RE: First gallery ' experience'

What Charlie is saying is right and I can add in here base on my experience
as well about concepts of process, craft and ultimately what that means to
the viewer and "artworld". I have to start with the cliché that is, I think,
the bane of photographers and even after a hundred years, still seems to be
the foundation of this whole "issue". I have a few painter and sculpture
friends, who are big in to materials in their personal work, and when we go
out to see work in galleries and museums in NYC, they might be curious about
materials (unless the work is entirely about materials) for about one
minute. Then all the thoughts and conversations turn to intent, historical
perspective, line and form, how the thoughts being translated affect the
viewer, etc. I then go out with some of my photographer friends, or, I
eavesdrop on photographers talking at a show and 90% of the talk in front of
a photograph is about materials, camera, hardware, then almost all the time
turns in to what newest camera THEY are using or technique THEY do and how
it would have been different if THEY had used their equipment and lighting
for the image. It is almost never about intent or message. It's a totally
different form of conversation in front of "art". Now why is that so? I
think its because many photographers are tinkers, mechanically inclined
people. Most likely played with train sets as children (ok that is just a
joke so don't go off on me one way or another because of it, I always wanted
a train set, but never got one). I am like this in a way, why else would I
be pulling my hair out with daguerreotypes? The problem occurs that at the
same time many of these same photographers want to be taken "serious" as
artist too, but many seem to not have the same language and knowledge base
and naively feel they can scoff at the very art community they want
attention from, based on their perspective of what's going on in the
contemporary art world, which, they interpret as scoffing the art world. I
think it's in part due to photographers, unlike just about any other art
discipline I know, tend to be part of the "art is in the eye of the
beholder" concept. Most photographers I hear talk believe in this statement.
Most other artist I know who work with other materials totally disagree, art
to them is a studied and theory based discipline, not unlike biology or the
study of law so they (as do I) are under the belief that art isn't
subjective as well. But since there appears to be on the surface of art this
subjective element and unfortunately due this label in society mostly by
people who are afraid of people who think different then them, the saying
has become the standard of art. ...On a side note what's very scary to me is
that these same people who have "dumb down" art are now getting away with
doing that to science, law, etc. and you hear the same language in society
now, pretty soon science, math with be in the eye of the beholder as a
dismiss-all statement... So even if you agree there are two parts to art,
the subjective object, and then historical and theoretical context to the
discipline, photographers seem to lean way more in to art as subjective.
Problem is then when they want to be taken serious in the discipline, they
don't have the context to history, concepts, etc in their work or language.
I know this is not true for every photographer, nor am I assuming you who
are reading this to be part of this camp, but it does seem to be the
majority of photographers want to keep themselves outside the art
discipline, but, then demand to have their work taken as serious by that
very discipline. I believe this also contributes to why there is confusion
sometimes when approaching galleries as a photographer if you don't have
this context and how you seem to have to prove, more then others, that you
know what's going on and why you are making. They don't want to hear you are
making just because you're trying to created the largest perfect platinum
print and that your subject is image of trees composed the same way as
1000's of trees images if you don't have a reason why this is important to
the art discipline and contemporary art. Beauty and "I like trees at the
golden hour in the summertime" isn't enough to a gallery owner. They will
just go get an Ansel Adams from their drawer that has a proven selling track
record AND historical context to art and sell that for 100 times more then
they can sell your piece.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Goodwin [mailto:cgoodwin@mcttelecom.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:20 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: 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 12:42:01 2006