| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2002 04:59:36 AM · #1 |
Here are 1, 2,3 and 4.
This time I want to continue the discussion I started last time about what photography really is. Is it an art in itself, or just representational, or a blurring of the two?
Edward Weston once wrote that a camera should be used "for rendering the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself [the object being photographed], whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh." Vik Muniz, the artist I'm going to talk about in this post, referred to this quote in the title of one of his solo exhibitions, called "The Things Themselves: Pictures of Dust". In this exhibition, he basically collected dust from around the Whitney Museum of American Art, and with it created drawings of some of the minimalist sculptures in that museum, then photographed the drawings. So what was "the thing itself" in these photos? The dust? The drawings made with the dust? Or the sculptures?
Vik Muniz is a Brazilian artist who works in New York. Most of his work has some kind of illusionist element. He likes to use artworks as his inspiration, recreating them in weird media like spaghetti sauce or dust or chocolate syrup, and then photographing them.
This is a photo of his from 1996 called "Valicia Bathes in Sunday Clothes":
This photo is in his "Sugar Children" series. Six of them can be found here, just keep clicking the forward arrows to see them, and click on the small images to see larger ones.
As the description on that page says, Muniz spent some time on the Carribean island of St. Kitts, where he got to know workers in the sugar plantations there. He took polaroid photos of some of the children there, and then using the photograph as a source to work from recreated the images by drawing them in sugar (from the plantations there) on black paper. The photos are of the sugar drawings, which he cleared away each time to start the next one.
So what is this a photo of? Literally, it's just sugar. But the sugar is in the shape of a photo of a child, which was taken by Muniz. This child's life and the sugar that was used as the medium for the image are intimately connected. In some ways the sugar image is a more revealing, meaningful portrait of the child than a straight photo could have been. Similarly, sketching the child's face in the sugar says more about the sugar's history than just a photo of it in an abstract little heap or pouring out of a sack :). Would Weston have agreed that this photo renders the "very substance and quintessence of the thing itself"? I'd love to know what people think.
Message edited by author 2002-12-16 11:45:01.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:05:53 AM · #2 |
This is fascinating. I will take some time to think about the implications, but I just wanted to thank you for bringing this to our attention.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:09:45 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:25:16 AM · #4 |
Thank you, Lisa, for doing these! It's fascinating to me. I have no background in art or art history (as evidenced by my placement in challenges ;-)) so this is a completely new way of looking at the world.
Added bonus: it bumps all of the negative, whiny threads off the home page. :-) |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:00:04 AM · #5 |
Lisae, may I assume Mr. Muniz is a member of the conceptionalist school of modern art? If I understand it the act of being creative is more prized than the object created. But part of the function of art is to communicate something (not neccesarily emotion or commentary). So these artist naturally turned to film to document the ephemieral passage of an idea.
A suger painting (wow!) is most definetly ephemerial. And Mr. Muniz's comentary adds immesuralble reverberation to the concept. Without it the picture is just an illustration of a happy child, one that is changed or lost the moment the black paper is moved. It would of course be disqualified here. *wink, grin*
Some say the highest function of photography is it's ability to freeze time. Does that make the PHOTOGRAPH itself a work of art? A document certainly. A link in a chain of communication, happily. [You, Lisae, are another link in that chain. :)]
I don't know that there is an answer. I want to quibble. IF ... Muniz had filmed the process from the first grain of sugar to the last touching the black paper. Or a large image of such fine resolution that each grain of sugar is palpable.... That would be Photographic ART to me.
Aelith
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 09:53:14 AM · #6 |
Ephemeral is exactly the word that comes to mind for me also, aelith.
The sugar is just the "medium" that Muniz used to sketch out these likenesses, used just as any "medium" would be; be it graphite, charcoal, etc. The difference here, is that the "medium" - sugar - relates intimately to the lives of those whose portraits he did, and, unlike the other mediums that I mentioned, it has no permanence, and would therefore need to be "documented" in some way.
