one of the many things i wonder about, over and over again, is how the hell david hockney does it ...
the vision, or should i say the over arching vision of the smaller parts that make up the whole, how when faced with imperfection and scale differences our brains correct the image all knowing that it is wrong, or should I say imperfect ...
Oh yes the format is changing .. sorry for you who rely on the emails and who are to lazy to go to the inter web, you will be forced to go and look at the actual page as there will be pieces embedded into the pages henceforth..
so when is a panorama not a panorama or is it? Is it art? or is it an art, that is a technical skill. is the perfection the key or is it the sense that it evokes more important. I suppose that is mostly the question around photography and the presentation of the visual arts in the 20 and 21st centuries. where does the line start and end, where is the greyness's the lightest and where is it the darkest .. Aesh this is sounding more and more contrived, but i am sure i will try my best to get to the point?
We for your sakes i hope so ..
on this line i was searching for some reference to this conundrum .. and of course i verbed the action of google dot com and one of the pre-emptive searches was "is photography dead" not in my mind? But i am sure i will find out?
It appears that there are a variety of views, but one of them that i found very appealing, and for a long time inadvertently followed was that of Ansel Adams, who believed that there should be no "manipulation" in either developing the film or making the print
.
But Mortensen said that a negative, compared with the ultimate "camera obscura," the human eye, is restricted enough in its ability to record the complete gradations of a subject, that to further rob it of that ability makes little sense. The above concept does just that.
So we stand at a minuscule crossroad in terms of the opinions of isms and technicalities. It appears that within this milieu there is the debate of the technical artistry. and then of course wikipedia throws a spanner in the works by saying this: "Art photography": "Euphemism for nude photography"[1]. VOMGL.. well i spose it is an art;-)...
then i discovered an intuitive discrimination defining the differences between: "art photography", "photography of art", "artistic photography","photography as a fine art" "aesthetic representaitons" to name but a few.. When is photography seen as a technical ability to reproduce perfectly a visual scene, is this limited to a specific framework of methods and materials. Do we draw the line between Art due to medium or to end product or to ethos? But if we look at andy Warhol, is that Art due to the thought process? Ot si the actual deliverable the piece of art. We now start delving into a philosophical debate for which i have no formal or informal backing what so ever. So i spose i will have to just leave it right there :-)
Somethings of interest around photography as an art form?
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/photography.html
a question is this art/artistic?
really am not sure .. but boy it is striking.. He has a whole lot more of this. When I Look at this and see the technical artistry that has been achieved, compare that to the hockney image/collage at the top?
But what it does bring me to question or to say .. is I really dont know enough about this, and should not have written about it ... :-) something learnt I spose.
It appears that this debate is far from over or finished ...
http://fugitivevision.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-photography-dead-sfmoma-tries-to.html here is a debate from a blog called fugitive vision which highlights a debate currently (recently) being work shopped at the San Francisco Museum of Art. A slightly older article from newsweek.com/2007/12/01/is-photography-dead
interestingly it seems to highlight a number of issues around this, but also talks of an exhibition of photographs from brownies to instamatics, one would imagine that Cell Phone or mobile camera's would fall into the same category, albeit often not as rich. but still there ...
here is a classic adams pic :-)
Either way i suspect i may not really understand the entire argument:-) But more onto the reality of life. I went to an art exhibition this weekend just past and it was intriguing in that some of the art was for art sake, some was conceptual others just silly.
But one of the more striking pieces was merely a statement around something that i had independently notioned about sometime ago and called soemthing totally different. but in general it said soemthing int he liens of:
"I've decided that every time I leave a small town I am making an artwork. It's a sad and beautiful picture that i can never become part of and one that i can never quite finish"
In a country which is overflowing with foreigners, maybe not quite as much as in ZA, but many. The key thing being that they are a combination of transients and people who are permanently resident. But the key thing being that they perpetually create social Cairns all over the place through activity and meme. From Cairns in the hutt river valley to some of my favourite Graffiti that fills the walls.. it is there, there are foot prints.
So we went for another epic this weekend, that is brusied ribs and shoulder (a story for next time on the circular nature of my movement through the air). I went through Belmont nature reserve with two others,,, epic'ly i went up a really big hill and down the otherside .. BUT amazing of all Amazing things .. there is this awesome thing here where all all the paths are shown on a website and are marked and there are signboards .. it is just to frigin amazing ... www.tracks.org.nz ...
but enough for now ..
oh yes free advertising go checkout a friends page .. http://rwilliams2080.blogspot.
this way he will be forced to add more entries... :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment