The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[Johnny]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

Actually Faust I don't necessarily think that he has a place in an art gallery, although I don't know anything about that gallery or the NY art scene generally to ascertain whether it's particularly unfitting for that place. I should have made that point clearer. All i meant was that I thought the "bashing" let's call it (:-)), was a little unfair because there seemed to be an element of elitism in it, in particular in relation to subjective matters such as his taste,which was also why I thought it was predictable.

[Faust]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



[quote user="Johnny"]Actually Faust I don't necessarily think that he has a place in an art gallery, although I don't know anything about that gallery or the NY art scene generally to ascertain whether it's particularly unfitting for that place. I should have made that point clearer. All i meant was that I thought the "bashing" let's call it (:-)), was a little unfair because there seemed to be an element of elitism in it, in particular in relation to subjective matters such as his taste,which was also why I thought it was predictable.[/quote]

Ah, in that case, I agree. He doesn't take bad pictures. It's just the tone of the blog is fluffy, which I dislike. He does capture some great outfits, especially since style.com has been sending him to fashion shows.

[dontbecruel]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.

[Faust]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



[quote user="dontbecruel"]Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.
[/quote]

No offense. Besides, I love it when we spar. [<:o)]

[philip nod]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="Faust"]

[quote user="dontbecruel"]Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.
[/quote]

No offense. Besides, I love it when we spar. [<:o)]

[/quote]

If someone wants to ring the bell for round 2, i'm ready to take this to a deeper level.

[Casius]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



[quote user="dontbecruel"]Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.
[/quote]

I don't think it has anything to do with how expensive his camera is, per say. My point, is that for the photos he puts in his blog, I would hardly consider them 'art' in the realm of, 'I would not pay a dollar for something that could have very well been taken for some kid's myspace page'.

I think his blog is interesting, but that's about it. Art? Nah, I don't think so. But then, this is where I think a lot of us here are going to have that, 'I agree to disagree' kind of attitude toward this subject.

P.S. I know plenty of 'photographers' who have been taking pictures with a dslr for less than a year and take pictures just as good.

[Casius]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="philip nod"][quote user="Faust"]

[quote user="dontbecruel"]Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.
[/quote]

No offense. Besides, I love it when we spar. [<:o)]

[/quote]

If someone wants to ring the bell for round 2, i'm ready to take this to a deeper level.

[/quote]

Ding. [75]

[dontbecruel]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="Casius"]

P.S. I know plenty of 'photographers' who have been taking pictures with a dslr for less than a year and take pictures just as good.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on what is good about their photos and what it has to do with the fact they use a dslr?

[Johnny]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="Casius"][quote user="philip nod"][quote user="Faust"]


[quote user="dontbecruel"]Faust I think I you misunderstood me a little bit there. My main point was that he takes some nice pictures. And that the other stuff doesn't matter much to me. So we are agreed. I was also taking issue with the claim (from casius) that the look of his pictures is determined by the fact that he has an expensive camera. Sorry if I caused offence.
[/quote]

No offense. Besides, I love it when we spar. [<:o)]

[/quote]

If someone wants to ring the bell for round 2, i'm ready to take this to a deeper level.

[/quote]

Ding. [75]

[/quote]

Dong. [75]

[Casius]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="dontbecruel"][quote user="Casius"]

P.S. I know plenty of 'photographers' who have been taking pictures with a dslr for less than a year and take pictures just as good.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on what is good about their photos and what it has to do with the fact they use a dslr?

[/quote]

Dslr=Tool in which to take pictures.

And the photos are 'good' because they don't look like a hot blurred mess. [75]

[philip nod]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



i just noticed something else looking at it today. there's a "charmed man" clearly wearing a Thom Browne blazer and brass knuckles. yet, only one person correctly points out the jacket, and does state how far the look as been homogenized and normalized. but again, besides the typical upbeat response, nobody is keen to the thom browne thrashing that used to go on all the time on that site as Sart really pushed that stuff or has any idea what brass knuckles are. his audience remains as uneducated as ever. i guess that's the difference w SZ, people seem to do the homework and then learn from the discussions; the discourse on sart never seems to get beyond the newbie level because he doesn't allow for open discussion and i find that attempt to control everything on a blog the wrong thing to do.

but i have more to say, but must head to Salt lake city where AKA*NYC is getting married! see you for round 3

[Hewmiri]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

Sorta tiring reading all this and I usually stay away from dramatic stuff on the internet but here goes nothing...

