Google Street View Artist Gets MoMA Show

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Credentials don't make something "good" or "correct".

Who said anything about credentials? You quote my post but your response is orthogonal to it. In any case Rickard's previous work with cameras that he actually operated blunts criticisms that he has not gotten out and "chased" the light -- and the useful resources that he's assembled on the web demolish the claims that he doesn't know about photography in general or street photography in particular or the proper role of appropriation in art.

You don't have to agree with him, and you don't have to like his work. But to say or imply he's going into this project blind, or that he doesn't know what the relevant intellectual threads are or that he can't handle a camera (as several posters on this thread have done) -- these are not evidence-based positions.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by semilog

Who said anything about credentials? You quote my post but your response is orthogonal to it.

In that case, "is a damned decent street photographer in the more conventional sense" is a straw dodecagon.

[v_roma]

I'm sorry but there seems to be a lot of close-mindedness about this. The man came up with an idea, went ahead and executed it (no small thing; I suggest that you browse through Street View and see what you come up with), and produced something interesting.

This discussion in a not so distant past:

Person 1: I just heard about this guy who used his thingamajig to take "photographs" and he's trying to pass these "photographs" as art!

Person 2: What?!? How can it be art if he didn't actually sit down and paint it?? He just clicked a button?? Ridiculous, I say.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by v_roma

This discussion in a not so distant past:

One of my problems in this discussion is using a circular concept (define the concept with the concept itself, and use it as its own defense). That in itself says nothing.

noonameg: n something that has been noonamegged.

Ah! Of course. Evolution of the English language etc etc etc, how dare you question the organic nature of the English tongue etc etc.


::sigh::



One can grab a cat and call it a dog all you want, but a cat it remains. If it makes for a MoMA exhibit, that's great for the misunderstood genius behind it --nevermind that Magritte already flew that one. But please, calling it "thus a study in Veterinary Psychiatry" (because, you know, there's an nonhuman identity crisis there) is an insult to art, vets and psychiatry. Not to mention the viewer.

[julianphotoart]

The same exact type of exhibition (perhaps by the same "artist") was showing at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art 2 week-ends ago. I have a parallel Thread going entitled "Google Streetview 'Art'".

The guy has no life. He sits at home staring at Google all day. He takes straight, as-is Google Streetview screenshots, doesn't do anything to them, blows them up huge, puts them in a nice frame, and charges a fortune. Oh, and then he gets a gullible art gallery administrator to get someone to write a pretentious, artsy description to legitimize the whole thing.

[River Dog]

I photographed the tv screen once. This guy had a conspiracy view of things and was being interviewed just after the JFK assassination. I just couldn't get his face out of my head.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by julianphotoart

The same exact type of exhibition (perhaps by the same "artist") was showing at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art 2 week-ends ago. I have a parallel Thread going entitled "Google Streetview 'Art'".

The guy has no life. He sits at home staring at Google all day. He takes straight, as-is Google Streetview screenshots, doesn't do anything to them, blows them up huge, puts them in a nice frame, and charges a fortune. Oh, and then he gets a gullible art gallery administrator to get someone to write a pretentious, artsy description to legitimize the whole thing.

Wish my life was so bad. I'm sure he doesn't spend every waking hour on google.

You could say, about any photographer, the same thing...

He simply points his camera and shoots something, doesn't do anything to them, blows them up huge, puts them in a nice frame, and charges a fortune. Oh, and then he gets a gullible art gallery administrator to get someone to write a pretentious, artsy description to legitimize the whole thing.

Sure, it's not that simple. However, he didn't force people to do anything for him. They bought into it because they liked his concept and figured they could make money off of him.

I have no issue with this work. Appropriation and the conceptual have always been a part of the art world. Sure, I don't care to look at it, but he (and a few others) found their gimmick and ran with it. I'm not going to hate.

[semilog]

Seems to me that you can't really even start to talk about the question of appropriation in modern photography without talking about Larry Sultan and Mike Mandel's book, Evidence. Rickard was obviously aware of this work and it clearly influenced his thinking.

Here's a good 5-minute video on Sultan and Evidence.

Evidence is widely acknowledged as one of the more important and influential books in contemporary photography. How is the work under discussion different from Evidence? If it is worse, why is it worse?

[Gabriel M.A.]

These people here thought Brian was one of the most important and influential people in contemporary spirituality.

Who is to question what a group of people think about what is "important"?

I believe the equation of P * (concept) = Irrefutable, where P = (# of people), is always held as an Axiom if one is invested in P.

[flip]

I only recently came upon this. I am intrigued by the idea that he is redefining art for modern times as editing through the deluge of input. I don't think that's an earth-shattering idea, but Godspeed. If work like this influences others to edit what they post to the 'net, the world would be better for it.