Wednesday, April 29, 2020

The Artist You Hate

It occurred to me, as I was noodling on something or other, that everyone who thinks about art seems to have a little list of Important Names that they hate.

My list isn't even little, it's an enormous sprawling thing, but if you pay attention you'll find that this guy can't stand Alec Soth but loves Michael Ashkin, while that other guy is exactly reversed. Sometimes it's nuanced, I suppose, perhaps the first guy "gets" Soth, but simply doesn't like what he has to say, but often it seems to be just Soth's photos are just bullshit about nothing, but my guy's photos are awesome. Someone looking from the outside might well propose a pox on all their houses because, holy cow.

The liking tends to be pretty vague, too. In one discussion from a year or two back, a fellow proposed to me that Soth and some others had adopted the look of the snapshot, but within that aesthetic made things that end up being very different. Not to put too fine of a point on it, I don't follow. It's not clear that my correspondent was capable of further elucidating the "very different" elements, and I certainly don't see them. All the snapshot-aesthetic people seem to be to be taking snapshots (which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

Certainly there are photos made by Sally Mann which, taken in isolation, look like a bunch of nothing. I can do a little better, I think, than no, they're something very different in the way of explaining why I like them, but it might come out sounding to you like mystification. Even if I can, this is not really an indication that Ashkin's fans are all wet, maybe they're just not very articulate.

Anyways. As previously noted in these pages ad nauseum we evaluate Art both on the basis of properties inherent in the piece, but also on the basis of social and contextual cues.

Jörg Colberg likes Michael Schmidt's pictures of cement, I like Sally Mann's pictures of underbrush and grass, and someone apparently likes Alec Soth's pictures of drowned bedframes.

Each of us is, in some sense, inside the artist's world. We see the interconnections that give these things meaning beyond the contents of the frame.

The insight here is that in order to make someone like your pictures, you don't want to get into their world, you want them to enter yours.

5 comments:

  1. I'd not heard of Michael Ashkin. The good news is: you can unsee it.

    Is "Brad Feuerhelm" a pseudonym for one Grim Grimsby of Grumbledore?

    Asking for a friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brad may have outdone himself recently, describing "Bleak House" as "Dickensian"

      Delete
    2. I feel there ought to be a mandatory safety warning that goes with his new book

      Delete
  2. Apropos Brad Fire Helmet, what is your take on his 2019 oeuvre "Dein Kampf"?
    Some cheesy grainy snapshots of Berlin, coupled with the kind of snapshot I regularly make winding on the first two frames of a new 35mm film.
    What IS it about this book I so despise??
    Can't quite put my size 9 on it.
    Regards,
    David

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like so much else in the MACK catalog, it strikes me as a random smattering of rubbish stuck glumly to pages.

      I am pretty sure that Brad and Michael worked hard at it, and think it's somehow "right" but to an outside observer there's nothing there. Does it mean something profound in Brad's head? Probably.

      Could he explain it? Of course not. I don't think, though, that he could coherently tell us what he had for lunch, so perhaps that's not a good metric.

      I do not think that Brad and MACK are consciously scamming us, but I do think they may be involved in a shared hallucination.

      Delete