I don't get that excited when Scott updates his blog just because he does it every day but I think he definitely has an eye for photography and fashion. The quality of his photos, his subjects and most of all his productivity is surprisingly kept at a certain standard... I guess it should, since it's not just a hobbie. Compared to his "competitors" such as facehunter, he is waaaay more talented, isn't he?

To me technicality is less important than the idea and the execution of this idea... The word "niche" is pretty degrading too. It's an idea, not a niche. Idea is art. Who are you guys to judge what is art and what is not? Also, I can't see you guys ever saying this stuff to his face...

ANND the comment Faust made about being able to shoot as well with the same camera... I don't know you but... yeah, probably not.

[Faust]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



Please, let's not get in to that inane debate about who's to judge what constitutes art and what does not. This is exactly why art world has become an art industry with too many bad artists pumping out too much bad art. Are you an art dealer? If not, and you have no agenda, how about you LEARN what constitutes good art.

Your last comment is not even worth a response, it would go nowhere. And if it's tiring to you read this, go read the countless "where can i buy this" posts.

[dontbecruel]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea

[quote user="Hewmiri"]

To me technicality is less important than the idea and the execution of this idea...

ANND the comment Faust made about being able to shoot as well with the same camera... I don't know you but... yeah, probably not.

[/quote]

My point exactly. But much better made! While I wouldn't assume what Faust, Cas, P.Nod etc etc can or can't do with their cameras, I don't think any of them have made any comments that would suggest they are trying to discriminate between good/bad work in the field of photography. All of their comments could be applied to still photography as an art form in general.

I think there is a bit more to Scott's photos than the fact that they're not blurry. He gets his subjects to present themselves at the lens with confident, characterful gestures, so they show off a little hint of their own personality. He also has his own particular eye for perspective (I bet he's a Piero Della Francesca fan). As Hewmiri says it's all about execution of an idea: most of what's interesting about his pics could be done with my cameraphone by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of depth-of-field and a steady enough hand. That doesnt make the pictures any less individual though.

[mortalveneer]

Re: The Sartorialist Exhibition in Chelsea



I'm going to take the coward's route and claim the middle ground; I feel the photos discussed certainly are of a quality above that of the rank novice, but neither do they qualify (at least when taken individually) as art themselves. I admit the last statement is likely open to a high degree of criticism, but I will stand by it. The Sartorialist provides a collection of portraits, often skillfully captured, but I feel that their value does not lie in any given individual picture. Rather, taken in bulk, they provide a snapshot of contemporary fashion and culture that is indeed valuable. The given popularity of his site, as well as the appearance of similar collections of work from other cities (Paris, Fruits from Tokyo, etc.) are indicative of the niche his site is filling, but I would hesitate to categorize any given shot as "photography as art".

Many famous painters have produced phenomenal works of portraiture that deserve their places in the museums and collections across the world in which they reside, but I would argue that these works are not what conferred the title of master upon their creator, and in many cases, are primarily valuable because of who created them (and the wealth of other non-portraiture work behind said name). Granted, the nature of photography lends itself much more to portraiture than does painting, and so has generated a few artists whose portraits do comprise a central part of their production (Leibowitz springs to mind), but even these apparently contradictory examples did not involve portraits being taken at the rate and volume such as those by Scott.

I have a hard time understanding how a single photo, taken to record the outfit/style of the subject chosen, could remain evocative when viewed apart from the collection or project of which it was a part. I see each photo (and subject) of Scott's as a potential lens through which to view a glimmering of the zeitgeist (sorry, I had to...). While this glimpse of the "style of the times" is admittedly flawed, even nigh absent, from any one picture when taken in abstraction, the true value of the work (in my humble opinion) comes upon perusing tens, if not hundreds of photos. This process is similar to that in which we participate every time we post or comment in a WAYWT thread. Seeing any one individual's outfit on this site, superfuture, the Sartorialist, or any other similar endeavour, gives much less a barometer of contemporary individual expression than it does an idea of that person's style or taste as an individual.

As an exhibition in its entirety, I would be interested to see the difference in evocative effect it has compared to viewing the photos on a website, but cannot see myself purchasing a given picture for all the reasons detailed above.

Please take these opinions with a sizable chunk of salt, as they are those of an econ grad student with little background in the arts, fashion, or photography...