Of Conceptual Art, and Photography

[davetravis]

Pastiche,
I understand your quandary.
If, after you capture the image onto some media, you stop, what will it be?
In painting, it would be the finished artwork, yet still subject to modifications.
In photography, it is only a potential artwork, the first step, and must be completed with the print.
If you shoot slides, then you have a portable artwork ready to display.
If you shoot negatives, you can leave them un-developed, and the latent image will remain the artwork, but only in conception, inside your mind.
If you develope the negs, you can leave them as the "one-of-a-kind" artwork, or you can make a single contact print, and it could be the artwork, or both. Either way, you have two originals. The un-printed neg, and the single contact print are both your expressions of your original concept.
DT

 

[Claire Senft]

Yawn..what difference does it make?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Yawn..what difference does it make?

Silly me, I should really not think about these things... Now I see the light, and will check in for a twelve-step program to get rid of theory.

 

[livemoa]

Yawn..what difference does it make?

well, a lot to people who think about these things and want to better understand process and a works place in the world. If people didn't think and talk about these things the world would be a dull place. And yes, I know, many people are very happy with dull.

 

[Pastiche]

Yawn..what difference does it make?

Hi Claire!

I'd like to hear more about why you think it makes no difference...
Really. I'm not trying to induce any bickering, but rather, I'm interested in the point of view you hold... it's obviously different from my own, and I'd like to see what you see...

Hope you care to indulge a stranger...

 

[Salmonoid]

Wasn't it Ansel Adams who said the negative is the score and the print the performance? Isn't photography a bit conceptual or even performance? A more important question to ask is why do you photograph at all? Is it entirely a personal act, or is it a performance that is to be enjoyed by others? Is it theorapy or is a gift? Are you describing reality or creating a new one? Are you reflecting God or creating a god? These are questions that each artist must consider, and the answers will have their consequences in the reaction to and significance of your own work.

 

[Claire Senft]

I wonder to what extent theory is useful for a photographer's own work. When looking at the final print does it matter whether some would consider it to be fine art or conceptual art just a photograph. It is what ever it is and different people will react differently to the photograph. When you go out with your camera are you looking to make a photograph or are you looking to apply theory to a photograph. If you start to worry about "rules" for composition will your photographs become better?

For myself I have very little interest in art theory as it might affect what I wish to accomplish. I look at what is in front of me and if I am drawn to it, I place my camera where it seems most effective..not because some one else feels that it should be placed there or be photographed differently.

So I take my photo, I make my print and in the end what difference does theory make?

Perhaps others can explain how conforming to a given theory and applying it I will achieve photographs that are more meaningful to myself.

Edward Weston claimed that composition was the strongest way of seeing...which hardly seems to me to be a critical art theory. Ansel Adams was not interested in applying any critical art theory that I can recall. So, who has been successful in photography by applying a critical art theory in making photographs..as opposed to saying afterwards that a particular photo fit a given theory?

What difference has critical art theory made to your photographs?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Claire, I think the glib way of answering your concerns is that some people are compelled to wonder about these issues, while other people are compelled to give them an answer.

To what extent does art theory matter for artists is not the same question as wondering to what extent art theory matter for the academics, the critics or the public in general. I find that most artists work from a much more intuitive process than theorists analyze them, and that's valid for any form of art.

To go back to the issue of the golden rule on ground glasses, HCB was saying that it would not help the photographer, but that once someone has made a photo, the golden rule theory would help to explain why and how his photo can be good or not. Theorization is a post-facto process, not always a part of the creative process. Some artists rely heavily on theorization, but the quality of their work is not supervenient upon their use of it.

But all photographers internalize some form of art theory, and Weston's "strongest way of seeing" is one, the same way his clamoring for creating artwork that depend specifically on photographic effect rather than painterly ones is a theory of art. More specifically, it's a theory of medium specificity: that each medium produces a specific effect, and that this effect is not transferrable to another medium. Some people have strong disagreement with this theory of medium-specificity, and that does not include only pictorialists.

People have been lighting fires for eons before knowing that it involved the process of oxidation, but would you count chemistery as useless knowledge? After all, people don't need that knowledge to create fires. But it allowed us to design better matches.

 

[Allen Friday]

Ansel Adams was not interested in applying any critical art theory that I can recall. So, who has been successful in photography by applying a critical art theory in making photographs..as opposed to saying afterwards that a particular photo fit a given theory?

Adams was a founding member of the F64 group, which had a stated manifesto published in conjunction with their first museum exhibit. The manifesto laid out some pretty strict rules for the artists to follow. Are not the requirments of the f64 group (large format, sharp focus, maximum depth of field etc.) just a statement of how to practically follow modernist art theory? To an extent, one could argue that every Adam's photograph after his shift from pictoralism was applying a critical art theory.

 

[Pastiche]

Well..
Interesting answers to Claire's propositions... I am certain that I could not have spoken more clearly myself of the theory...

But, I can give an anecdotal response -

I'm working on this "untrue biography". . . the intent is to form the finished work into an "untrue scrap-book" .. .. i.e. a false biography.
The materials I've chosen to use are portraits I've "extracted"/appropriated from pages in Vogue, along with photographs of actual pages from real people's scrap books. . their family albums if you will. I have not yet decided how I will be uniting the two "source" media. (i.e. how the images from Vogue will be mixed into the larger body of these photos of family albums).

BUT - I do know this - In analysing how I will assemble the various media, I will take into consideration:
- their final assembled form (that being - a "family album" constructed from various photographic sources)
- each source's initial form, it's intent, and it's aesthetic qualities
- how the two sources will be forged into a coherent single structure

Understanding the work from a theoretical point of view will NOT dictate every nuance of how things proceed... it will really only serve to clarify, for me, what it is that I'm working on "saying" .. .
The actual process of photographing, assembling, and producing the visual material (as opposed to printing that information) will only be contained in theoretical ways - leaving me lots of freedom to toy with the way the work looks on camera, and subsequently (at the printing process) how it is rendered on paper.

I know the above is vague.... possibly that can be taken to reflect that although I've analysed the "problem" from a theoretical POV, to the best of my capacity, it has not "mechanized" the creative process.... Actually, with this "problem" that I'm facing, looking at the constituent media has been a way for me to mark out boundaries for me to work within, and this in turn, helps me define what the "answer" to the "problem" is...
Much like someone saying - "get the seeds out of the pumpkin" .. . . . if you don't know that you intend to carve the pumpkin, one might opt to getting the seeds out by cutting it in half - or backing the car over it.. if we lack the theoretical boundary of "you want to create a design using the skin of the pumpkin as your canvas" any 'ol answer will do just fine.
- "That's good right there Bob, one more whack with the sledge hammer and there won't be much seeds to be gotten."

 

[MattKing]

I think the difference between the approach that Claire describes, and others, turns on how important the question is to you - "Why does this photograph work?"

Sometimes, I'm compelled to ask that question, while at other times I am happy to leave it as a mystery.

Matt

 

[Pastiche]

I think the difference between the approach that Claire describes, and others, turns on how important the question is to you - "Why does this photograph work?"

Sometimes, I'm compelled to ask that question, while at other times I am happy to leave it as a mystery.

Matt

Hm.. maybe I'm not getting your drift...
'cause I think that when you ask - "why does this photograph work" you are opening the doors to exactly the kind of mental exploration characteristic of art criticism, and art theory...

Actualy, I think that is a good way to sum up the reasons that dealing with concepts is fundamental to art - at some point, someone (hopefully the artist, if no one else) will ask themselves that question, and incorporate their answers into their personal theoretical venacular...
A work might be interesting on a variety of levels. . . and inquiring as to why, on each level, is a way of not only engaging the artwork, but also of appreciating it's content. Art is not limited to what the eye can behold.

 

[Jim Jones]

Art is about feelings; preferably good feelings. If a Norman Rockwell cover illustration pleases people, it succeeds as art. It certainly works better for me than Van Gogh's late paintings. A creation need not be intended as art to arouse good feelings. Great engineering can accomplish that, too. Consider the Golden Gate Bridge, the 1934 Ford roadster, the New York State Empire Building, the Remington model 1858 revolver, the U. S. Navy's LM frequency meter, and countless others. They accomplished utilitarian tasks with elegance and grace.

 

[Allen Friday]

I think the difference between the approach that Claire describes, and others, turns on how important the question is to you - "Why does this photograph work?"

I think the question "Why does this photograph work?" is part of the equation. But it is only part. It is an after-the-fact question.

I think an equally valid question would be, "How do I make this idea/photograph/project work?"

The question is asked before an exposure is made, possibly before the camera is set up, possibly at the very start of a project. While the question focuses on one image, or a series of images, the answer flows from our desire to express our thoughts and emotions, our experience making art in the past, our experiences in viewing art that worked or failed in the past, and our general life experience/education/etc.

One photographer might say he or she just takes pictures without thinking about theory. But, the aesthetic which defines movements or even individual photographers work influences the choices made by that photographer. The reference to art theory may not be overt, but it is present none the less.

 

[JBrunner]

I have found that although I study theory to an extent, at a certain point for me it becomes rather obtuse.

Also, when I am under the darkcloth it all goes away, at least consciously. I think that many of us work intuitively and that our intuitive work is always a few years ahead of our conscious understanding.

That has been my experience, at least, when viewing my own work at a later time. For some reason I have a far better understanding of what I was doing sometime after the fact.

 

[Allen Friday]

I have found that although I study theory to an extent, at a certain point for me it becomes rather obtuse.

Also, when I am under the darkcloth it all goes away, at least consciously. I think that many of us work intuitively and that our intuitive work is always a few years ahead of our conscious understanding.

That has been my experience, at least, when viewing my own work at a later time. For some reason I have a far better understanding of what I was doing sometime after the fact.

Well said.

