Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
Shop deviantART for the
holidays and save BIG!
Click here! :holly:
[x]

deviantART

 

art snobs

Mon Apr 11, 2005, 10:09 PM
some people....

I became some what frustrated by my art class earlier today.

In a crit of 5 pictures, i showed some of my recent experiments. I had been doing experimental photography as of late to sort of test what i could and couldn't do in a darkroom.

first everyone loved the "heated discusion" picture, and requested i explain how to do that trick. then after seeing my negative image and other stuff, like a print of a print reaching into a print, they harped on one picture and wouldn't let it go.

about a week ago, i tried an experiment wherein i took a roll of pictures (36) completely blindfolded. no one was there to guide me. i found an even light meterage and i blindfolded myself and slowly walked through the middle of campus taking pictures, while swinging the camera and changing the focus.

from this trial, i actually got 3 or 4 good pictures. by good i mean, well composed, aesthetically pleasing, and in focus. keep in mind that there are those in this class that haven't mastered taking focused pictures with their eyes open.

they attacked the process of taking pictures blindfolded. they asked me how dare i put this up and call it art, or myself an artist for doing it. (to set this up, i study media, in a class full of art majors or art minors). i explained i didnt claim it to be art or myself an artist.

the class debated the nature of art and what it means to be art or an artist, then took a second swing at me.

the two main people going at this took it like they had to defend art against me, when i hadn't acused it of anything. i just wanted to expand what was being done.

eventually one art major played devil's advocate and backed me up. one art minor (who takes pictures of the same house over and over) commented that anyone could do what i did. to which i replied, "if anyone could do it, how come i'm the only one who did?" this only seemed to fuel the fire from those who take pictures of their neighbors junk, or pans in the sink.

what i dont understand is why they will praise an image where i talk to myself, but shit on one where i tried a new technique. i had never taken a picture blindfolded, it sounded neet to try. to me, its no different. there is no difference between being blind and taking a picture, and making a good looking picture where i clone myself.

i thought people would appreciate this sort of experiment. guess i was wrong.

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconfierydisposition:
I disagree with you just a bit - there is a difference between the two techniques and their intent and the expect outcome, but one is not any less valid than the other. I'm rather surprised no one picked it up as a commentary on art and what constitutes art. It's like looking at a Jackson Polluck and going "I could do that." Yeah you could, but the mere fact of the matter is that no one did. No one else walked around blindfolded and took pictures. I think it's a wonderful commentary on the nature of art and our opinions of what art is to put a picture, a well composed picture that just happened to be taken blind folded right next to one that was taken with intent and is slightly out of focus. The reactions to such a display would definitely help seperate the artists from the art snobs.
:icondivinedecay:
Art is about ideas and passion. An artist is someone who can use some kind of media to show these to the world, and invoke a feeling in others. I think taking photographs blindfolded is fantastic, because it makes you wonder if your eyes are really the tools you need to create art. Couldn't blind people still create art? Also, the photographs obviously inoked a pssionate feeling in those people who were argueing with you over them... if the picture were actually just bad pictures and not art... then maybe no one would have bothered with them?
I think that "real" art is overrated most of the time and although my GCSE art lessons were the most valuable thing to me in my artistic development it is only because i can look back on some parts and say that they were wrong. I do not need to plan my picture before I draw/paint/photograph it... i can do whatever i want because my art is an extension of me. if it creates a feeling in me and/or a feeling in others then it is art. For example i dislike Damien Hirst a great deal... "The Pharmacy" made me so angry because it was just a pharmacy and that was it. But it made me angry... so unfortunately i can't deny that it is art. as much as i'd like to.

--
. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special messages. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours.

~dAMagazine

Journal History

Site Map