>>4102671>Art has the qualities of aesthetic superiority. If you say anything made by a self professed creative is art you open the floodgates to garbage. I say that even if there was no artist god himself stands behind all things and anything that has the qualities of art can be art, and yet something bad enough made be a self professed artist can be summarily rejected as a mundane object. We can be horrified and disgusted by art but sometimes it's just nonsense - a mundane object.That's ironic coming from a guy using MoMA as an argument to why Winogrand is art. Anti-art is celebrated there, mundane objects as you say. Like Duchamp's urinal. Like Carl Andre's 120 firebricks.
>You can theorize about the circumstances in which each photo was taken but you can not prove it seeing only the photo. You can only theorize based on what it makes you feel. Is it art to you or not? That's it.Can you prove beyond *ahem* a shadow of a doubt... that Winogrand was consciously making that snapshit, rather than he just happened to press the button at that moment just like he did seconds before and after and so he did in the minutes and hours before and after that particular photo was taken? You can't.
It's an accidental photo and it shows, and ironically the mundaneness you claim makes something not-art is there.
What is more, you're excluding the art of the mundane. In a sweep you have reduced much of Bresson's seminal work to non-art, because what is "Diary of a Country Priest" if not about a mundane life? No anon, you're the one who is lost.
