Sunday, October 18, 2009

Amy Stein

Amy Stein is an art photographer and has a blog on contemporary art photography. One particular entry is important to note, her blog about Pieter Hugo's work. Pieter Hugo apparently stages these really charged images to photograph. The talk about the work have been very lively. Amy Stein's homepage has some good examples of her work. I enjoyed some of the work, but some of the images were not very subtle. And when I say subtle, I mean chainsaw territory. My brother and I were talking about what is art. He said if an image has one reading then it is propaganda and not art. I would argue that no image, show, or writing can truly have just one reading. Now I think some things can have easy reads with a few sub-plots. Artists always have a political part as all people have this part, so some of that will reflect in the work. I guess the question is, how much politics is to much before the work becomes propaganda and not art? Personally I think propaganda is too loaded of a word to be useful. I don't think the vast majority of artists go out with the intent to completely beat you over the head with an ideology. So let me change that to; how much politics is to much before the work becomes an illustration of an idea and not art?


Caio Fernandes said...

first of all ... thank you for this link , and for all i have visited because of you . but this one is really good .

i try to do not mix art and politic or not even certain kinds of personal concepts about the "pratical" every day life .
even i believe that to creat , doesn't matter what , is a political atitude alread .
but ( and here comes my radical side ) i am totaly against art and politic toguether , in any situation . and anything that makes a concept , anyone , gets more important that the aesthetic value , isn't art any more . is just an illustration of an idea . a poor idea . because good , autentic ideas and concepts don't need to be illustrated .

well... this is it for today . hahahh!!
once again : thank you for your blog and your tips .
just one thing ...
why aren't you showing your works any more ? is it because of that story of your work have been used without your permission ?

see you !! have a great week !!

SisterK. said...

Wow, Caio Fernandes said much better what I was going to attempt to say.

Therefore, let me say--I agree with what he said.

I dunno. Call me idealistic, but I think artwork that remains on the level of political commentary is rather base. As Fernandes said, the aesthetic value should remain center stage.

I think art should already contain commentary. I think its part of the nature of art. But I think what makes art so interesting and unique is the strive towards aesthetic value. Dare I say, there's something noble in it. Because it is an experiment in values and judgments... But not one that screams at you (at least, in my opinion, it shouldn't); rather, lulls you into contemplation... It should be Nietzsche's woman, who is alluring and tempting--desirable, not only for the beauty, but for her secrets that you are invited to discover.

Todd Camplin said...

Politics is part of a person's makeup. I don't mean left or right here, I mean politics in more of a Classical sense. Anytime a group of people are considered, politics plays a role. So, if a person paints a picture or makes a drawing, politics will take either a heavy or light role in the making of that object. I'm not a fan of overtly political images, however, overtly political art has had its place in the art cannon. Think of all those heroic paintings of Napoleon by David. Very political paintings for its time, the weight of the politics has lessened with time, but David's paintings are art.