From: William Marsh (redcloud54@earthlink.net)
Date: 02/25/02-02:37:51 PM Z
Maybe I should let my comments just die away, but ...
I was feeling a bit caustic when I wrote that cynical little note.
Sometimes I can't help thinking of the guy I shared a studio with, whose
work consisted of eating lunch at Taco Bell everyday and incorporating
the leftovers (especially unused taco sauce) into a gigantic "print" he
built for weeks. After awhile it began to stink so bad that other
studios on the same hall began to complain.
So, was he telling his life story in a culinary amalgam, or merely
taking advantage the tendency of people to respond to the outrageous?
Some really wonderful things can happen by accident or
stream-of-consciousness. Everyone's stream-of-consciousness being
unique, who am I to summarily dismiss a hammer blow to the wall of
conventional wisdow? Isn't Art (note capital "A") supposed to dig
around in uncharted or, at least, unfamiliar ground?
I do know that at the end of the program (fifteen years ago - things may
have changed), he got the same important-looking sheet of MFA paper that
I, and others, did. Some people were really pissed about that, due to
what they saw as a vast difference in the amount of energy expended for
the same result. But perhaps he was simply able to express his ideas in
a less strenuous way.
I go back and forth about this all the time, judging my own work rather
harshly most of the time. How many of us have taken a picture, felt
satisfied, put the camera away, ready to move on, then taken one last
look at the scene only to see that we have missed the REAL picture by a
mile, and have to set up again and take the better photograph. This
sort of work ethic, rigorously pursuing the best image possible, seems
important to the integrity of the art, for me anyway.
Everybody who contributes to this forum is, by necessity, a "detail"
person. Not everyone goes about producing their art that way.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST