Photographic art differs from many other kinds of collectibles with the way pieces may be duplicated. One film negative (or slide for that matter) may be used to produce an unlimited number of (almost?) identical prints. The piece of film is actually the original artwork but as such not very enjoyable as visual artifact. Digital original take this aspect one step further. Imagine if they had prints-on-demand kind of web services some 50 years ago, like Red Bubble, Moo, Deviant-Art etc. In fact, the only truely original photographic art prints are polaroids.
Check out this polaroid self portrait of Andy Warhole taken in 1977.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Art is What Artist Does
Ran into the concept of artworld and its interesting definitions. One specifically caught my attention, namely one by Howard Becker (Art Worlds. Berkley: University of California Press, 1982). The basic idea is that artworlds are communities of networked individuals and that art is collective actions within the community. To blend in some Forrest Gump - Art is what artist does, sir!
Thinking it like this makes it easier to accept that there no (and can't be) specifiq measures on defined qualities determening if a piece is art or not. Significant members of their networks and the art community produce significant art in this scheme I suppose. But how to determine just how significant an artist is? Should be quite a bit easier to calculate the significance of past and documented communities. Contemporary artists, however, make up a dynamic community. Isn't it true that many of great artists have been recognized (as great) only after their death? Luckily nowadays we have tools to demonstrate ones position in numerous communities and social networks. I'm taking about web 2.0: facebook, flickr, ipeternaty, deviant-art, twitter, jaiku and the likes.
My conclusion is:
contemporary artists: get connected - use the tools that are already out there and don't hesitate to tell the world about it.
My question is:
What are most popular networking tools that contemporary artists are using? Would be nice to find out the big picture.. Any opinions?
Thinking it like this makes it easier to accept that there no (and can't be) specifiq measures on defined qualities determening if a piece is art or not. Significant members of their networks and the art community produce significant art in this scheme I suppose. But how to determine just how significant an artist is? Should be quite a bit easier to calculate the significance of past and documented communities. Contemporary artists, however, make up a dynamic community. Isn't it true that many of great artists have been recognized (as great) only after their death? Luckily nowadays we have tools to demonstrate ones position in numerous communities and social networks. I'm taking about web 2.0: facebook, flickr, ipeternaty, deviant-art, twitter, jaiku and the likes.
My conclusion is:
contemporary artists: get connected - use the tools that are already out there and don't hesitate to tell the world about it.
My question is:
What are most popular networking tools that contemporary artists are using? Would be nice to find out the big picture.. Any opinions?
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Lighting the Background + an Example
I'll be celebrating the 170 years of photography by learning about the art part in fine art photography. Not being a photography or art student, I'll need to set up my own method and goals of learning - the curriculum. Collaborative efforts are welcome by the way... I'll be defining and refining this curriculum in upcoming posts but in the meantime I need to make some peak previews.
In the previous post I was wondering how can one tell - as a consumer of art - the difference between a masterpiece and a snapshot. For example, take a look at this piece in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) photography highlights section. Then take a look at the photo below found in flickr creative commons pool by the user "ndrwfgg":
Do they have some fundemental differences with respect to "artistic vision"? Such contemporary documentary style does not actually underline the uniqueness of the artistic vision.
In the previous post I was wondering how can one tell - as a consumer of art - the difference between a masterpiece and a snapshot. For example, take a look at this piece in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) photography highlights section. Then take a look at the photo below found in flickr creative commons pool by the user "ndrwfgg":
Do they have some fundemental differences with respect to "artistic vision"? Such contemporary documentary style does not actually underline the uniqueness of the artistic vision.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Grand Opening
In this very first post I'll be describing what this blog is supposed to be all about. Six months from now (let's set August 2009 for interim audit) we'll find out if it actually turned out as intended. Right now, I have more questions than answers. A lot more.
The world has changed very rapidly with regars to technical capabilities of producing images. Millions of people are recording their daily lives and/or producing images to fulfill the creative vision of a photographer. The latter is actually one definition of fine art photography according to wikipedia and as such quite vast and comprehensive. Within the last five to ten years, the amount of photos fitting the description must have exceeded the amount of pieces of art of all the preceeding decades. Can you tell if a piece is a snapshot or a masterpiece worth thousands of dollars. Who could and how do they do that?
Is it uniqueness (or some other quality) of the artistic vision, skillfull realization and/or productivity in either or both? Art is a craft without a doubt and craftsmen need training. Is art nowadays judged by its creators training? Schools certainly can help you make a name as an artist.
What makes some pieces of photojournalism art while others remain disposable items of trade for the media? What sets amateurs snapshots and perls of photojournalism apart?
This blog will be my journal as I try and learn answers to questions like the ones above. You are welcome to join the ride, comment, ask questions or laugh your ass off at my naive perception. Should I find myself onto something, I might try and contribute some too.
The world has changed very rapidly with regars to technical capabilities of producing images. Millions of people are recording their daily lives and/or producing images to fulfill the creative vision of a photographer. The latter is actually one definition of fine art photography according to wikipedia and as such quite vast and comprehensive. Within the last five to ten years, the amount of photos fitting the description must have exceeded the amount of pieces of art of all the preceeding decades. Can you tell if a piece is a snapshot or a masterpiece worth thousands of dollars. Who could and how do they do that?
Is it uniqueness (or some other quality) of the artistic vision, skillfull realization and/or productivity in either or both? Art is a craft without a doubt and craftsmen need training. Is art nowadays judged by its creators training? Schools certainly can help you make a name as an artist.
What makes some pieces of photojournalism art while others remain disposable items of trade for the media? What sets amateurs snapshots and perls of photojournalism apart?
This blog will be my journal as I try and learn answers to questions like the ones above. You are welcome to join the ride, comment, ask questions or laugh your ass off at my naive perception. Should I find myself onto something, I might try and contribute some too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
