Self Portrait.... Would You Do This ?

[Rick Waldroup]

The first time I saw the photos, they did not do much for me and I basically skipped over them and read the rest of the magazine. But then I found myself going back to them time and time again. I kept thinking about how brave you would have to be to bare your soul in this manner. Is it art? All I know is that it pulled at my emotions and made me think- and all great art should do that. Now, I can understand how someone would think just the opposite of this. My wife does. I showed her the photos and they did absolutely nothing for her.

[Rick Waldroup]

Originally Posted by Silvernic

"Pieces range in price from $800 to $2000 each for the smaller size and $1000 to $2200 for the larger size, depending on how many have sold in the edition"

I'm not one to swear, but WTF! I honestly wonder how many prints sell, and what do the people who buy prints do with them!

My wife brought that up too. She asked me if I thought anyone is actually buying this "junk", as she called it. I told her that I would not be surprised at all if most of the pieces sold. And the photos will go up in price the more they sell. In limited editions, the price increases as the photo is close to being sold out. Some people will buy because they truly love the art and some are collectors that buy as an investment. And then you have those that buy for both reasons.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

It may be art but it sure wouldn't bring me to a gallery to see it and I defenitely would not be opening my check book to buy it.

I have been to probably well over 100 gallery shows over the years and usually can see something worth while in an artists collection or work but in this case I fail to see anything other than a bunch of out of focus snapshots.

[jeffkohn]

Reminds me of the picture in that recent auction that was discussed here a while back, which showed a heavyset woman eating food at a kitchen counter (maybe it's the same woman?). I didn't think it was art then and I don't think it's art now. Is it brave? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean it's any good. Part of it is that I really don't care for this "faux snapshot" fad; I know there's more to these images than a simple snapshot, but I just don't find this type of image interesting and certainly not "art".

I think some people will buy almost anything if some snooty critic in NY calls it art; not because they have any real appreciation for it but because they're lemmings more concerned with being able to impress other lemmings by bragging about their purchases.

All IMHO, of course.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Reminds me of the picture in that recent auction that was discussed here a while back, which showed a heavyset woman eating food at a kitchen counter (maybe it's the same woman?). I didn't think it was art then and I don't think it's art now. Is it brave? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean it's any good. Part of it is that I really don't care for this "faux snapshot" fad; I know there's more to these images than a simple snapshot, but I just don't find this type of image interesting and certainly not "art".

I think some people will buy almost anything if some snooty critic in NY calls it art; not because they have any real appreciation for it but because they're lemmings more concerned with being able to impress other lemmings by bragging about their purchases.

All IMHO, of course.

This sounds like the script for the play 'ART' :)

I think the faux snapshot fad is probably some sort of 'common people' thing - not making pictures that look like they were taken by professional photographers, but by average, incompetent shooters.

A sort of reality TV for photography, appealing to the lowest common denominator out there.

[Redmouse]

Art or not, this woman is a marketing genious! I'm pretty sure no one here can honestly say they have sold a self-portrait print for $800 - $2000.

Just curious, if the Mona Lisa subject was over weight, would you consider it art? Would it make a difference if someone like Scott Watters or Rolando Gomez did the photography? Would it make a difference if it was shot with a Kodak disposable or a Holga instead of digital? And since when did Art start having boundaries?

[huxley]

i would do this .... if it made people talk about me negative or positive.... as an artist being known and unknown makes a world a difference.... if people are talking about me that just gets me exposed to someone new. controversy in the art world is nothing new but it has made people famous ... get the right kind and your in kid!

[Elsaspet]

Ditto John Sandaval. Art isn't always what "we" expect it to be. "Art" is new, it's different.
The forerunners of photography were dissed, and now they are considered "Art". Because they were the greatest photog who stuck to all the rules? No, primarily because they broke the rules. They made headway while the rest of the photogs copied old dogma.
Personally, I like it. It's new. It's something different.

[Terrancelee]

Originally Posted by Gordon

But how are you defining good here ? Attractive ? Pleasing to the eye ? Technically well done ? Thought provoking ? Aesthetically pleasing ?

Does it have to be pretty to be art ?

I was asked if I thought this was art. So, by my standards, the answer is no. I define good by every statement you said above, "to ME". So, it has to be those things to me, personally.

Pretty is a give and take for me .. but the fella who smeared what was it, urine or cow**** or something all over the Virgin Mary and called it art .. not to me.

I don't think those photos are quality photos. I don't like the "look" of any of them, not talking about the subject, but the technical aspect of them. Once again .. not to me.

[Rick Waldroup]

Originally Posted by Terrancelee

I was asked if I thought this was art. So, by my standards, the answer is no. I define good by every statement you said above, "to ME". So, it has to be those things to me, personally.

Pretty is a give and take for me .. but the fella who smeared what was it, urine or cow**** or something all over the Virgin Mary and called it art .. not to me.

I don't think those photos are quality photos. I don't like the "look" of any of them, not talking about the subject, but the technical aspect of them. Once again .. not to me.

Terry, you may be thinking of Andres Serrano, an American photographer who did a series of very controversial photos in the late 1980's- one which featured a small cruxifix in a jar of the photographer's own urine and another depicting an image of the Madonna in a container of urine. Both of these images, and especially the crucifix image, were extremely controversial- in fact reaching debate on the Senate floor as Serrano was sponsored in part by the National Endowment of the Arts.
As far as the technical qualities of the photos by Jen Davis, there have been several ideas bounced around on this thread about that. Some see them for what they appear to be- random snapshots, poorly lit, slightly out of focus, etc. Others see them as an intentional style of shooting to emphasize the subject matter- her own insecurities about her appearence. Who is right? That is why I posted this thread to begin with. I thought that at the very least this would spark some very well reasoned debate as to the merits of her photos, which it certainly has. That is why I appreciate everyone's feedback on this. I happen to like these photos but I certainly understand the reasoning of people who do not. This has been interesting to say the least.

[roxannejomitchell]

i'm really glad you brought up this discussion, and it has been interesting to see all the responses. i'm going to side with the camp that says it's art. it's thought-provoking. it stirs discussion. the images are disturbing and unsettling and compelling. no they're not pretty. but art ain't always pretty!