Photography as an Artform (part 1)

I explore pictures on pbase.com most days. Every time, I find maybe a half dozen images that, by any measure, constitute fine art. I see pictures that stir me, excite me, fill me with hope or despair - make me think, educate me and bring forth fresh spiritual insights. Over the years I have found hundreds of pictures that would not look out of place on the walls of the National Gallery of Australia.

If such pictures, which frequently have something genuinely fresh to say, are not legitimate art, what are they?

Alas, in the main, such images are here today, gone tomorrow, locked away on private hard drives, largely denied to the world. Oh I imagine that certain rights to some of these images are occasionally sold for various commercial purposes but few (if any) receive the final recognition or value that they otherwise might deserve.

Recently I visited the afore-mentioned National Gallery for an exhibition of French Post Impressionist works. There were famous paintings by Monet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne, Lautrec and all the usual suspects. I recognised dozens of works which I had seen reproduced countless times in magazines, books, journals, posters etc. There they were, right before me, in all their original greatness - no doubt valued at many millions of dollars and fawned over by crowded galleries of adoring fans.

The thing that puzzled me the most was how little I felt moved by the occasion. Here I was, looking at some of the most famous artworks in the history of western humanity and I was almost .. well ... bored. I hear cries of "Philistine" in the background and perhaps that is exactly what I am - someone unable to appreciate fine art when it is displayed in front of him, but I wonder whether it is just a little too simplistic to divide the world into the artistically enlightened and the vacant eyed swine dimly beholding the strawberries strewn before them.

Why is a great art work "great" in the first place? Is it because it is simply one of the finest manifestations of the human spirit ever conceived or is there more to it than that? When it comes down to the universal measure of great art (i.e. how many dollars are required to purchase it) I would suggest that you can boil the whole thing down to a couple of points. My apologies if I sound a little cynical.

1. Is the artist dead? If so, he/she'll never produce any more. The work is irreplaceable and rare. The market is cornered.
2. Does some respected group of intellects SAY it is great. I want to be associated with the intellects. If they say it's great I am obliged to agree.
3. Does the work represent some breakthough in style? Is it an influential work which led others to copy it? It has historic uniqueness and inherent rarity.
4. How much money did a work by the same artist realise at the last Sothebys auction? If some one just paid $10 million for one, the picture on the wall soars in prestige.

Now before I am bodily exiled upon the barren wastes, let me say that I am not trying to suggest that French Post Impressionists works or those belonging to any OTHER well thought-of artistic movement are fraudulent and without real value. I am simply saying that the DEGREE of their perceived value has been distorted and overblown by factors which have little to do with their intrinsic merit. Artistic works so often become "great" because they achieve fame which feeds on itself, because they receive the high opinion of those "who are supposed to know such things" and because of the high monetary value which the free market chooses to place upon such items.

I stood in the galleries, examining works by some of the relatively less known artists and was able to find pictures that I could not recall having seen before. My mind was therefore uncorrupted by fame, notoriety or winning auction bids. In many cases I was hard pressed to find anything about these works which stirred me, excited me or brought me fresh insights. One of my biblical ancestors may WELL have been killed by David's stone but I could not readily distinguish between the merit of these valued images and the sort of thing I routinely find on pbase.

Why is it unlikely that wonderful digital photographs will ever receive the esteem they may deserve? I shall try to address this question next time.