I have been going to the Museum of Modern Art in NYC for many many many years. And their approach to photography baffles the living hell out of me. It seems that they are, and have been for a long time, extremely fond of large, poorly composed, poorly printed, photographs of dubious subject matter. These are the chowder-heads who pick and choose those who may enter the pantheon of photography as dictated by a set of standards I frankly cannot figure out. But then, I'm no fan of Cindy Sherman or Diane Arbus. Someone explain this to me - we have truly great photographers to choose from: Ansel Adams, the Westons, Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Irving Penn, Robert Frank, etc. whose work, prints and subject matter are staggering. And yet, on display, prominently, there is a 40"x40", flat, muddy, poorly lit picture of an unhappy young man, in the obligatory Arbus awkward stance, wearing a red bathing suit.OK - there are a few good images, but the are drowned in the mass of crap that's hanging.... Someone explain this to me so I can understand why good art is being driven out by this stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment