[pure-silver] Re: Self Critiism (WAS Is anyone out there???)
- From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:09:47 -0500
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Guess it depends on what you define as commercial. If you create an
> image without being paid for the creation to display and sell in an art
> gallery, is that commercial??? Now its not being used to sell
> something. It wasn't made for ad copy or the next great invention. It
> wasn't of someone that paid you to do it. The subject matter wasn't
> commissioned nor a buyer prearranged.
>
> Now is that photograph hanging the gallery art?? Is it still art if it
> isn't maybe your favorite type of work, but you know it has a far better
> chance of selling? Now I am not a particular fan of a Blue Bonnet but
> if I use one in bloom and put my on artistic vision and techniques to
> something I might not ordinarily choose, is it still art?
>
> Which opens up another possibility. How many times has great artist
> vision not been appreciated till much later? IF your personal vision is
> so personal that others won't pay for it right now, is one expected to
> not pay the bills for it to be considered art???
To me the issue is uncomplicated: Good art can only spring from
internal integrity. How the art get used, sold, or displayed is not
the point. The point is whether the piece is utterly consistent
with the artist's vision. That means that if I do a piece *I* love
and sell it peddle Chevys, it is still great art. A work commissioned
by a buyer that doesn't meet my internal integrity test is not great
art, no matter who else says so.
BTW, there is a huge difference between "quality" and "what I like".
"Good" art is art of high quality, whether or not I like it. As an
example, most people would agree that Stravinski's "Rite Of Spring"
is a brilliant piece of music. I agree. I also happen to not much
care for it. This does not change its standing as fine art.
>
> Tim like you I NEVER throw away the source. With digital I delete only
> the absolute worst technical flaws, and memory is cheap enough now that
> I rarely even do that. Mainly because I find it quicker to just look
> past them than to delete them. Unlike you I keep the prints that make
> it past test stage. I am amazed at what I can learn from them later and
> often can use them in other ways. Sometimes its is a sense of pride to
> go back through some every now and then an see how far I have progress
> in many ways. Yet I would consider that more of a difference in
> technique. If one day something like what happened to that press photog
> happened to you, the image isn't gone. Even though it likely won't see
> the light of day again, you still have the option.
It's funny this came up today. In the past month, I just finished cataloging
and contact printing my very earliest negatives shot beginning at age 14 on.
I am now on a part time project to review every single negative in my
possession and reprint some of them selectively to do what you say: Revisit
my ideas for (some of) the ones I've already printed or print some I never
saw much potential for in the past (but have changed my mind). Over time
I will end up with a personal portfolio sort of along the lines of
"My Life In Pictures". It's great fun.
>
> It is an interesting comparison to music. Handel's Messiah was written
> in only 28 days. Writing it had nothing to do with his personal vision
> and its hours and hours long. But is it a work of art?? Congrats if
> you know why he had to write it so fast, and it was a pretty good reason
> grin.
IIRC, he needed the money. (As it happens, I sang in a touring chorale
in college and we did Messiah every year.) But commercial motivation
does not vacate the possibility of art. As I keep saying, to me, great
art is defined when it is consistent with the internal vision of the
artist *no matter what their reason for doing it*.
> This is an interesting discussion.
>
Indeed.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Self Critiism (WAS Is anyone out there???)
> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 5:48 pm
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > I would argue that most commissioned work is primarily commercial,
> > not artistic in nature - I'm not saying one is better than the other,
> > merely different. It is rare to get a commission that says, "Make
> > some art." Usually, it's more like "Take pictures of my drooling
> > children and make them seem charming."
> >
> >
> This distinction, though, is a fairly recent one. Most of the great
> works of art, from Mozart's symphonies to Rembrandt's paintings, were
> commercial.
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> <//www.freelists.org> and logon to your account (the same
> e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
> unsubscribe from there.
>
> ==========================================================================================================To
> unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
