I scan Sartorialist looking for images that pop, for me. My take was she is a street artist of some kind. Thin, yes, but well turned out. Very pretty, beautifully dressed, well-coiffed. But what struck me was the photog capturing her in such an interesting, graceful, artistic pose. For me, this is a frameable photograph.
As for the tatt, they are a scourge. If I were ruler of the universe tattoos on women would require pre-tattoo counseling. Funny thing is, it kinda works in this particular photo.
And that's the other thing. WTF can't people just use temporary tatts? Like removable jewelry. Get a clue millennials, or whatever designation you are.
Not sure a bag of pictures of yourself makes it as "street art."
She herself is the street art, carrying a picture on her body and creating a picture with her body, while displaying other pictures (of herself?)in a box outside her body. All of which prompted a bigger electronic display of these three components pictured together with comments coming in from all over the globe.
First...the drawings are ALL of herself, right down to the tattoo on her left arm. I enlarged the photo with original quality resolution and looked at each drawing...all her, from the tat to the hair etc.
Second....I plainly am not hip enough to understand street art today, if just showing up as yourself and squatting on a stoop stone with an open box of sketches of yourself qualifies.
Street Art used to mean, to me, works by artists such as Tyree Guyton and the Heidelberg Street Art Project. Also the various musicians who entertain in open air produce markets, and the sketch artists who work there as well. I am fascinated by the "3D" work on sidewalks of artists such as Nikolaj Arndt and Edgar Müller. An example of Arndt's work is here. Here is an example of Guyton's work.
Sorry, making yourself the sole object and asserting just seeing you is "art" is beyond my comprehension...just like Yoko Ono. Me...I'd rather find a "Banksy" on a slab I could take home.
One more thing...Deborah's remark the photograph "snapped" for her is the reason it drew all the attention. As Deborah said, it is a frame worthy piece of work. I agree, the photo is that, but not the scene per se. It is a very well done photograph, well posed and well framed.
I don't see how one gal doing self-portraits is such a problem. Or is not art.
Okay, I'm a sucker, and I'll bite: explain to me how that girl is art per se. Not the photo, the girl and her stuff. Compare to, say, Diego Rivera's murals in the Detroit Institute of Art. Or any of the artists I cited earlier...all acknowledged street artists.
It is not a problem. It is also not "art" in any conventional sense of the term. At most it is a narcissistic display. As I cited before, it is along the lines of Yoko Ono "art"...YMMV.
Deborah...on your original comment, that the photograph popped for you or whatever, I agree. Photography has been my hobby since age 7 and my first foray in to film stills and development chemicals in a bathroom. That IS a good photograph, not Alfred Eisenstaedt level, but personal image art none-the-less.
Why does my opinion that the image subject itself is not art, but the photo is art, cause consternation?
Do you not see the difference between what I linked and what is portrayed in the photo?
Deborah...one more thing (I just finished watching "The Five") what make a photograph art to me is the fundamentals demonstrated by John Shaw, whose first book ever (out of print and hard to find now) explain "light" as no one ever else has done so well for the ordinary photographer. If you are interested I will try to find a used edition for you. The ultimate photogrpahic artist for the kind of imagery that the girl exhibits is Alfred Eisenstadt ...none better ever.
Exceptions drawn from war, which have immense emotional impact on me, would be Larry Burrows and Eddie Adams
Photographs have impact, and the image of the girl meets that criteria. The image, not the girl herself.
Post worthy comments, Aridog, the kind that would make a good guest post, a follow-up on the Street Art question prompted by the original "Does this Work? question posed.
Art not only invites, it instructs, connects, celebrates and raises questions. As do blogs!
I get that you're all about the lighting, composition, and positioning of her limbs. I don't quite get you finding stylized self-portraiture not art, even if you don't care for it.
High art, of course not. But one of the tools available to the street artist, in her case vendor, is to sell yourself, give people an emotional connection as a reason to buy your wares. From what I can tell, they are competent and stylized. Why rip on her?
But my biggest problem with what you said is, if I read you correctly, she sees only portraits of herself as art. You do not know that. She could be an art student putting herself through school, and has found this type of thing sells well. She may be exploring different techniques with a convenient model, herself in the mirror.
