Sometimes it isn't art.
Last night's Oscars got TWO thinking... Who decides what's art - or, more precisely, good art? The Oscars are decided by people with in the industry, and so it risks a disconnect with the people, educated or not, who are outside of it. BUT...since TWO's favorite movie, Slumdog Millionaire, won 8 awards, this won't be a commentary on the Oscars.
But it will be a commentary on something else purported to be art and the validation of the same. New York Magazine recently gave us a page on these people. The article title is quite accurate "I Go Out. I See Friends. I Take Pictures. I Post Them." The sub-heading is more questionable: "Their art is the party. Their gallery is the Internet. Four young photographers who live behind the lens."
Is this art?
TWO will not attempt to provide an all encompassing definition of art, but will be satiated if, taken as a whole, the pictures on the above sites are creative and could reasonably promote an intelligent dialogue regarding their content and meaning. All four of the sites mentioned, hanuk, hobogestapo, theskullset and nickydigital are similar in that they go to exclusive hipster night spots and take pictures. It should be noted that of the 20 pictures highlighted specifically by the article, 4 are taken at Beatrice Inn. For those who don't know, Beatrice is to hipsters what Bar Martignetti is to people who wear nantucket red pants and CK Bradley belts. That is, it is the damn Super Bowl of their genre....Beatrice is where the hipsters are at their hipsterest. Every day a hipster isn't at Beatrice is a day he's thinking about his next Beatrice outing...is this painter's hat funny, or is it a cliche now? Maybe I'll ironically wear a tie. Are my children's sunglasses clever, or is that a cliche too? Is it ever too warm to wear a scarf? The Bar Martinetti types are the same way...only different. What pastels are appropriate in the winter? Should I wear my shirt tucked in or especially tucked in? Where are the socks I wear with my ferragamo loafershahahajust kidding I never wear socks with my 'gamos. Incidentally, in 2005, a crew of Trinity College alums on their way to Martignetti stumbled across a band of NYU alums going to Beatrice....the horrible brawl that ensued was so intense that a mini big-bang occurred, resulting in both the creation of skinny jeans and an instantaneous joint Morrissey - O.A.R. shared stage concert, baffling and sedating all combatants. True story.
Anyway, back to the point. Look at the four websites....do you see art...or do you see party pictures? TWO sees the latter. While Hobo Gestappo says that they "don't just toss anything up" on the site, a look at the content would suggest otherwise. While there may be individual pictures that have some artistic merit, I think it is improper to judge those outside the context of the full body of work. The fact is, one out of a hundred pictures anyone takes might have some artisitic value, just by luck. A UGA sorority girl, taking pictures at her TriDelt - SAE Crush Night 2009 Party on Broad Street might take one picture where the lighting, shadows, positioning and facial expressions are absolutely striking. That doesn't mean that she can hand me the stack of 100 photos from that night, mostly depicting her friends sweating and holding dixie cups, and say "Here's the art."
Fake art?
TWO contends above that the content of the four above sites is party pictures...essentially indistinguishable from that which you'd find on New Jersey Guido, Chicago Scene, Patrick McMullan or Last Night's Party. What is distinguishable? The people. The unspoken message in this New York Magazine piece is that these pictures have artistic value because their subjects are fashion forward, artistically advanced people...and the pictures on New Jersey Guido have no value, because the pictures are of guidos. Who makes this call? Well, the fashion market editor of New York Magazine, who likely knows these photographers already from hanging out at Beatrice. It is a classic example of a niche group validating itself...if you are accepted into the world of New York's artists and hipsters, anything you do is art. The circularity is clear... Jack Siegel is an artist because his party pictures are art...and his party pictures are art because he's an artist.
To tie this together, I don't believe that the body of work is sufficiently creative nor dialogue inducing to justify the classification as art. TWO's body of work, however, clearly is. I would also challenge any of these photographers to a Madden 2003 game on my Playstation 2. Just saying.
In conclusion, I once played a crazy game of poker.
