Letters from readers #1
Posted by Anastasiy Safari on 26 September 2008 (Friday) Under Letters, NoiseOur readers are already sending us e-mails!
We decided to publish here one of the more interesting e-mails.
The post “Agent’s Bias: Digital Photography as Fine Art” had generated an interesting comments and discussion on the of what is Fine Art Photography. What qualities a Photographer should posses? Where does the craft of the artist end and the creativity begins? Examples have moved on from photography to painting and even cinema…
Consequently I have received an e-mail from one of the visitors. I believe that it deserves a blog entry of its own (my answer is in comments):
While I was reading the commentary to the “Agent’s Bias: Digital Photography as Fine Art” I can not shake a thought that your view on the process of creation an Artwork are too narrow. You look at all of the questions from a professional point of view and parse them in the same fashion. This gives me an impression that you forget about the whole of the artwork.
As a user I can never explain why I like one artwork or another. You just look at it and either immediately say “Oh, man!”, or just pass right by it with out noticing. This in my opinion is the sole value of art. There are no other criterion for an amateur. There is a historic value, when you think there is nothing special to it, but who would have thought that they were capable of such a feat 3 thousand years ago. You forget that it is POSSIBLE to look at an artwork with out having any knowledge of its creator. I can no nothing about De Vinci, but when I see his work in Louvre I would gasp from excitement or possibly would not have any reaction at all…
In the first case the value is in artistic properties, in the second case the value is work’s history. There’s a PR campaign that states: “This piece of art was painted with artist’s excrement. He had consumed various shades of paints paints especially for the occasion.” There are cases when both of the properties are joined in one work . It’s a rare case. The modern art due to absence of a historical component usually draws its value from PR, at times forgetting about artistic value all together. There’s a funny, but very significant example, when a janitor threw out an art work from a show mistaking it for a pile of trash. Now that is a real insight of a real user, which often is forgotten by artists in their tightly knit circles. I personally consider Picasso’s as a PR success story. Simply the first buyer was authoritative enough for the others not to risk saying the king is naked. In my opinion, well-known art which that is not being purchased - is not an art, but an authors desire to pass the desirable for real. Why dies it matter for example how many artists worked on a single work of art? In my personal opinion - there is no difference. What is there to prevent you from finding talented photographers, print workers, post producers, yet to have a plan for the entire artwork in your own head? If only need for individuality. You can keep on saying that anything that is not hand made does NOT constitute a work of art. But we all understand, that a person that prefers to do it himself, all be it poorly, rather then delegate- is just a lousy manager. Any process, including a creative one, outgrows the possibilities of a single person at one point or another. And then either it dies down, or turns into an art school, a workshop, or whatever you want to call it. To shoot from the hip, “Pinery morning” or “Pushkin in Yalta” are some of the examples of joint creation, where each professional applied his strongest skill. There’s an example from another field: “St. Basil’s Cathedral”. I am not even talking about works of literature. And money was not the issue here. Publishers, producers are aiming to please. Satisfy the needs of users. Given, they do it in the most comfortable and profitable way. But if consumers want to read Harry Potter, and Rowling wants to get payed, the publishers have to(!) pony up the cash. Such is the will of the consumer. Photographers want to sell their works for a price of a vintage painting - but what do you know about consumer, who might be able to pay up? What’s his motivation? What makes him go to a gallery? Something tells me it’s not his desire to hand money on the cashier. Or, let’s look at a book shop. Someone buys a murder mystery novel. We understand why. But how will you treat a person who buys “For whom the bell tolls” by Hemingway or “Picnic by the roadside” by Strugatsky Brothers? I have my doubts about their pure generosity towards local book market. You throw into the same pile the process and the result, forgetting that the less a person knows about farming the more pleasure he gets from his stake. Now tell me, if a man coming out of a theater is crying - is that business? And does it matter to him, how big was the film crew? Tell him, that this is not a work of art, ’cause lead actor is an alcoholic and a director is clueless about sound editing; it’s nonsense! He has either accepted the emotions or he is not hooked and then this is not a work of art. You are mixing up cause and effect. It is not just corruption of visual art’s market that is to blame for the artist’s struggle. A common user simply has no need for it. As much as you are trying to say that you are not working for a mass market - you’re kidding yourself. Ideally, if art photography would be reprinted and plagiarized as often as well known paintings. However you must think big to accomplish that, get out of minutia associated with technical details of photography - and understand your customer. I’m sorry, if I was too strongly-worded. The idea of this letter was not an atempt to prove my point. I wanted you to ponder what is it that you’re doing, how you are going about it and why. – sincerely yours, Jonny Prolongin
2008-09-29 at 9.33 am
Jonny, I have stated in the beginning that I am interested in sharing my insight and insight of others in this blog. As I have stated, I want to educate consumers by giving them an insight into the vision of the artist and the processes of art creation. Not all of the Fine Art belongs in pop culture. A good amount of requires a prepared, an educated consumer. You can not enjoy dry red wine if you don’t have a pallet and can not withstand the acidity.