Okay, point taken, she may be a student or otherwise struggling artist herself. I don't think I said she (the girl) only sees sketches of herself as art....only that that appeared to be all she had in the open case. I perhaps made a mistake in presuming (a fault), with some help from others here(?), that her mere presence was "street art." Her images of herself may be sketches, or they may be photo-shopped reductions of detail...it really doesn't matter.
Your point that she is likely "vending" her wares, e.g., selling them to passers by, tends to make her presence less street art that street sales....which is fine by me. The focus then is on the work, not the presence...and I think I missed that. I'm touchy on the subject or what is "art" because I know several really fine artists, with paint, pen, pencil, and camera. It is a tough regimen. One or more of them post right here regularly. My appreciation of their work is equivalent to envy. What else can I admit?
One of the former masthead folk here is a very v-e-r-y good artist with wide knowledge of both means and methods. I envy that. Really. He has a "hand" that can paint a copy of an artifact in a museum, with perfect color rendition (Egyptian Blue...one of the very oldest) that catches my eye so well that I asked for a second edition original and he did it perfectly. I am a cynic and tough dismissive critic, but what he provided to me was exactly what I wanted. Not only that but he explained to me how the particular hue was created 3500 years ago and today.
Full disclosure: I tried my hand at sketching and oil & water color painting long long (teens and 20's) ago and found I lacked that spark to create a fresh image. I'm better with a camera, but even then I lack the "touch" of my best friend in Montana, and a couple other professionals there as well, and many many others who can capture moments in light that I can see but not deliver. In short: if I envy the work it is art to me. I know all the techniques...but that is a far cry from delivering it. Of my photos, maybe 1 in 1000 is noteworthy, while, a real camera artist can produce at least 25 of 1000. And do so without all the "hue intensity" manipulation done by the noted hack amateur(s) on the site not to be mentioned (there really should be a law denying ultra wide angle lenses to schmucks, as well as any software plug-ins by Kodak :-)
Another point I always notice...the always taught photographic and sketch/paint/ink formula of river between two massifs grind me...and those artists who can deliver an image with some variation impress me...why? Because I can do a very good job following the formula...it is mundane to the nth degree.
Tell me the next time you see a "starving artist" sale of paintings that doesn't have a river in the center and massifs of whatever on the sides. Groan.
Sure, that's the de rigueur layout...which is what makes it boring.
BTW: If you have never been to Detroit and the Detroit Institute of Art (a museum) do so soon...it may vanish as the city goes through its bankruptcy. It will be a shame if it goes away in the courts...out side of other major cities,( SF, NYC, Chicago, et al) it is one of the finest around anywhere. The Diego Rivera mural alone is worth the trip....it takes at least a day to fully "see" it. I've spent months there just looking at structures and images.
If you ever come to see the DIA, let me know, Judi and I would be very happy to be hosts, as would my daughter who lives near the museum.
There is magic in art. Have I absolve myself on this thread? You already know I am a cranky old dude....but I appreciate your posts that provoke comments beyond the huzzah level. :-)
Since I want to come to Detroit for a ballgame, I should see the museum also.
Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I could not put you out like that, but I'd love for you both to join me on the tour. Speaking of which, I need to make it back to D.C. to see the National Gallery for more than the hour my daughter and I saw it last summer. I want to stay overnight so I can really go through the whole thing. Or at least a few sections thoroughly. If my camera hadn't been out of charge I would have captured the delightful image of a passel of Chinese teens sitting on a large bench, all looking at their cell phones.
Palladian is excellent, and I especially love that blue and gold one.
I miss Palladian's thoughtful posts. This one is a treasure:
Why thank you Deborah for re-posting that link to Palladian's recipe for leg of lamb. I didn't save it the first time and but I have now. I have excellent sources for lamb of all cuts, thanks to my Arabic neighborhood. I need to try it once again when the occasion arises.