I guess it goes to the question of how art is made. Is it always conscious decisions, or all emotion, or something in between? A lot of time we just go with our gut. Which kind of brings us right back to the original question, what is the art, seeing, exposing, making a print...?

 

[MattKing]

Hm.. maybe I'm not getting your drift...
'cause I think that when you ask - "why does this photograph work" you are opening the doors to exactly the kind of mental exploration characteristic of art criticism, and art theory...

Actually I think you do get my drift.

IMHO The conceptual approach is oriented toward answering the question "Why?".

What I was trying to say in my own unclear way, is that the "Why?" part of my question is more important to some, then to others, and also is more important at some times, then at other times.

I also found it interesting that everyone who has responded to my post assumed I was referring to the photographer's review of their own work. I can certainly see that it is applicable to that situation, but I was actually thinking about our review of other photographer's work when I posted my earlier observation.

Matt

 

[Ed Sukach]

Art is about feelings; preferably good feelings.

Interesting.

I'm glad you used the word "preferably" ... I would NOT have said anything approaching "absolute".

Picasso's "Guernica" does not promote "pleasurable" feelings in me ... and it is difficult to deny its existence as a great "work of art". The same would apply to countless paintings of the "old masters" ... those the with the topic of St. Bartholomew, for one example.

 

[Bromo33333]

Well said.

I guess it goes to the question of how art is made. Is it always conscious decisions, or all emotion, or something in between? A lot of time we just go with our gut. Which kind of brings us right back to the original question, what is the art, seeing, exposing, making a print...?

Yes ... the intention to create art.

The urge and intent to create a piece or pieces of art is the main portion of it - the medium and methods are mere details and unfortunately rarely live up to the creative intent.

Artists regularly question whether they are actually creating art - and this is normal and I think proper (my wife is an artist who has wrestled with this for 20+ years.).

 

[Pastiche]

I just wanted to say :

"THANKS"

to all that have shared their P.O.V. thus far....
There is a lot of mileage to be gotten out of the mental gymnastics contained herein.

 

[zenrhino]

IMHO The conceptual approach is oriented toward answering the question "Why?".

Preach on, Brother Matt.

My mentor spent an entire class period trying to figure out why we (the students in her class) shoot. She threw out the following as axiomatic:

1) "Because I want to" is self-indulgence and ego.
2) "Because I have to" is bullshit and faux artiste-ness.

My answer was much simpler: I want to create beauty by showing little bits of the world in ways rarely seen. And I have (in Alec's words) married to the medium of photography because I literally cannot draw a straight line. Watercolor would be my chosen medium if I had any ability at all.

Why. Theory is all about the why.

The when, where, how -- that's all just technical.

The technical is the boulder. The theoretical, there's your lever.

 

[zenrhino]

I just wanted to say :

"THANKS"

to all that have shared their P.O.V. thus far....
There is a lot of mileage to be gotten out of the mental gymnastics contained herein.

There's a lot of milage to be had just from the reading lists!

This makes two wonky, academic and theoretical threads in the last week or so. APUG at its finest, I say!

 

[Bromo33333]

Preach on, Brother Matt.

My mentor spent an entire class period trying to figure out why we (the students in her class) shoot. She threw out the following as axiomatic:

1) "Because I want to" is self-indulgence and ego.
2) "Because I have to" is bullshit and faux artiste-ness.

[...]

don't think our culture these days respects callings - it is all about money and mercantilism these days - so your mentor does not surprise me. But being an artist is about ego at least to some degree, but what isn't, really, because you always decide if you want to take any sort of job or study towards any goal.

I hope you weren't charged too much for the class session!

 

[zenrhino]

don't think our culture these days respects callings - it is all about money and mercantilism these days - so your mentor does not surprise me. But being an artist is about ego at least to some degree, but what isn't, really, because you always decide if you want to take any sort of job or study towards any goal.

I hope you weren't charged too much for the class session!

Susan is the very last person to ignore the business and marketing side of photography. I think she wanted us to cut through all the bullshit and honestly state why we do this. I had an instructor in culinary school basically say the same thing: "If you're here because you love to cook, you need to leave. You won't love it after I'm through with you. If you're here because cooking is the very best way you know to make a profit, stick around."

As for me, it's admittedly ego -- a big part of why I shoot is to create a body of work that will be around after I'm dead. Photography will be a part of that. But getting to that insight, that was the point of the class.

And I paid well for it, but got more than my money's worth. I'll take anything she ever teaches at any school. Or her dinner table. Or a bar. I don't care. She's that good.

 

[Daniel_OB]

"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."

A photograph is a print, material think that has its material properties. Platinum print looks differently that silver gel. a print of the same image...
A photograph is not work of art, it might be is. One of the best print ever made at the time when it is shut (around 1920) was consider just anything but not work of art. Beauty does not lie in its subject but in the WORK. Remeber Durrer's mother drawing, time worn woman.

A print can be work of art, an image is nothing, if we consider that an image is a subject a photograph represnts.

www.Leica-R.com