- Western culture is more visually defined rather than audibly, being a swirling amalgamation of television, movies, images and clips. Even music is herald to the video age, as was written “Video killed the radio star”
- Question of Photography, or many other arts, as being ‘high’ or not. And if there is high art, is there low art?
- Contextual differences on definition of ‘high art’, as well as what makes up culture
- “Culture is a process, not a fixed set of practices or interpretations”
- Visual media as a primary way to communicate cultural information was boosted from the rapid spread of internet access post-90s
- “We live in cultures that are increasingly permeated by visual images with a variety of purposes and intended effects” – visual generations aided by the spread of internet, which includes increased data transfer as well as access on an ever-broadening number of electronic devices
- We don’t view art is individual pieces anymore; every picture, every photograph. Every film and every experience is duplicated thousands of time over. Added to that is the frequent personal absorption within the confines of our own spaces, not amassed in public.
- Representation of the subject, what the artist chooses to put into the picture, depends much on context and intent, but regardless of artistic license or manipulation, still remains a concentration of cultural signifiers
- Photographic “truth” lies just as much in certain signifiers that related a sense of trustworthiness, as much as they do tricks to fool the eye. Cameras still function autonomously, following the controls of the photographer to record the image in front of the lens. There is no bias through the camera, only through what the photographer has chosen to take a picture of.
- Ideology and propaganda reflect the photographer’s intents as a whole, but can certainly influence the chosen work
- Typography was ignored in the visual media example of OJ Simpson’s magazine cover comparisons; written word has become visual imagery itself, not just simple text but evolving into carefully chosen words of meticulous font and detail, entwined around pictures and frame
- Images (and signs within images) do not have a given value, they attribute those ( based on monetary, social, political power, etc) in particular social contexts
A very close friend of mine will often talk about my photography, and while he is not trained in the arts, he gives me a much different perspective. One that is usually imbedded within political histories and cultural appreciations. And one night we were recanting the day we had in town, and he mentioned "the lady in the gallery we spoke to, she mentioned they didn't display any photography, only 'high art'. What is high art?". I had no real answer to him. If he had asked me "What is a Metasequioa glyptostroboides?" I could've answered him with qualitative facts and figures. But I can't do that in diagnosing 'high art', and photography's place within. Even me believing that photography is capable of being HA is disagreeable by some. Ultimately I agree with the reading, in that it is subject to culture, both of the time of the art's creation and the time of the art's appreciation, and this includes photography. One aspect I considered later is that some critique photography's lack of 'classical training', though certainly you can approach photography with as detailed and deft hand as any oil painter, let alone any chemist. I think many aspects of visual media, photography included, are finding themselves rubbing ever closer to one another. Boundaries are being crossed, media hybridized, to a point that is finding itself increasingly difficult to differentiate between the classical formats. There will always be the classics to appreciate, but rather than trying to focus contemporary works into rules set into play centuries ago, why can't we acknowledge and enjoy the evolving spectrum of art, from it's inception to the brilliant family tree that produces so many wonderful fruits of creation?
No comments:
Post a Comment