Darkness Photographs???

[Petzi]

But this one guy at my last show tried to convince me that if someone shoots an image of a completely dark room, I mean completely dark, like my color darkroom, that the resulting image should be considered a "photograph." He argured because the print would be all black, and since B&W is still around, that makes it a photograph.

We should keep in mind that the translation of "photograph" is something like "drawing with light".

So in the absence of light, no photograph can be taken.

 

[Petzi]

You must be thinking of Hiroshi Sugimoto?? He's a LF black and white master. Though he's doing color work now.

You make it sound gimmicky, but it's all gorgeous work.

His seascapes are wonderful too.

Link: http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/theaters/

Whoa, that guy is in trouble. They are going to get him. He is committing a copyright violation. And he even posts it to the Internet.

 

[PhotoPete]

The "Conceptual" part of it is gimmicky because he could arrive at the same result if there was no film in the projector. But the result, on purely aesthetics ground is very beautiful. Which of course is the downfall of a conceptual approach.

What is the gimmick?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What is the gimmick?

That he "recorded" an entire movie (or its idea) by letting the shutter open during the entire duration of said movie.

 

[PhotoPete]

That he "recorded" an entire movie (or its idea) by letting the shutter open during the entire duration of said movie.

I guess I don't see that as gimmicky. To me it is an interesting exploration of the nature of time as expressed in photography. Instead of the very thin slice of time normally captured in a photo, he gives us a full two hours and it changes entirely the focus of the picture- the part of the scene the audince would have focused on- the screen- is completely devoid of information, and what they might have hardly noticed- the architecture of the theatre- is rich with detail. It is the opposite end of the same spectrum as, say, sports photography, where the capture of a very brief period of time, rather than a long one, sets the focus for the image. I think that some of the images in your gallery are also part of an exploration of the relationship between time and the photographic medium, although yours also add elements of spatial location.

 

[livemoa]

The "Conceptual" part of it is gimmicky because he could arrive at the same result if there was no film in the projector. But the result, on purely aesthetics ground is very beautiful. Which of course is the downfall of a conceptual approach.

Great, we decend into the usual shit about artists being charlatans.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Great, we decend into the usual shit about artists being charlatans.

Excuse me but I did not speak of artists in general. I was speaking about this particular instance, and yes, I was also extending my critique to conceptualism.

In the present case, the premise and the process are interesting, but they do not create exceptional results that can be obtained only from this very process. Frankly, if there had been just a few spots of shadow on the screen, it could have revealed something instead of nothing. If it would have revealed a "dark spot" in the composition of the movie, then yes there would be something interesting to know about time and pictorial space. Here, it just revealed nothing.

Don't have such knee-jerk reactions. There has been a dearth of aesthetics discussion on APUG according to recent threads, so if you have a more elaborate point, then belabor it, please.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I guess I don't see that as gimmicky. To me it is an interesting exploration of the nature of time as expressed in photography. Instead of the very thin slice of time normally captured in a photo, he gives us a full two hours and it changes entirely the focus of the picture- the part of the scene the audince would have focused on- the screen- is completely devoid of information, and what they might have hardly noticed- the architecture of the theatre- is rich with detail. It is the opposite end of the same spectrum as, say, sports photography, where the capture of a very brief period of time, rather than a long one, sets the focus for the image. I think that some of the images in your gallery are also part of an exploration of the relationship between time and the photographic medium, although yours also add elements of spatial location.

That's an interesting interpretation and a good examination of intention; what I was driving at (and said in my above post) is that the problem here is one of indistinguishability. Having had the light of the projector open in an empty showroom could have given the same result. The conceptual part of the project yields nothing specific to the artwork. So yes, I understand the intention to change relationship of the viewer to time, but I find the result unsatisfactory with respect to the intention.

This reminds me of that project on the Internet that averages human faces from all over the world into the "average human." Like the photos discussed here, the approach is conceptual, but in the case of the "average human" the result is tangible and specific.

However I agree there is a certain latitude for the role of intention (or "concept" if you will) in the interpretation of artwork. We don't take all artwork only for their aesthetics face value (wasn't there a Walker Evans picture of a moon over a city, and that picture implied that the coal mining activity was dying, given that the sky was now clear from dust?).

