I think he's often an interesting writer although he's better at posing
questions dramatically than he is at actually answering them and, as I say in
my group preamble, he's less of an iconoclast than he'd like (and like us) to
think.
The sheer arrogance of this quote did rather take my breath away.
Although the group name satisfies my childish sense of humour ( when I log in
to Flickr I get a cheery "You have been a member of Bollocks to James Elkins
since..." which cheers me beyond reason), it's more an opportunity to try and
assemble a set of what folk consider to be their best shot at making still
image art/photography in a networked environment. If there are people who don't
do that already I'm really hoping some will rise to it and make something
wonderful...
I'd like to demonstrate concretely how wrong he is...
warmest wishes
michael
From: Mark Hancock <[email protected]>
To: Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>; NetBehaviour for networked
distributed creativity <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Bollocks to James Elkins
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
