Bluejake

Don't look at me, I was #5.

there is a sickening irony around this post: i criticize gursky for his place in the star system, just as i try to whore myself into the top 100 of photologs.net. i make no excuses for my behavior.

...well I hesitated to post this yesterday, but does anyone else notice the irony of shilling for votes (deserved!) in the photoblog top 100 while decrying the effect that the gods-of-photography-cultism has on photography and art?

Yes its not the same thing, however, it illustrates how natural it is to elevate some, inevitably at the expense of others.

And all arenas of life have gods-Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Ali, Einstein, Picasso... and no one who labours in the shadow of these gods likes them when they are around. Great when they are dead though and in the coffee table book.
Steichen, another (self-professed) god of photography was very instrumental in bringing photography into the acceptance of the art world.
We also forget that as recently as the 70's photography of any sort did not fetch anything at auction. The market was extremely small. You could argue that the effect of the 'gods of photography' complex has increased all sale prices of photography in galleries. (I'm sorry that sounds like Reaganomics)
So I don't agree that creating gods is bad for photography/photographers. It is inevitable. Photography has always existed at the intersection of art and commerce, that is one of the reasons why it is so relevant an art for for the 20th century.

i guess my politics and my natural inclinations run against exlusionary policies- or at least, policies that exclude me.

or maybe it's something about fairness- with photoblogs and text blogs, all you have to do to be popular is produce good content, every day, for a couple of years. anyone can do it- you hear complaints about power laws and an a-list, but if you look closely, the blogs that are popular change from year to year. this offers an incentive for people to build new sites, and produce new content, which benefits all of us.

the gallery system offers no such incentives- there are a tiny number of positions available in galleries, a waiting list of ten thousand art school grads waiting outside, etc. some would say that we don't need photographers or artists who are doing it for the fame- you want people who do it for the pure love of photography. now, i have a pure love for photography- but that doesn't mean fame is irrelevant to me. look at picasso- he was a great artist and the biggest fame whore of his generation.

I think sometimes peddling yourself makes a big difference in your popularity. Some win the popularity position purely on merit alone but many IMHO win their popularity because they know how to promote themselves.

I was at the opening of that show when I was in NYC last month. It was the first time I'd seen Gursky's work in person. The detail is so amazing (especially in the photo of the beach).

Talent is only one component of success as an artist.
Fairness does not exist in the art world, nor in the world for that matter.
All evolutionary systems are exclusionary.
If 'anyone' can do something special, it is not really special.
Photography might be one of the most democratic arts, but that is not the same as saying that the art world is democratic.

But yes, we have lost much of what you are striving for, that sense of the 19th century "Amateur" who practiced art out of love for it, and was respected very highly. Our culture does not recognize nor reward such pure ideals.

Bluejake,

These photos are very Thomas Struth.

cheers,
Thomas

Aren't all artist amateurs? After all, talent is just a subjective personal appraisal of your ability. Through the centuries artist are rarely respected in their lifetime. For every Michangelo, DaVinci, Lautrec, Picasso there are 10,000's whose work never saw the light of day. Who worked solely for their vision and were faithful to it. Often scorned or thought of as insane, many sufferd. If they were lucky some one else shared or appreciated that vision. Maybe that's what's been removed, the pain and suffering....I got to stop watching Moulin Rouge.

Andreas Gursky's work is amazing. I fell in love with his photos when I saw his work at MoMA back in 2001. I am pissed because I missed his recent work at Matthew Marks, ugh. btw - I like your photos too, thanks for sharing.