PS: "Dera" who always gets the bones from my forays in to cooking like someone who knows what they are doing (but doesn't) ...well she's chewed a few too many bones now and has a root canal schedule for her upper canines this month...I only hope prosthesis are not required....gaaaaah $$$
Deborah...the initial fear we had was cancer when a hard bump on her nose began growing fairly rapidly. Xray and blood tests conclude it is not cancer...rather it is related the roots of her upper canine teeth....e.g., an infection that has no place to grow outwardly, so it forms a hard bump.
"Dera" carries on as if nothing is happening...German Shepherds, Malinois, and Pit Bull breeds to oblivious to pain...meantime, when it comes to me and dentists it is sissy central....I'd rather go to a gun fight.
42 comments:
Ding Dong. Darvon calling.
Dressed like that it appears she does.
Who am I to criticize what PYTs decide is au courant?
While young and beautiful, it all works.
I saw a over middle aged woman with short hair sporting a martini tattoo behind her ear.
That's love for the cocktail.
Holy crap!
Is that the ghost of Amy Winehouse?
More like crack house, based on the tats. She's going to look great in about 40 years, that's for sure.
Okay, I give. Exactly what is the sort of pretty, but skanky, young lady selling?
On a sidewalk yet? Please.
I think she is selling pop-up vaginas.
Tough room.
I scan Sartorialist looking for images that pop, for me. My take was she is a street artist of some kind. Thin, yes, but well turned out. Very pretty, beautifully dressed, well-coiffed. But what struck me was the photog capturing her in such an interesting, graceful, artistic pose. For me, this is a frameable photograph.
As for the tatt, they are a scourge. If I were ruler of the universe tattoos on women would require pre-tattoo counseling. Funny thing is, it kinda works in this particular photo.
Only if you can peel it off after the photo shoot.
Otherwise she is stuck with it, obscuring her melanoma, fading into blotchy ugliness and otherwise spoiling a nice looking arm.
You can't fix stupid.
Of course. I detest especially the dark tatts.
And that's the other thing. WTF can't people just use temporary tatts? Like removable jewelry. Get a clue millennials, or whatever designation you are.
I am going with "tatted up assholes", which, in case your day wasn't already ruined, is a thing.
You're welcome.
What happened to a simple "B" on each cheek?
Lovely but, yeah, I HOPE that's a removable sleeve.
Aw, come on...her kit bag is full of drawings of herself. What is she selling? Not sure a bag of pictures of yourself makes it as "street art."
It looks like pop-up art.
Will wait for resident expert to weigh in on that.
Two thumbs up from me.
If you click the link in the post, it will give you a bigger picture.
Ari:
"Not sure a bag of pictures of yourself makes it as "street art.""
What is your logic? I don't know if they're all of her, but they're pretty well done.
Thing is, everyone has a magic suitcase. Some are better at display than others.
Not sure a bag of pictures of yourself makes it as "street art."
She herself is the street art, carrying a picture on her body and creating a picture with her body, while displaying other pictures (of herself?)in a box outside her body. All of which prompted a bigger electronic display of these three components pictured together with comments coming in from all over the globe.
Street art or not, something worked.
Deborah & MomaM ...
First...the drawings are ALL of herself, right down to the tattoo on her left arm. I enlarged the photo with original quality resolution and looked at each drawing...all her, from the tat to the hair etc.
Second....I plainly am not hip enough to understand street art today, if just showing up as yourself and squatting on a stoop stone with an open box of sketches of yourself qualifies.
Street Art used to mean, to me, works by artists such as Tyree Guyton and the Heidelberg Street Art Project. Also the various musicians who entertain in open air produce markets, and the sketch artists who work there as well. I am fascinated by the "3D" work on sidewalks of artists such as Nikolaj Arndt and Edgar Müller. An example of Arndt's work is here. Here is an example of Guyton's work.
Sorry, making yourself the sole object and asserting just seeing you is "art" is beyond my comprehension...just like Yoko Ono. Me...I'd rather find a "Banksy" on a slab I could take home.
One more thing...Deborah's remark the photograph "snapped" for her is the reason it drew all the attention. As Deborah said, it is a frame worthy piece of work. I agree, the photo is that, but not the scene per se. It is a very well done photograph, well posed and well framed.
