RE: First gallery ' experience'

Hi David,

>>>>> What in the name of Sam Hill is a 'gallerist'?

A gallerist is a person involved in running a gallery, often the manager or owner. The term is not yet ensconced in the dictionaries, so your question is very valid. Googling "gallerist" got me over 90,000 responses. Yahooing produces over 75,00 entries. The word is definitely in current usage in the arts world.

>>>>> I disagree with those who say that 'it is the image that is important not the way it's created'. Isn't the craft inherent in the aesthetic? Is a giclee print of an oil painting the same as the original. I don't think so. Both are beautiful processes but serve an entirely differant purpose.

>>>>>> Why pursue differing methods of creating art if the process isn't important.

I'll take a whack at this though I haven't a chance in heck of settling the issue. Well meaning people will disagree on it forever. But here goes. My thoughts only...

Your example: giclee vs oil painting: the giclee is verrrry flat, composed of dots if one cares to look closely enough, and is capable of being produced as a multiple. The oil painting has the third dimension of the body of oil paint, shows the depth of the brush stroke, is not composed of dots, and is a unique product. It was not my intent to give the impression that such items are in any way equivalent. Even if they were visually indistinguishable, I would hold them as both necessary, since each would permit the maker his / her process of choice, as artists. Each would allow a different creative process.

My point is that we as the makers of artworks, are always concerned with the craft / technology / technique / process. We must be. For us, process is the unique way to get what we want as an end product. Not to mention that the process can also just plain be fun / interesting / engaging etc.

I am putting my working artist hat on as I turn around and say that no matter how important the process is to me, I want my image to communicate to a viewer, whether or not they know any of the techniques involved in the making of it. I.e. as I send my work out into the world, I believe the product and image become the crucial aspect - for my intended audience.

For someone who is producing for lets say an exhibition at a camera club, where specialixed expertise is generally high, and technical discussion is the norm, process may be less or more important. I'll stay out of that one. But when work is going to be in fromt of a general audience, I believe the work must communicate through purely visual means - not through shared technical knowledge.

I think the best works work for a broad audience - no matter what the technical aspects - because the end work communicates well visually.

So, for me, process is central and vital, but I don't require or even ask the viewer to share in the details. I'd just as soon share them only with a couple of other artists who I get together with for regular critiques, and with other folks when they ask me about what I do. With most folks, most of the time, I tend to give a pretty darned abbreviated version. One exception, if we are talking about a piece of photography, and if the veiwer is a photographer, and I can share some knowledge, or learn from them, then I will go into detail, but then again that's back in the territory of process, mine and / or the other photographer's.

So, I would never equate an oil with a giclee, nor a gravure with a gumprint or a polymer plate, nor an oil with a tempera, etc. Process and media and product are all vital, each serves a different purpose.

C

Powered by the E-mail PIM - Info Select - www.miclog.com
Received on Mon Feb 13 10:20:55 2006