For me, photographing the process from the first grain of sugar to the last touching the black paper would be a documentary. To photograph the finished piece of such incredibly emphemeral artwork to preserve the "essence" of it, IS art.
I guess I think of it in terms of "mixed media" art. He is just using photography as an integral part of his artisic process.
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:25:11 AM · #7 |
| Good point Linda, and why I said 'there wasn't a real answer'. There are too many schools of thought on art and creativity. I lean one way; you the other and I'm sure there will be other points of view. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:27:48 AM · #8 |
So if I've got this straight we have:
a photo
of a cleverly constructed image
of a photo
of a person.
Damned if you haven't piqued my curiosity again Lisae. Nice job. Based on the information you gave from Weston I don't see how the image could be the quintessence of the thing itself. We have two things in the photo. The sugar is one thing while the image created by the sugar is the other. Without the detailed information on the connection between the sugar and the image then the connection itself is not conveyed in the image, at least for me. When the page loaded I saw a "grainy" face smiling. There was nothing to lead the viewer to see "sugar" and possibly make the connection between the sugar and the subject. The appreciation of the work skyrockets once we have "the rest of the story". This is just a first impression so I'm looking forward to others input. These are great, hope you keep them coming.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 11:41:31 AM · #9 |
| This reminds me a lot of the sand mandalas created (and then destroyed) by Buddhist monks. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 12:20:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by lhall:
To photograph the finished piece of such incredibly emphemeral artwork to preserve the "essence" of it, IS art.
I would question this. If someone else working with Vik Muniz, the sugar artist, took this picture of the sugar drawings would it still be considered an art and would the photographer be an artist? I think the entire process is art but I question if just the photograph alone is art in itself. I would consider this documentation.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 01:07:42 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by lhall:
[i]To photograph the finished piece of such incredibly emphemeral artwork to preserve the "essence" of it, IS art.
I would question this. If someone else working with Vik Muniz, the sugar artist, took this picture of the sugar drawings would it still be considered an art and would the photographer be an artist? I think the entire process is art but I question if just the photograph alone is art in itself. I would consider this documentation.
[/i]
I also said: I guess I think of it in terms of "mixed media" art. He is just using photography as an integral part of his artisic process.
Emphasis on integral part!
I think it IS documentation, but is also "part" of his art, if not his ultimate end point for his art.
I really do think of it in terms of his using photography as part of his artistic process. What if his ultimate "vision" for the art, IS the photograph of what he created? How would that differ from those of us who do "set-up" shots to create our vision? We have a vision in our mind of exactly what we want to create for our shot, then we use a variety of "media" to create that vision, which we photograph, which then becomes our "art".
If someone else photographed Muniz' "sugar artwork" would it then be considered "art". I don't know. I guess it would depend on the photograph!
Linda
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 08:03:18 PM · #12 |
Cool, great discussion :). Thinking about it all just makes me feel dizzy.
Aelith - I don't know that much about Muniz, I just stumbled across some of his work when I was looking up some other photographers on the web. All the information I have on him has been from the internet, which is kind of fragmented. So I don't know if he's in the conceptualist school :).
One interesting thing I've found is that he is very inspired by the work of Stieglitz in his "Equivalents" series of cloud photos. Here is a webpage that talks about them. Just to save people reading the white text on a black background there though (that makes my eyes hurt, I hate it when people do that), here is the most important part:
According to Minor White, a photographer and a friend of Ansel Adams who conversed with Stieglitz about his Equivalents, there are four levels to the idea of the Equivalent: the photograph itself, the viewerâs response, the viewerâs âinner experienceâ, and an emotion (White 17-21).
The first level is the photograph. The photographer took the photograph to represent something. In Stieglitz's case, the Equivalents are just a collection of cloud photographs, but these photographs of clouds mean something more. The lighting and shapes of the clouds at various points of the day in these photographs were specifically chosen to create a metaphor and convey a particular emotion. According to White, âWhen the photographer shows us what he considers to be an Equivalent, he is showing us an expression of a feeling, but this feeling is not the feeling he had for the object that he photographed. What really happened is that he recognized an object or series of forms that, when photographed, would yield an image with specific suggestive powers that can direct the viewer into a specific and known feeling, state or place within himselfâ (18). This idea leads into the other levels of the notion of the Equivalent.
