whether any technique employed has at any time been clichéd or > abused. Such shortcuts are no substitutes for extended and fearless looking, > thinking and argument. The mark of artistic innovation is often precisely > that it elevates the previously unnoticed or despised technique, format or > subject. > In the Goldberg Variations, after some of the most sublime and intellectually > demanding contrapuntal writing ever, Bach finishes with what? - A drinking > song. > > But there’s more to it. Elkins doesn’t really believe that the ignorant > Photoshoppers &c will really be reading his book and hence being directly > addressed by him. The diatribe and its climactic paragraph are a nod and a > wink to those on the inside, an invitation to join in a sneer at the > intellectually unwashed. > > What is also manifested is a fear of pollution by rubbing shoulders too > closely with those non-insider masses. Despite Elkin’s brave words about the > breadth of his address to photography (and of course, implicitly, the signal > failure of anyone else to see why this matters or to do likewise effectively) > there are places he fears to tread. In the book he coldly contemplates, at > length, the foulest images of execution by torture but runs away from the > snapshot and the network. > > Those of sterner stuff, who consider themselves to be making art and who use > Flickr as a conduit for that work are invited to join this group and post one > single example of their work. (You may replace/rotate but only one at any one > time). Photoshoppers and fans of National Geographic alike are welcome as is > anyone who photographs with the intention of making art and who feels that > the networked environment of Flickr is a useful place to post and share their > work. > > The only criterion is, I repeat, ‘Do you consider yourself, in any fashion, > to be attempting works of photographic art?’ If so, post one here and join us > in saying, collectively, ‘Bollocks to James Elkins!’. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
