I like Rineke Djikstra

wrote:

wrote:
Because I have a sense of humour. And it IS crap.
--
Paul

Man. The more you say it's crap the more you show ignorance, stop it

Call me ignorant too. I think they are woeful. You said yourself,
quite early in this thread:
"..you can recreate this shot on any English afternoon within minutes
perhaps.."
"..nevermind that the picture looks like it was shot with a disposable
point and shoot.."

Don't those words tell *you* something?

Sadly a significant amount of art is an accident. Sometimes it has
nothing to do with quality images - a series of blurred/mangled rubbish
can often become 'art'. Why? Why NOT? Art is all about desirability.
Not about being technically, or even artistically good. And it can
also be about luck (or luck-by-design - if you happen to know an art
gallery curator/collector/raconteur, pretty well *anything* can be made
into a desirable collection...)

And if you *want* drab/boring/fuzzy/technically incompetent images for
effect/mood (and they *can* be very effective, don't get me wrong -
I'll Holga with the best of 'em!) - why not use *exactly* that type of
image, and call them art?

Is there anything wrong with that? Nope.

Is there anything wrong with people like Paul (and me) calling it
rubbish? Nope.

Should images like these be promoted as something to aspire to? (grin)

Why don't *you* answer that, casio? - and tell us how *you* would go
about it. Or if you don't ewant to, why not exactly? You've already
indicated that it should be easy to take similar shots... so.... ???

It's indisputable that these pictures have a tremendous
amount of art.
On what basis precisely? That they are in a *few* museums/collections?
That they sell for a lot of money? They are pretty bad/sad criteria
in my opinion, so I'm hoping you have other reasons.

I think a much better test for art is that the object/image invokes
emotion in a powerful way... For me, these don't even come close to
doing so.

They do me. The emotion is amazement that anybody would actually pay good
money for such crap. And awe for Rineke's abilities as a con woman. And
disgust with myself for not thinking of so obvious a scam.

Not the "I'm 23 and I say I'm an artist so I do whatever
I want and what I call art is art"
So you are saying that doesn't happen? Or just *here*..?

no, but the "I studied the content
of hundreds and hundreds of years of art over some decades of my life
and it was a deep and very, very disciplined studying".
Then can you briefly summarise your conclusions for us about what makes
a fine art piece, or did you mean *Rineke* did that (and that ergo we
must accept that whatever she does is art to the finest degree)..?

A friend of mine studied the content of hundreds and hundreds of years of
art over some decades of her life, even ran a major museum for a while, and
she does not even pretend that that gives her the ability to _create_ art.

Signed,

The Devil's Avocado... (O;

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article . com,
"Bill" wrote:


That sounds like a must have DVD. Daniel Seraphine was on drums for
that Chicago song. Please don't ask how I remember that obscure piece
of trivia.

Yes, it's a good DVD (Disraeli Gears by Cream). Not only do you get the
songs, but you get the history of how they did each one with interviews
from the past and recently with Cream and others who know them.

-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own) REMOVE THIS to email me.