The second level is the viewerâs response to the photograph. The viewer looks at the photograph; in his mindâs eye, he can relate this picture to something personal to himself. The third level is his âinner experienceâ, which refers to his image of the photograph after he has viewed and left it. The fourth level is the evocation of an emotional response (White 17-21). The photographer created a metaphor; the viewer interprets the picture and has a connection to the meaning and emotion depicted by the photograph.
The idea of the Equivalent also uses the photograph as a âfunctionâ (White 25). The photograph is a tool to communicate human response and emotions. The image that is left in the viewerâs mind is more important than the photograph itself. The image is connected with an association with similar images and experiences. The images left in oneâs mind after viewing the Equivalents can be one of unrest in some and hope in others. This association connects the viewer to the photographer to the photograph with a similar reaction.
Muniz has made a lot of images and sculptures inspired by Stieglitz's images, but they are not of clouds themselves. In one series he created cloudlike images from cotton, in another he took photos of the marble floors at the Museum of Modern Art, in another he actually got a skywriter to draw cartoonish clouds over Manhattan and took photos of them! By doing these things he's added another layer to Stieglitz's - the illusion that inspires the viewer to see clouds where none existed. It's so confusing when you think about it!
Here is an interview with Muniz that I haven't finished reading yet. It gives some great insight into his work and thought processes.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 10:02:04 PM · #13 |
I believe that Weston would have agreed and been pleased. No matter what medium we choose, all but are representations of the things we seek to illustrate. Oils are but paint splotches on canvas that when viewed at a sufficient range cause our brains to see images. It is the manipulation of the medium to cause us to go beyond recording mere data (I saw a picture of a dark skinned girl) to an emotional response (where we get a sense of message the creator was trying to send along with the data) that breaks the bonds of craft and becomes art. The picture communicates on so many levels. I would think Weston would see it no other way.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:11:16 AM · #14 |
I don't understand how a photo of a sugar image captures the "substance and quintessence" of the subject per Wesson's quote. If I interpret Wesson's statement right then a photo of steel should capture the substance of steel i.e. its strength, rigidity, etc. Without the descriptive text building the reference point for our minds to work with the image above (at first glance) is relegated to grainy snapshot. Where is the substance and quintessence in "Valicia Bathes in Sunday Clothes"? I'm not attempting to be argumentative just trying to make the connection.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:59:20 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Seeker:
I don't understand how a photo of a sugar image captures the "substance and quintessence" of the subject per Wesson's quote. If I interpret Wesson's statement right then a photo of steel should capture the substance of steel i.e. its strength, rigidity, etc. Without the descriptive text building the reference point for our minds to work with the image above (at first glance) is relegated to grainy snapshot. Where is the substance and quintessence in "Valicia Bathes in Sunday Clothes"? I'm not attempting to be argumentative just trying to make the connection.
The child's existence is entirely about the production of sugar. They
work and live on a sugar plantation.
That the artist creates an image of the child out of sugar, or in a
very real sense, shows the person as being made of sugar, gets more to
the core of that particular subjects existance, than say a shot of
them standing in front of a field of sugar cane.
Least that's my superficial interpretation
One theme that recurs here quite often is the belief that pictures
should stand on their own, or not have any value. I find this quite a
peculiar notion.
Often when I look at stuff in galleries, I look at it for a while, on
its own, unburdened by the content of the little bit of card below the
picture. But often when I read that bit of card after forming my own
opinions, I find that there is other aspects that I've missed, or deeper
meaning that I didn't pick up from the initial inspection. This usually
adds a lot of depth to my feeling of the picture (or on other occasions
I either feel like that artist is quietly laughing at the people that
take all this so seriously and is being sarcasticly over 'spiritual' about
thier work - or maybe that is just me)
But in most cases I find the thought and motivation enhances the picture,
rather than compensates for deficiencies in the image. This has
probably turned into a discussion for a new thread - but I think these
Art Appreciation threads exemplify what I'm trying to say.
