At 13:57 7/1/02, Winsor Crosby wrote:
These discussions are interesting. I tend to think that Ansel would never
have succeeded as an artist without craft , but he was certainly more than
a craftsman. Maybe it is a powerful vision which communicates in an
original way to many that lifts craft to the level of art. And of course
art is a thing of fashion and hype as well, so that talk of universals may
be silly. Who really cares about abstract expressionism anymore and who
listens to Salieri's music today except as a curiosity? And Ansel's work
may be considered a curious infatuation of the late 20th century in a 100
years because different things will be important to people then.
I also find these interesting as they cut to the very core. Engineers and
Scientists call them First Principles; Philosophers would describe it as
Meta-Thinking; a Mathematician would call them Axioms (which must be
induced, and cannot be deduced). One can run around in circles working out
the "how" in doing something, but if the "why" it's being done (purpose and
goal) are ill-defined, or worse yet undefined, it is aimless.
The definition of "craft" will differ depending on who you ask. For me, it
means the "science" of how to achieve different effects with light,
exposure, and composition. If one takes a reductionist view of a
photograph, it can be broken down into its elements, including everything
that was done to create it (DoF, object placement, light direction,
exposure, etc.). This is the "craft."
OTOH, the "art" requires an holistic view of the piece to examine the
"message" it conveys. What does it "say" or "mean?" Part of the
craftsmanship is understanding the intended viewer(s), their experiential
base, and how to use the "craft" to convey the message so the intended
viewers receive the intended message.
Examples:
I made a photograph about a month ago of the "travelling" 2/3-scale Viet
Nam War Memorial "wall" (as yet unscanned for my site). It shows a man
examining the names on a section of the wall with flowers left by relatives
of those inscribed on the wall at its base. The glossy black wall surface
has a subdued reflection of the man and the state flags out of main view
behind him. The title is "Nameless Nevermore" and it will likely be part
of my September exhibit. It has meaning to those who know what the Viet
Nam War Memorial wall is. Those are its intended viewers, and it is
limited to them. If the same photograph were shown to a Tibetan Monk who
has only known his monastary in Tibet, and doesn't even know such a wall
exists, or why, he would not comprehend it. To him, it would merely be
some guy staring at names on a wall and it would be near meaningless. He's
not one of the intended viewers. Moreover, the time span around which it
may be meaningful is undoubtedly also limited. A millennium from now, it
could be just as meaningless to everyone as it would be to a Tibetan Monk
today.
OTOH, the photograph I made of a small boy sniffing an amaryllis is more
universal and less time dependent in viewers to which it can convey its
message. Why? Nearly everyone has seen flowers, knows they have an odor,
and has experienced the curiosity of small children as they explore the
world around them.
The first questions I ask myself before making a photograph are:
1. Why am I making this photograph (what is its message)?
2. Who is it for (who are its viewers)?
I found that by forcing myself to articulate answers to these two questions
for the holistic aspect of the work, it is much, much easier to determine
how it will be made (the craft(s)). There is now a clearly defined goal an
purpose for the image. The answers are usually simple and quick, but still
very essential. Everyone who makes a photograph answers these questions,
but most do not realize it. I found the yield in conveying the desired
message with my photographs improved greatly by making it a conscious
effort to do this *before* opening the camera bag.
Thus, what AA's photographs meant to viewers when he first made them may be
somewhat different from what they mean to viewers today, although many are
"timeless." IMHO I believe he qalifies as an "artist" because it is
evident to me that he did, indeed, consciously consider why he made his
photographs, and who they were intended for. His consummate crafstmanship
enabled him to do it exceedingly well.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|