Ari:
"Sorry, making yourself the sole object and asserting just seeing you is "art" is beyond my comprehension..."
I don't see how one gal doing self-portraits is such a problem. Or is not art.
Selfie Street Art. All about "me", arranged in such a way as to wear the art, be the art and sell the art.
I appreciated the links, Aridog.
As for "such a problem", the term used was "beyond my comprehension, which involves personal perspective and awareness, not necessarily a problem.
Deborah said ...
I don't see how one gal doing self-portraits is such a problem. Or is not art.
Okay, I'm a sucker, and I'll bite: explain to me how that girl is art per se. Not the photo, the girl and her stuff. Compare to, say, Diego Rivera's murals in the Detroit Institute of Art. Or any of the artists I cited earlier...all acknowledged street artists.
It is not a problem. It is also not "art" in any conventional sense of the term. At most it is a narcissistic display. As I cited before, it is along the lines of Yoko Ono "art"...YMMV.
I tried to be charitable.
Deborah...on your original comment, that the photograph popped for you or whatever, I agree. Photography has been my hobby since age 7 and my first foray in to film stills and development chemicals in a bathroom. That IS a good photograph, not Alfred Eisenstaedt level, but personal image art none-the-less.
Why does my opinion that the image subject itself is not art, but the photo is art, cause consternation?
Do you not see the difference between what I linked and what is portrayed in the photo?
Deborah...one more thing (I just finished watching "The Five") what make a photograph art to me is the fundamentals demonstrated by John Shaw, whose first book ever (out of print and hard to find now) explain "light" as no one ever else has done so well for the ordinary photographer. If you are interested I will try to find a used edition for you. The ultimate photogrpahic artist for the kind of imagery that the girl exhibits is Alfred
Eisenstadt ...none better ever.
Exceptions drawn from war, which have immense emotional impact on me, would be Larry Burrows and Eddie Adams
Photographs have impact, and the image of the girl meets that criteria. The image, not the girl herself.
Ari, my question was why her self-portraits are not art, even if you don't care for them.
Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll def look at them on Amazon.
Ooops, I see those are not book links. Thank you for the art links. The old Look photos are quite nice.
Post worthy comments, Aridog, the kind that would make a good guest post, a follow-up on the Street Art question prompted by the original "Does this Work? question posed.
Art not only invites, it instructs, connects, celebrates and raises questions. As do blogs!
why her self-portraits are not art,....
Because they are mundane. The art is in the photograph, not her narcissism. Why can you not get that?
I get that you're all about the lighting, composition, and positioning of her limbs. I don't quite get you finding stylized self-portraiture not art, even if you don't care for it.
High art, of course not. But one of the tools available to the street artist, in her case vendor, is to sell yourself, give people an emotional connection as a reason to buy your wares. From what I can tell, they are competent and stylized. Why rip on her?
But my biggest problem with what you said is, if I read you correctly, she sees only portraits of herself as art. You do not know that. She could be an art student putting herself through school, and has found this type of thing sells well. She may be exploring different techniques with a convenient model, herself in the mirror.
Trooper she does resemble Winehouse!
Deborah...[epistle warning]
Okay, point taken, she may be a student or otherwise struggling artist herself. I don't think I said she (the girl) only sees sketches of herself as art....only that that appeared to be all she had in the open case. I perhaps made a mistake in presuming (a fault), with some help from others here(?), that her mere presence was "street art." Her images of herself may be sketches, or they may be photo-shopped reductions of detail...it really doesn't matter.
Your point that she is likely "vending" her wares, e.g., selling them to passers by, tends to make her presence less street art that street sales....which is fine by me. The focus then is on the work, not the presence...and I think I missed that. I'm touchy on the subject or what is "art" because I know several really fine artists, with paint, pen, pencil, and camera. It is a tough regimen. One or more of them post right here regularly. My appreciation of their work is equivalent to envy. What else can I admit?