They've all been good pictures in their own right but the addition
insight provided by Lisae changes my perceptions of the picture.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 12:02:54 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 12:03:43 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:15:21 AM · #16 |
I agree, without the background information Lisae provided I cannot relate to the photo. She asked about the photo in context of Wesson's statement on photographs which is where I was coming from. I too feel that many photos cannot be understood without background information and have had many of my opinions on a piece of art do a 180 once the missing pieces were filled in. But again, without the detailed information this image still appears a snapshot or document without making the "substance" connection Wesson speaks of.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 08:26:19 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Seeker:
But again, without the detailed information this image still
appears a snapshot or document without making the "substance"
connection Wesson speaks of.
Do you think it meets the 'substance' connection, with the description ?
Does the art stand alone as a photograph, or is the piece the
photograph + the description ? What do you think it should be ?
On its own, it is hard to tell that for example it is sugar, who knows,
you might notice the grains and think sand, or salt, or something else
entirely. Initially I didn't notice that the white was the 'positive'
I thought it was the other way around.
I think the art is the whole package, not just the piece you look at
first. Certainly a lot of Weston's pictures that I see are in that
same boat.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:15:27 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Seeker:
I don't understand how a photo of a sugar image captures the "substance and quintessence" of the subject per Wesson's quote. If I interpret Wesson's statement right then a photo of steel should capture the substance of steel i.e. its strength, rigidity, etc. Without the descriptive text building the reference point for our minds to work with the image above (at first glance) is relegated to grainy snapshot. Where is the substance and quintessence in "Valicia Bathes in Sunday Clothes"? I'm not attempting to be argumentative just trying to make the connection.
The idea of the Equivalent also uses the photograph as a âfunctionâ (White 25). The photograph is a tool to communicate human response and emotions. The image that is left in the viewerâs mind is more important than the photograph itself. The image is connected with an association with similar images and experiences. The images left in oneâs mind after viewing the Equivalents can be one of unrest in some and hope in others. This association connects the viewer to the photographer to the photograph with a similar reaction.
[iThe image that is left in the viewerâs mind is more important than the photograph itself.[/i] And no two people in the world ever see it the same. Nor is our mind static, we do not see art the same from moment to moment because life = knowledge/environment is not static.
Can you remember the moment when the knowledge SEX redefined everything you saw? (what they call loss of innosence)
Anyway, this is Gorden's before and after reading the 'little white card.' The words 'Its all subjective.' Is used so much that it is almost a throw-away line. [yes, non of this is new news, but I'm illustrating here] There are mamy commenters here who have embraced this concept if I my go by their expressed opinions.
And many who have not. Art is the material thing that man made to express/capture the image in THE ARTIST'S mind. Once created, like a child, it has an indipendent existance and the world judges it's success or failure as dependent on the artist's skill. Objective rules have been propagated as judging criteria, ie. Composition, Technique, Style. (And if you don't know those rules you can always find a reason to disqualify it, IMO.) We judge by making comparisons. By giving rankings. 'It must stand alone.' we say.
And then say it is just not appealing to me. or I don't get it. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:36:32 AM · #19 |
If I understand correctly (which I may not) you are saying that art is experienced through our knowledge/experience which I equate to context. Our own knowledge of something, our own experience colors how we view an art piece, what context we put it in. This was my point originally, without the background information that adds to our experience/knowledge base our context is out of phase so to speak with the artists work. Had Lisae simply posted the photo and asked for critique I think the response would have been completely different than with all the extra information which places the photo into a completely different viewing perspective. Wesson's substance criteria for photos is not met without the additional information. The meaning of the work changes when we understand the relationship between the photo, the image and the media it was done it.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 09:47:10 AM · #20 |
you got it
and a lot of people don't
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 1:46:37 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:16:12 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by aelith:
you got it
and a lot of people don'
Of course the viewers bias, experience and perspective change what a
piece of art means to them. The time of their lives or current situation
can also heavily influence how they feel or respond to a piece. Often
their level of understanding of the creation or difficulty can be
involved in their appreciation as well.
