MARIO TESTINO is a commercial artist. His photos are well-crafted celebrity photos — not art. To give him his own career retrospective exhibit is a depressing sign of the times. The exhibit will draw crowds, but it is not work that deserves to take up space in a museum of fine art.
Is MFA senior curator of photographs Anne Havinga attempting to justify the exhibit when she says "the Testino images have an “amazing vitality”? True, but is amazing vitality criterion for a major exhibit? I assume that she would rather be showing the work of contemporary or classic photographic fine artists, and that she knows, but cannot say, that showing Testino’s celebrity photos pays the rent.
Comments
I guess creativity is art rather than "fine art", or perhaps "fine art" evolves from art through creativity. If The Museum of Fine Arts excludes art and features "fine art", then what would happen to creativity?
Regarding the letters in today's Globe re "Depressing sign...": I was about to write a similar note to Malcolm Rogers regarding the lowering of standards at MFA in recent years. I let my membership lapse for a year in protest but have since rejoined. This current photo exhibit, giving museum space to photos of self-indulgent celebrities, is one further step down the slippery slope Rogers seems eager to slide. If Mr Rogers wants to attract larger numbers of people to the MFA he should utilize his creative talents to come up with ways to educate a larger audience as to what true art is and why it is worth viewing. But the easy way, Mr Rogers way is to kow-tow to rich celebrities and their eager fans. What a shame.