2008-09-30 at 11.05 am
Dear Jonny,
Dear Jonny,
First and foremost I would like to recognize the depth with which you are discussing Fine Art. As an artist I greatly appreciate that
However, it appears that your criteria for valuing Fine Art is its mass acceptance and amount of pleasure perceived by populous.
(“when I see his [ DeVinci ] work in Louvre I would gasp from excitement or possibly would not have any reaction at all…”, “well-known art which that is not being purchased - is not an art”)
I would like to show you something that causes so many debates around Fine Art. Something that many tend to overlook and which causes them to create troves of web sites and rip each other apart in forums.
Even well respected art critics tend to omit it!
Pablo Picasso –
“The Young Ladies of Avignon”: what’s in it?
You see, Jonny, I think that as Ilya have mentioned you see Fine Art as a way to “feed” the hungry, disgruntled and ostracized. As means to give them bread and foodstuffs, which they can consume. If for example you are given a Ritter Sport chocolate bar and you liked it you would eat it. However if you dislike it then who the hell needs it? The factories should be closed, production should be stopped and people should switch over to Sneaker’s, which they enjoy eating so much. Create a unified product of some sort, run it through a test group and produce a single candy bar that will be adored by the masses. And make sure that vast majority enjoys that particular confection, correct? There is a particular quality however that is apparent in Fine Art more so then in any other possible subject of discussion.
So let’s begin this discussion from a quantum of satisfaction.
There is no doubt that Fine Art can fulfil the needs of individuals acing for reach aesthetic pleasure. As much as it might be one of the potential function it is by far not the soul purpose. Even beneath this role of Fine Art there are deep undertones of various needs and potentials. This is not my sole perception of it, all you need to do is to look back at the history. There is clearly something else there!
V.van Gogh – “The postman from Arles”, 1889.
Tale a look at Van Gog – how unrecognized he was in his time, and how celebrated he currently is. People were simply unprepared to accept his creations – there was no concept of design. It must be noted that, Van Gog is pretty much all about design. Design as an art form appears only in the beginning of the XX century. Simply viewer was not prepared to this kind of approach to painting, some time had to pass for this to sink in. By the virtue of misfortune Van Gog ended up unable to open to his novel ideas. If you show a picture to a cow it will Moo at best and will continue on chewing its cod. Why is that? Because there is some significance that is inaccessible to cows, however should be accessible to humans. We are approaching the most important substance.
You might argue that this is pure PR. But what is your criterion for PR? Is it whether something can put you at awe? This would be pure personal perspective of mass appeal. That is to say, if you are not at awe no one else should be. My apologies, but a common “unique” perspective is, thank God, is no longer a necessary attribute of a citizen. We are way beyond 1984. And after all is there a real need for an awe? It is rare for “the brave new world” new world to raise positive emotions in its inhabitants. Usually, a drastic change caused fear and panic. Such was the fate of Picasso’s “The Young Ladies of Avignon”. People were hysterical because of the impression that this picture had on them. Women were fainting at its sight. If Picasso would have given in and started creating pop art after a while populous would stop caring. But he did no such thing and this action allowed him to raise an entire layer of popular subconscious and expose a new way to view the reality. Anyone ever exposed to his works of the later period will never see the world in quite the same way. The images will surface in viewers memory time after time regardless of the actual pleasure derived from those images. Picasso’s APPROACH is changing the life of his viewers if ever so slightly.
What am I saying here?
Visual art form ( and obviously photography as its essential part) serves as a way to open new horizons for its viewer. Thus the work of art has no obligation to be accessible, but it is asked of it’s observer to be opened or to be willing to attempt to see the real content of an Artwork. This will lead the senses of the viewer into wondrous new territories. Possibly more so then scientific discoveries and understanding can.