So which is more important ? How the originator wanted it to be
seen, and what they meant it to mean or convey ? Or how the
viewer sees it and what emotions it evokes in them ? Which is
the purer (can't think of the right word - don't want to use correct)
interpretation - are they both equally valuable ?
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 2:14:32 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:43:33 AM · #22 |
At first I thought both would be equally valuable for what good is an unheard message? Why speak if no one listens? OTOH what good is trying to send a message that can't be understood due to lack of context? Wouldn't this be like trying to speak to someone in a language you don't understand? Little if any communication will occur. I've heard that art is a universal language but I'm not sure everyone speaks all the dialects.
Ever notice that art can change the bias, experience and perspective of the viewer? That's one of the criteria I use for art. Did it move me, emotionally, spiritually or change my world view in some manner. This is why I tend to like Wesson's substance or quintessence criteria for viewing art without descriptions.
If it doesn't have that "substance" then it tends to be a silent piece.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:49:43 AM · #23 |
Again, just so. Ideally the one should inform the other. Art is Communication.
or
Art is a state of idealized/ideated creation.
It's THE DEBATE we have every week.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 2:48:46 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 03:53:20 PM · #24 |
Wow, this is an interesting thread. Thanks to lisae for continuing her great work of taking the time to show and explain photos to us which are a little "different".
This photo is a great example why I would like to have the photo details seen when voting here. I don't know much about "art" but to me photos just have to be captivating. Whether because of its beauty or the message it conveys. In fact the ones with a message are usually more interesting and I remember them longer.
In this case the photo is very interesting because there are several levels which add up to the complete thing. One could say that the photo is just an image of another art form (the sugar painting) and that the photo is not art. I disagree. For me the art here is everything together. The background story of the girl, the sugar painting, the photo and the fact that he cleared it away immediately so the photo is the only evidence that the painting ever existed. The photo is the end product of the whole process and I also think the photography part adds to it because Muniz abviously chose a certain composition, lighting and so on to create this photo.
But what would the photo be without all the other things? A photo which on the first sight looks like a bit too much postprocessed in Photoshop? ;-) Hmmm I still would like it but it wouldn't be that great and certainly not that interesting like it is with the explanation.
So I agree with Gordon when he says that's quite a peculiar notion of the people here who say a photo should stand on it's own. Of course I interpret a photo (and art in general) with my own knowledge so why not extend my knowledge and broaden my view on things? I enjoy that. That's captivating. That's art for me.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 04:10:40 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by lhall:
[i]To photograph the finished piece of such incredibly emphemeral artwork to preserve the "essence" of it, IS art.
I would question this. If someone else working with Vik Muniz, the sugar artist, took this picture of the sugar drawings would it still be considered an art and would the photographer be an artist? I think the entire process is art but I question if just the photograph alone is art in itself. I would consider this documentation.
[/i]
This is a long running and I often think slightly silly debate.
It more often gets discussed in terms of photographer vs. developer/
printer.
If someone else prints from an Ansel Adams negative, who's picture is it ?
Especially if they do new dodging/ burning and re-interpret the
image in a new way ?
I think in this case, if a photographer worked with Muniz took a picture
of the sugar drawings, then the two of them combined would have created
a piece of art, between them. I don't think we can chop up things
so cleanly as to say 'he did art, but you just recorded it' Both are
parts of the whole. But where do you draw the line - is the person
who wrote the 'white card' to document the process, thinking and point
of the work part of the work ? Do the thoughts and feelings that it
evokes in your mind, make you part of the work ?
These threads are the reason why I enjoy dpchallenge, and I learn more
in them every day - hopefully Lisae will keep it up or new people will
add to the fray...
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 8:09:31 PM. |
|
