INTRODUCTION: I have been a professional photographic artist for a while, an observer of the art
world since I was very young and I have "been around the block a couple of times".
I have seen trends and fashions come and go many times in all of the visual arts. I have watched "movements"
rise up and recede only to become the subject of future derision and even the butt of jokes.
I have seen firm declarations by critics contradicted by the same critics not much later in time.
I have observed a frantic searching for the "new" and "never seen before" as an end in itself. Sometimes as
the ONLY end considered.
I have witnessed the largest institutions in the art world act VERY insecurely about their own tastes, desperately grasping at a
moving target, searching to show and collect that which will be timelss with such utter indecision, that they are almost
afraid to act at all.
All of this uncertainty leads to any given artist needing to have a long paper "show list"
or "Big Art School" credential list of pre approvals in order to be accepted. Very few in
the museum or gallery world seeming to be able to make a decision of approval without first looking at the list to see if
it is "OK". Everyone
following the followers. This "catch 22", has led to a certain randomness in what is accepted in the art world
at any given time.
It is my contention,
that in the long run, there is nothing "there" for art world institutions to grasp separate from these two basic things:
(1) BEAUTY (including anti-beauty), as manifested by the form, line and color (etc.....) and (2) MEANING,
as manifested by the representational or contextual content. That is it.
I have similarly witnessed "movements"
or trends in photography come and go. Sometimes again and again. Things such as '2 millimeter depth of focus',
pinhole photography, The Holga, Barbie photography, blurriness to the point of erasing most form, collage,
the primacy of black and white, high contrast, platinum and palladium, daguerrotype,
low contrast, bright colors, dull colors, hand coloring, the primacy of 'the process' and emulsion transfers to name a few.
All declaring their supremacy of "coolness" over other techniques during their occasional moments in the sun.
I have slso watched with resignation every few years as the art press declares that photography has
"finally" been accepted as a legitimate art form, only to see shortly thereafter, art world spokespersons
declaring that
photography is not an art form, but "merely" a craft. As an example, the gallery owner
carrying works of the famous photographer Cindy Sherman declared that photography isn't art and never would be. Declaring
with a straight face that "Cindy isn't a photographer, she is an artist who uses
photography to create her works." Beyond Irony.
At one point, I had come to accept the
"fact" that
PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE SUPPOSED TO FEEL GUILTY about participating in such an "easy and inferior"
art form. "It isn't hard or doesn't require skill like painting or sculpture", some people would say.
"It's just a picture of something, it has no deep thought or content" or "How can it be creative if one is just
pointing a machine at the world", said others.
Eventually, as I gained more experience of the art world, I met and got to talk to famous and skilled
painters, sculptors and others in the arts
and I noticed that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between their creativity and skill levels and mine. Eventually,
I finally internalized that I, as a photographer, was truly worthy to be called an artist.
Just as worthy as any of them.
A VERY IMPORTANT ART WORLD FACT which
I have observed, is that the sensibilities of the creators of art are quite different than those of
the purveyors, critics and exhibitors of art. The latter
are much more interested in words. They care about theories,
categorizing, classifying and forming heirarchies. They desire to make broad, abstract judgements and feel more
comfortable when artists have been placed in the appropriate pidgeonhole. They seldom care about or even disuss the beauty or meaning
of an individual specific work of art.
Alternatively, ALL of the best creative artists I have met are involved in the creation of Beauty and/or
Meaning in their individual artworks , and they all have one thing in common: they follow their belief in
their own taste and let everyone else be damned.
The MOST IMPORTANT LESSON
I HAVE LEARNED AS AN ARTIST is that one
must NEVER lose touch with the progression of one's internal sense of what is beautiful and/or meaningful.
It is a lesson that ALL
accomplished creative persons in any field have learned.
Those who try to follow trends or movements they don't believe in, end up losing their own sense of good and bad.
And that brings about the DEATH of their creativity and originality. When you worry about what the audience
wants to hear, by definition you have nothing to say. When you have something to say or show, you shout to the audience
what you believe and show them what you know to be true. And whether they love it or hate it is up to them and not something
that you can do anything about.
WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE is that the real
details of the world are amazing and complex as well as beautiful and meaningful. I believe that consideration of those
details can lead to us rethinking our own 'human condition' and our place in the universe. That is what I attempt to show and say. Th
|