Monday, January 26, 2009

evolution

this is a small river that feeds into the atlantic ocean at a beach in calais maine. i had a friend tell me today that photos like this one, the classical, pastoral scene with the 'silky' water are cliche. is this true? it seems obvious that art changes. the difference between a successful painting one hundred years ago and another today are countless, but i wonder whether that change incorporates nature. or the way that we look at nature? should the artist begin to look for new ways to interpret the beauty of nature?
like it or not, i believe that we are all a little bit post-modern. the idea that only one type of photography or painting could be beautiful or successful sounds shocking. this is because i (and i believe that the same is true of you) would rather take it for granted that we all have different artistic 'taste' and that what is, in fact, beautiful is made so in part by those who view it. however, i also don't believe that complete cultural relativism is possible (hence we have trends). i suppose this leaves the artist in an awkward place somewhere between following and leading the latest definition of beauty.
at

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM

    I came across this while working on my pomo seminar:

    A picture is not so much a solid representation of ‘what is’ as ‘what was’ and therefore ‘what has ceased to be’. It does not make reality solid but serves as a reminder of the world’s inconstant and ever changing state.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tyler WilsonJanuary 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    this may be true. here are some points that i am contemplating as a result;
    1- does this create a distinction between visual art and spoken or written art? if a picture is 'what was' can a song, poem, or story do one better, and maintain the status of 'what is'?
    2- can a picture (particularly i think of photographs) capture something that is timeless? can a talented artist rise above 'what was' by portraying an emotion or visual feeling which continues to be 'what is'?
    3- does this type of thinking glorify any particular form of photography? should a thinking artist stray towards people and the emotions that they can convey more clearly than architecture or landscapes, for example?
    any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)