One of the former masthead folk here is a very v-e-r-y good artist with wide knowledge of both means and methods. I envy that. Really. He has a "hand" that can paint a copy of an artifact in a museum, with perfect color rendition (Egyptian Blue...one of the very oldest) that catches my eye so well that I asked for a second edition original and he did it perfectly. I am a cynic and tough dismissive critic, but what he provided to me was exactly what I wanted. Not only that but he explained to me how the particular hue was created 3500 years ago and today.
Full disclosure: I tried my hand at sketching and oil & water color painting long long (teens and 20's) ago and found I lacked that spark to create a fresh image. I'm better with a camera, but even then I lack the "touch" of my best friend in Montana, and a couple other professionals there as well, and many many others who can capture moments in light that I can see but not deliver. In short: if I envy the work it is art to me. I know all the techniques...but that is a far cry from delivering it. Of my photos, maybe 1 in 1000 is noteworthy, while, a real camera artist can produce at least 25 of 1000. And do so without all the "hue intensity" manipulation done by the noted hack amateur(s) on the site not to be mentioned (there really should be a law denying ultra wide angle lenses to schmucks, as well as any software plug-ins by Kodak :-)
Another point I always notice...the always taught photographic and sketch/paint/ink formula of river between two massifs grind me...and those artists who can deliver an image with some variation impress me...why? Because I can do a very good job following the formula...it is mundane to the nth degree.
Tell me the next time you see a "starving artist" sale of paintings that doesn't have a river in the center and massifs of whatever on the sides. Groan.
Sure, that's the de rigueur layout...which is what makes it boring.
BTW: If you have never been to Detroit and the Detroit Institute of Art (a museum) do so soon...it may vanish as the city goes through its bankruptcy. It will be a shame if it goes away in the courts...out side of other major cities,( SF, NYC, Chicago, et al) it is one of the finest around anywhere. The Diego Rivera mural alone is worth the trip....it takes at least a day to fully "see" it. I've spent months there just looking at structures and images.
If you ever come to see the DIA, let me know, Judi and I would be very happy to be hosts, as would my daughter who lives near the museum.
There is magic in art. Have I absolve myself on this thread? You already know I am a cranky old dude....but I appreciate your posts that provoke comments beyond the huzzah level. :-)
:) Yes.
Great thoughts.
Since I want to come to Detroit for a ballgame, I should see the museum also.
Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I could not put you out like that, but I'd love for you both to join me on the tour.
Speaking of which, I need to make it back to D.C. to see the National Gallery for more than the hour my daughter and I saw it last summer. I want to stay overnight so I can really go through the whole thing. Or at least a few sections thoroughly.
If my camera hadn't been out of charge I would have captured the delightful image of a passel of Chinese teens sitting on a large bench, all looking at their cell phones.
Palladian is excellent, and I especially love that blue and gold one.
I miss Palladian's thoughtful posts. This one is a treasure:
A Leg of Lamb
There is magic in art
Yes, Aridog, there is. There is also magic in honest conversation. And the magic involves connection to something other or more.
As someone said earlier on ... everyone has a magic suitcase. Some are better at display than others.
Your honest open discourse is appreciated.
Artifice:
- clever or artful skill : ingenuity
- an ingenious device or expedient
- an artful stratagem : trick
- false or insincere behavior
Why thank you Deborah for re-posting that link to Palladian's recipe for leg of lamb. I didn't save it the first time and but I have now. I have excellent sources for lamb of all cuts, thanks to my Arabic neighborhood. I need to try it once again when the occasion arises.
PS: "Dera" who always gets the bones from my forays in to cooking like someone who knows what they are doing (but doesn't) ...well she's chewed a few too many bones now and has a root canal schedule for her upper canines this month...I only hope prosthesis are not required....gaaaaah $$$
I did not know dogs get root canals...best wishes to her :)
Deborah...the initial fear we had was cancer when a hard bump on her nose began growing fairly rapidly. Xray and blood tests conclude it is not cancer...rather it is related the roots of her upper canine teeth....e.g., an infection that has no place to grow outwardly, so it forms a hard bump.
"Dera" carries on as if nothing is happening...German Shepherds, Malinois, and Pit Bull breeds to oblivious to pain...meantime, when it comes to me and dentists it is sissy central....I'd rather go to a gun fight.
Post a Comment