Real Work of Art opens a new way of looking at the world, new approach to every day objects, and at times even new perception of the visual imagery, as in case of Picasso. He has no obligation to please anyone. This is not his primary purpose. Such is the role of Fine Art. Without this concept, Fine Art would not be so precious — by this I mean original art and not mass production of tried and true imagery. If all of this was at the level of “Customer Satisfaction”, as you see it then the actual worth of this kind of chewing gum would have been at about the same level as a Snicker’s bar. (There are plenty of art works of this kind, but this would be a subject for a different discussion.)
Unknown,
Nikon-Walkley
press photographer
of the year
Even a press photograph that is well made regardless of the simplicity of its creation “aim-snap-publish” is still able to answer its Fine Art calling - to show us something new. Real news photography always shows us new ways of looking at various corners of our world. Serves us the world under a different dressing. It is one of those acts that makes a simple image into a work of Fine Art. And if in addition there is a plot enclosed in the image…
It is not necessary to develop a new approach to visualization, the change could simply be a way to look at common things. That way the discovery could be even more powerful. It could be a pine forest that you have used as an example. A work that brings everything there is expressive in various states of natural surroundings into a single image. It could be an artwork of Michael Whelan, which could be described partly as a unique perspective on ordinary things. Imagery that plays on a plethora of associations and is open to the viewer that can imagine himself in that kind of world.
Collectors of all people are the most perceptive bunch. They are the ones making the value of the image apparent to a casual viewer. And we are talking here about other values then awe and “customer satisfaction”. However this could be historical value that you have mentioned.
What is there to say about PR? There are plenty of works that are valued only due to PR.However if there is nothing, but PR in those works there 15 minutes of fame are just that. However if they have other values they have a shot at eternity.
At that the artworks that show the highest craftsmanship have a higher influence on the audience. So execution is very important. Quality work has higher input, however obviously high quality of the craft can not be a self serving purpose. As for the professionals that can supposedly handle the technical stuff, they can simply destroy that special something in the artwork. Because in the beginning only the artist and a hand full of people can see that new perspective that is contained in a Work of Art.
2008-10-01 at 3.20 am
Great! Very interesting! )))))
2008-11-21 at 3.39 am
Прочитав пост и комментарии, хочу высказать свою точку зрения по поводу восприятия человеком различных произведений искусства. То, как мы смотрим на ту или иную работу: картину, фотографию, да и вообще окружающее нас пространство, зависит от нашего внутреннго состояния на данный определенный момент, вызванного совпадением великого множества факторов - это вполне очевидная вещь. И то, как мы воспринимаем что-либо под влиянием нашего внутреннего настроя может изменяться. Никогда не ловили себя на мысли, то если смотреть в зеркало на отражение в нем привычного пейзажа, вдруг, неуловимо, выделяется какая-то его грань, на которую вы раньше никогда внимания не обращали. Это потому, как правильно говорит Анастас, что изменился угол обзора. Так и картины/фотографии и т.д. отражают ту грань мира, с которой ее автор в момент создания произведения смотрел на мир. Если вещь - банальная, ну в смысле, что с точностью отражает прямой взгляд на окружающие нас вещи, то она может нравиться/не нравиться большому количеству людей, стоящих на той же линии зрения. А когда художник видит мир с немного смещенной позиции (а насколько и как она может быть смещена - это разговор отдельный), то его работа априори не может быть ощенена всеми одинаково. Те, кто смотрит на мир с разных точек зрения, понять ее сможет, а кто - нет, соответственно нет. Немного запутанно изложила, но надеюсь моя основная мысль понятна: восприятие мира и его составных частей зависит от готовности человека к изменению ракурса, с которого можно увидеть мир.
2008-11-24 at 6.52 am
Да, Лена. Ведь ты абсолютно точно подметила! Ведь, еще фотограф (художник), когда создает произведение, ну или просто рисует (фотографирует) натуру, он тоже подвержен перемене состояний в настроении. И получается очень интересный эффект, когда работа делается не за один раз а за несколько подходов и тогда в ней выражается целый набор различных переживаний и, как ты говоришь - ракурсов. И самое классное, когда одно из таких переживаний сможет захватить зрителя - зритель как раз замечает то, о чем ты написала - и увлечь за собой в этот созданный мир.
Это тонкая штука и здорово, что ты ее чувствуешь
2009-03-17 at 1.35 am
я соглашусь с автором письма в том плане, что фотография либо привлекает сразу, либо взгляд просто проходит мимо!
2009-03-25 at 12.43 am
olg-brusnikina:
Точно точно! В первом случае, автор открывает что-то новое для зрителя, во втором - уже нет.