Pastiche
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 319
- Format
- Multi Format
I'd like to run something by you...
It's just one of my ruminations on my photographic practices, and how I have attempted to understand the behavior in terms of contemporary art.
I'm faced with a project which, in theory, could result in my producing a "book" of sorts.. a "one of a kind" work....
and here is my sticking point - I don't want to get caught up in creating "a piece" that is considered "the work". . .
Thus far, I've produced several series of works, in which all the images together are "the work" but "the work" is NOT their collected renditions on this medium or another. Does that make sense? i.e. I see myself as creating IMAGES .. . . which are then rendered, photographically, onto a material carrier (meeting archival standards). I think what has not been evident to me, up till now, is that I'm truly only concerned with THE IMAGE, so long as the rendition on paper be pleasing (which, if you have skills, is not too difficult to achieve... and if you don't have the skills, or the time, you hire a printer. There - you're done).
And so it is that I've come to see my reticence to "create a one of a kind, physical object which IS the artwork."
I understand that "one of a kind" works are the bread and butter, meat and potatoes, gravy and salad AND desert to the art world.... and will necessarily remain so for so long as I will be around, for sure. However, I see my position with regard to making "art objects" as uniquely appropriate to photography, who's very nature CAN lead to almost limitless renditions of the same "art-work" . . and in a sense, this is a departure from the standard form in with which "art objects" are treated, valued, and sold in the art market.
Interesting to note - most of the photographic art objects that have risen to great worth are images which are extant in limited numbers... the fewer the better.
There is another vein in Art to consider - Conceptual Art - who's practice has flown in the face of the traditional "unique" art-object, standard ideas for how to appraise art-work value, and the very concept of the object as the receptacle/container of that which IS ART. That is to say - conceptual art has been grappling with these questions about "where is the Art contained", and in it's exploration of that question, they've eliminated the art object AS the art-work.
And that's where I seem to be finding myself - I consider my works to BE the collection of tones and hues, contrast ratios and reflectance properties which are rendered in works on paper. I don't consider THE PAPER, the individual rendition, to be the ARTWORK. A print may be a wonderful exemplar, but never the Art.
And thus, I'm balking at the idea of producing a "book" of sorts that would hold the images I'm relating to one another... 'cause I have not yet - nor do I now wish to - create an "art-object" . . .. . I see my role as a photographer, as a photographic artist, to be that of the image maker (and QC of prints, of course), but not that of image crafter.
I'd like to hear your objections to this stance - particularly because your objections (in toto) will reflect the mainstream aesthetic of the "Modernist Canon" from which our world is still emerging (by and large) .. . ..
In short - are prints the art work? or is it plausible to say - the IMAGE is the work of art, the print is A rendition.
(I suspect there is room for BOTH approaches within the market..)
It's just one of my ruminations on my photographic practices, and how I have attempted to understand the behavior in terms of contemporary art.
I'm faced with a project which, in theory, could result in my producing a "book" of sorts.. a "one of a kind" work....
and here is my sticking point - I don't want to get caught up in creating "a piece" that is considered "the work". . .
Thus far, I've produced several series of works, in which all the images together are "the work" but "the work" is NOT their collected renditions on this medium or another. Does that make sense? i.e. I see myself as creating IMAGES .. . . which are then rendered, photographically, onto a material carrier (meeting archival standards). I think what has not been evident to me, up till now, is that I'm truly only concerned with THE IMAGE, so long as the rendition on paper be pleasing (which, if you have skills, is not too difficult to achieve... and if you don't have the skills, or the time, you hire a printer. There - you're done).
And so it is that I've come to see my reticence to "create a one of a kind, physical object which IS the artwork."
I understand that "one of a kind" works are the bread and butter, meat and potatoes, gravy and salad AND desert to the art world.... and will necessarily remain so for so long as I will be around, for sure. However, I see my position with regard to making "art objects" as uniquely appropriate to photography, who's very nature CAN lead to almost limitless renditions of the same "art-work" . . and in a sense, this is a departure from the standard form in with which "art objects" are treated, valued, and sold in the art market.
Interesting to note - most of the photographic art objects that have risen to great worth are images which are extant in limited numbers... the fewer the better.
There is another vein in Art to consider - Conceptual Art - who's practice has flown in the face of the traditional "unique" art-object, standard ideas for how to appraise art-work value, and the very concept of the object as the receptacle/container of that which IS ART. That is to say - conceptual art has been grappling with these questions about "where is the Art contained", and in it's exploration of that question, they've eliminated the art object AS the art-work.
And that's where I seem to be finding myself - I consider my works to BE the collection of tones and hues, contrast ratios and reflectance properties which are rendered in works on paper. I don't consider THE PAPER, the individual rendition, to be the ARTWORK. A print may be a wonderful exemplar, but never the Art.
And thus, I'm balking at the idea of producing a "book" of sorts that would hold the images I'm relating to one another... 'cause I have not yet - nor do I now wish to - create an "art-object" . . .. . I see my role as a photographer, as a photographic artist, to be that of the image maker (and QC of prints, of course), but not that of image crafter.
I'd like to hear your objections to this stance - particularly because your objections (in toto) will reflect the mainstream aesthetic of the "Modernist Canon" from which our world is still emerging (by and large) .. . ..
In short - are prints the art work? or is it plausible to say - the IMAGE is the work of art, the print is A rendition.
(I suspect there is room for BOTH approaches within the market..)