 

[livemoa]

Excuse me but I did not speak of artists in general. I was speaking about this particular instance, and yes, I was also extending my critique to conceptualism.

In the present case, the premise and the process are interesting, but they do not create exceptional results that can be obtained only from this very process. Frankly, if there had been just a few spots of shadow on the screen, it could have revealed something instead of nothing. If it would have revealed a "dark spot" in the composition of the movie, then yes there would be something interesting to know about time and pictorial space. Here, it just revealed nothing.

Don't have such knee-jerk reactions. There has been a dearth of aesthetics discussion on APUG according to recent threads, so if you have a more elaborate point, then belabor it, please.

Really, I can't be bothered; some one who says that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasing needs to learn about conceptual art, or even art. And aesthetics. A good argument can be made that a big chunk of Renaissance art was conceptual being that it was to convey the presence of God. Tell me that a Giotto fresco about the passion of Christ, where the concept was to educate the people on the mysteries of faith, fails because it is aesthetically pleasing.

Hunt out a gallery that has original Sugimoto prints and then tell me that it’s a “gimmick”. Learn about what and why he does what he does. Just because a work does not fit the strict confines of modernism, or comes from a different cultural background does not mean it’s a gimmick.

 

[jstraw]

Jonathan Borofsky writes down numerals. It's a gimmick. The first time I saw his major show, in 1984, I left overwhelmed, physically, emotionally, aesthetically and intellectually. I felt dwarfed. It was exhilarating.

Charlatan?

To some, art may be the creation and presentation of attractive objects, sounds or performances. To me, art is the use of sensory stimulation to evoke aesthetic, emotional and/or intellectual responses. This may or may not involve the creation or use of attractive objects, sounds or performances.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Really, I can't be bothered; some one who says that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasing needs to learn about conceptual art, or even art. And aesthetics.

Look buddy, you can't even read correctly what I'm writing so don't even bother yourself giving lessons on aesthetics and art.

I never said that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasant (in fact look at what I'm saying about the Internet faces project), I said that when it fails to do so, it also often fails to be interesting at all. I never said either that Sugimoto was bad because he was Japanese, so give me a break, dufus! You're just a thread bully and an illiterate one at that.

 

[PhotoPete]

Please, can we turn this thread back towards civility? Interesting points are being made all around- there is no need for the tone to decay in this fashion.
This is a public forum and there is a tremendous diversity of opinions and experiences represented. If this or any other discussion of art on this forum is to be productive, it has to be based on a foundation of mutual respect among the conversants, even when there are sharp disagreements.

 

[PhotoPete]

In the present case, the premise and the process are interesting, but they do not create exceptional results that can be obtained only from this very process. Frankly, if there had been just a few spots of shadow on the screen, it could have revealed something instead of nothing. If it would have revealed a "dark spot" in the composition of the movie, then yes there would be something interesting to know about time and pictorial space. Here, it just revealed nothing.

This and this may be illustrative of what you are thinking of?

 

[jstraw]

I never said that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasant (in fact look at what I'm saying about the Internet faces project), I said that when it fails to do so, it also often fails to be interesting at all.

Is it your view that aesthetically pleasant art is more likely to be interesting than art that is not aethetically pleasant?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Is it your view that aesthetically pleasant art is more likely to be interesting than art that is not aethetically pleasant?

Almost, yes. My view is that art should have an aesthetic effect: it doesn't have to be beauty, it can be ugliness. But it should have a perceptually engaging aspect.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

This and this may be illustrative of what you are thinking of?

Pete that is it! That is the sort of results for which I think the conceptual approach can yield something specific.

I still adore the Sugimoto photos, especially the Cinerama Dome, Hollywood, 1993 one, but I just can't buy the "This allows him to save the duration of the entire film in a single shot" discourse about it.

 

[jstraw]

Almost, yes. My view is that art should have an aesthetic effect: it doesn't have to be beauty, it can be ugliness. But it should have a perceptually engaging aspect.

Well, I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

So "pleasant" is a word you give a lot of latitude, then. Ugly can be pleasant, so long as it is engaging?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Well, I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

So "pleasant" is a word you give a lot of latitude, then. Ugly can be pleasant, so long as it is engaging?

