The state of art…

by Jim Caryl

If you take a photograph of art, is that art too? Or is it just a photo of some art? When does it stop being art? Do you have to manipulate the photo before it becomes art; a change in the original intended emphasis of message?

What about if you then take a photo of the photo of the art, does that then make it art? I think it might, but then why does taking more photos of the photos of the art make it more art than just the original photo; surely the latter is “closer” to the original artwork than the 2nd+ generation photo?

But then, is it the degradation and graininess in the 2nd+ generation photos that makes it artsy? Why, if the original artwork is degraded would this be more artistic? What would that mean for the original artwork? Was it not degraded enough, or are we now talking about something different? If so, where was the disconnect? Was it capturing the light of the art on a film or CCD? How is this different from capturing it on your retina? Is it the depth of field that makes the experience better, you can achieve this with a photograph; what if it is the smell?

Would it mean that the original artwork needed to be more degraded to be art?

I’m just a scientist tying to make matter do what it doesn’t want to do, but clearly it seems that art is doing what matters.

Advertisements