aharwell@hhpa.com
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:24:58 -0500
The concept of the "authenticity" of art is something that has vexed critics
and artsits alike throughout the latter part of the twentieth century. As
an architect, I have a slightly different perspective on what creates an
"authentic" work. Architectural offices still act like the ateliers of the
historical masters in that the vision of one person (be he the designer of a
project or simply the proprieter of an architectural office) is given the
credit for the work of the many architects, draftsmen, consultants,
constructors, and craftsmen who participate in the creation of an
architectural work. In some cases, new work from an office (like Skidmore,
Owings, and Merrill) is still attributed to founding partners (now deceased)
in a firm. Perhaps unethically, the vast majority of contributors to a
project are never recognized.
A similar condition exists in photography, although on a smaller scale. The
photographer is recognized as a sole creator, while in fact it is possible
that there are many that cotribute to a final image including the lighting
assistants, paper designers, lab employees, printers, etc. It is the role
of the photographer to synthesize these elements with his vision into a
final product, an artifact which derives greatly from the visions of many.
In this sense, it is irrelevent who prints an image, or even who clicks the
shutter. What is important is who the purveyor of the final artifact is;
who directs the synthesis of the elements of light, chemestry, paper, and
vision.
Andrei S. Harwell
HHPA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54