Art? Junk?

I've got a thing about Holgas, Lomos, Dianas, Lensbaby's etc. I think they're junk, I think what they produce is junk. If you want to use one as a bit of fun, then go ahead. Its not what I would consider as having a good time but who am I to stop you?

What really gets my blood pressure going is that certain people try to describe their blurred, out of focus, faulty mistakes as "art". This verges on the criminal. The idea that these pathetic attempts to justify incompetence, lack of imagination and creativity as artistic beggars belief. 

I'm currently engaged in a forum debate with a "fine artist" (his description, not mine) who seems to think that I'm some kind of Phillistine because I can't appreciate the "uniqueness of these cameras in their abilities to communicate the artists vision" What is this rubbish? Is there a manual somewhere that gives you a list of meaningless phrases like this with which to justify your ineptitude?

You could I suppose attempt to play Sketches of Spain on a vuvuzela and call it art. Indeed these "fine artists" seem to think that any of their activities can be considered "art". We already have to put up with the likes of Tracey Emin, and I've always wondered if the amount of money that she earns is enough to compensate for the ridicule and derision that she gets. 

Of course if you don't appreciate junk art, you're a moron, a neaderthal, or an Archie Bunker as my "fine artist" described me. Well actually its these "fine artists" themselves who are the morons and the neanderthals. Indeed since cavemen (and women) were producing works of art far superior in their execution, vision and social relevance than anything these purveyors of the ordinary can come up with, they are probably not even at that level.

In the film of Jules Feiffers Little Murders Elliot Gould plays a depressed apathetic photographer who ends up taking pictures of dog turds. His work becomes the height of artistic chic and he is celebrated by the "art elite". 

Satires like this demonstrate the pretension, the embracing of the perverse and shocking, and the glorification of the ugly that dominates much of what passes for art these days. We have "artists" too concerned about making a reputation (and making money) to even make any pretence about actually learning any skills and critics too frightened about being seen as old-fashioned or "fuddy-duddys" to actually exercise any judgement about what is put before them.

The sickening thing is that there are actually people who take this nonsense seriously. They actually seem to believe that taking pictures on a useless piece of equipment somehow turns them from a humble photographer into an artist. Just what level of self-delusion do you have to operate on to believe this? What incredibly small circle of fantasists do you inhabit that actually gives your "work" the seal of approval? Does a little voice ever trouble these people in the middle of the night? Do they ever have the slightest concern that what they are producing and attempting to justify is actually what the rest of the world thinks it is? 

Many of the people who promote this "grunge photography" get very defensive and aggressive in their reaction to criticism of their efforts. Doesn't this indicate that somewhere lurking in their brains there is a notion that they have something that needs defending? When the vast majority of people who look at "images" created by these worthless pieces of junk think of them as indicating that the camera is in dire need of repair, isn't there a message there? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc.

Much of what is presented to us as "artistic" these days is unfortunately treated with contempt and incredulity, as a result of this perverse point of view. In the rush of the untalented to get their noses in the trough, I wonder how many genuine creative people with important things to show us, get trampled and left by the wayside?