December 14, 2014

here (also in the Guardian).]]>

Guardian writer Jonathan Jones to stir up that controversy yet again. Jones says “Peter Lik’s hollow, cliched and tasteless black and white shot of an Arizona canyon isn’t art – and proves that photography never will be.” (See the full article here.) Given there does not seem to be a generally accepted working definition of what is art and what is not, it seems pointless to argue whether or not a specific piece of work is art or not. Ignoring that niggling logical issue, I will just say that as long as a small canvas can be painted one single shade of white with no texture (think large paint chip) can hang as a valuable contribution to the art world in an institution as august as the Tate Modern in London, then pretty much anything you want to call art is in fact art. Jonathan Jones article adds nothing to the debate on whether or not photography is art.  In fact he spends most of his time not even addressing the issue, instead explaining in detail why he doesn’t like the image. Since when does a particular person’s tastes have anything to do with whether or not something is art? Perhaps that old saying “I don’t know much about art but I  know what I like” applies here. Or better yet, how about “I can’t define art but I know it when I see it.” (In case you’re wondering, except for the price I’m not particularly impressed with Lik’s image. But that wasn’t my point here.)  ]]>

Duck, Duck, Goose Bozeman, Montana 2014

Two many geese and not enough ducks for this title to be truly appropriate but it was what came to mind. I took this because they reminded me of this (much better in my opinion) photograph I took in Santa Fe some 14 years ago: We’ve got some big windows in the gables on our new house. I think one of them needs a goose but that opinion is not shared by my in-house decorator who vetoed the idea.]]>