It think it was more of a brain fart from typing too quickly; the first thing that comes to mind when regarding aesthetics I suppose is "pleasantness" because we're (I am?) conditioned to see aesthtetics as "beautiful."

 

[jstraw]

It think it was more of a brain fart from typing too quickly; the first thing that comes to mind when regarding aesthetics I suppose is "pleasantness" because we're (I am?) conditioned to see aesthtetics as "beautiful."

I think I understand what you were trying to communicate and I concur.

I have nothing against beauty or craft but neither of those things automatically signify art to me and plenty of good art has none of either.

 

[livemoa]

Look buddy, you can't even read correctly what I'm writing so don't even bother yourself giving lessons on aesthetics and art.

I never said that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasant (in fact look at what I'm saying about the Internet faces project), I said that when it fails to do so, it also often fails to be interesting at all. I never said either that Sugimoto was bad because he was Japanese, so give me a break, dufus! You're just a thread bully and an illiterate one at that.

OK, let us start again, and I can assure you I am not illiterate. Dyslexic yes, tired and grumpy, often, prone to getting things wrong, on occasion I do it really well. To give you background I took offence to the word "gimmick" which I think belittles what Sugimoto did with these works. Maybe I would have used "vehicle". I like the bright screen, the overwhelming evidence of information. I also think, on a technical level, that Sugimoto has talked about how different movies gave a different final image in the same movie theater. Have tried to find the quote but can not as yet.

And I will assume you are not trying to insult me by calling me gay which is what buddy means here Dufus is a new word for me, I assume it is not flattering, like shrimp here. (Chinese is a great language, full of homonyms and puns)

And I promise not to post late at night when I am in a bad mood.

Hey, I just found out what dufus means:
Anti folk emissaries, microgiants of the New York squatter trash art variety.

vaguely appropriate?

 

[livemoa]

..and just found this interview which might throw some light (excuse the pun) on the Sugimoto's.
http://www.eyestorm.com/feature/ED2n_article.asp?article_id=135

 

[bjorke]

And the conceptual artists who get their best ideas with their heads in dark places could borrow the necessary equipment from their proctologist and photograph what they haven't been able to see.

Rocks, trees, time-exposed rushing water... what more could one want to photograph?

 

[Black Dog]

If Schrodinger had a camera...............

 

[livemoa]

If Schrodinger had a camera...............

....but cats are not as much fun as dogs

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ok, then let's just sponge this mess:

OK, let us start again, and I can assure you I am not illiterate. Dyslexic yes, tired and grumpy, often, prone to getting things wrong, on occasion I do it really well. To give you background I took offence to the word "gimmick" which I think belittles what Sugimoto did with these works.

Belittles, but in what sense? I don't belittle him in a racial slur way, but I belittle his artistic intention which is too far ranging for what it accomplishes. The word "gimmick" usually refers to the idea of using a trick or a quirky thing of little value beyond catchiness to sell something.

Maybe I would have used "vehicle". I like the bright screen, the overwhelming evidence of information. I also think, on a technical level, that Sugimoto has talked about how different movies gave a different final image in the same movie theater. Have tried to find the quote but can not as yet.

Not sure about "vehicle" here, unless you mean a vehicle/tenor metaphor theory? All the resulting images looked the same in the displayed sample, hence my conclusion that the movie was irrelelvant. Cf. the art of Jim Campbell cited earlier as evidence of the opposite.

And I will assume you are not trying to insult me by calling me gay which is what buddy means here Dufus is a new word for me, I assume it is not flattering, like shrimp here. (Chinese is a great language, full of homonyms and puns)

No, and I don't think "gay" should be an insult anyway. "Buddy" is just a colloquial way of address, like "sir" but more informal. Closer to pub talk arguments than to afternoon tea conversation.

And I promise not to post late at night when I am in a bad mood.

Hey, I just found out what dufus means:
Anti folk emissaries, microgiants of the New York squatter trash art variety.

vaguely appropriate?

Spelling error on my part: it's "doofus." From the Wikitionary: "(slang) A person with poor judgement and taste." See also boob, dolt, blockhead, lowbrow, oaf...