Visit to Art Amsterdam and a Stedelijk-in-de-Stad exhibition.
At Art Amsterdam, formally KunstRai, photography was well represented. One presentation was a must see for me : http://www.stedelijkindestad.nl/pages/index_en | Stedelijk Museum‘s “Off the Record – Municipal Art Acquisitions 2009”. Few months ago I read with great interest the call from guest curator Hans Aarsman to ALL phtotographers to submit work (this year the theme was photography/video) that came about without an artistic focus but by chance, coincidence or for the sake of documenting. (Hans Aarsman was inspired by coincidental discoveries in science and art…) Thus we had a typical Aarsman statement : defining ‘vernacular photography’ as art too. Indeed the Stedelijk Museum bought works from professionals as well as from amateurs. And yes, I can agree -partially- with this.
Of course that started quite a debate. The discussion is again about art and photography. What is it about? More in Dutch on photoq.
In Parool’s special art edition paper I read the Aarsman quote “Vijf beelden maken, dat is schilderij spelen”. In English something like : “To limit photography (a medium to reproduce) to five prints, is playing painting/painter”.
06.06.09 I just read the lastest reactions on Photoq and the art-discussion and had to think of “Tussen Kunst en Kitsch” / “Between art and ‘kitsch'” and it’s definition. I heard it explained recently as follows : “Kunst prikkelt de geest en Kitsch prikkelt het oog” / (something like) : art effects/stimulates the brain and ‘kitsch’ effects the eye. Also I had to think of something I read in an interview with Martin Parr : “photography is low and high culture all in one and all photography is interconnected”. And then I got back to the definition of art by Any Warhol. The only definition for me that comprises all : “ART IS WHAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH”.
=>The diversity and growth of photography vs the not recording of it’s evolution and not formed new theories<=
Off the record, I’m thinking that photography is getting too diffused and sometimes pretty FUCKED UP.
Polemic when it comes to profs vs micro stock photographer vs citizens photojournalists, digital “retouch” and manipulation, art and cheap art, copyright issues, portrait right (privacy vs street) issues, artist rights, creative commons, photography vs imaging, photographers vs artists, photographers vs actors and stakeholders, all the photographic experts, collectioneurs and investors, and the supply business / tech industry, legal business, marketing, stock photos business and art business… Yes, what is photography about? WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY IT?