Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: I don't know much about art....  (Read 4355 times)
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« on: August 12, 2012, 09:29:20 PM »
ReplyReply

While reading this article on CNN there was some quotes from a photographer named Matthew Brandt. I had never heard of him so I looked him up.

It seems Matthew uses some unconventional, shall we say "chemistry", in some of his prints, most notably in his Ribba Collection and portraits.

In addition to those, he dips his "finished" prints in the lakes that he shoots and ends up with this, lakes and reservoirs.

I don't know much about art but I know what I like when I see it and the vast majority of work on his pages just look like darkroom accidents or the inkjet run amok to me. As far as his "chemistry" goes, he seems to be making it more about what he uses to make the print as opposed to the final image.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2012, 10:30:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Considered as photography, his work maybe looks unusual, but considered as printmaking, it is nothing special. I quite like some of them - this one for example. In the context of modern and contemporary fine art practice, taking conventional photographs as a starting point then altering them to make a print is not unusual. Scissors (and glue) are a common tool for doing the alteration - chemicals and lake water are not much of a stretch. Using the lake water may be intended as a reference the notion that a photographic image has a special connection with a particular scene - the water destroys the realistic appearance of such a connection but recreates it in another way. That kind of self-referential art practice, where it is not enough just to look at the image (or read the text, or listen to the music), you are also asked to pay attention to the story of its making, may make some people's toes curl, but you get used to it and like art following any other convention, there are more and less convincing examples. I am not sure which of those categories I would apply to this artist's use of recycled condoms. I think maybe the second.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 10:31:59 PM by kencameron » Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2012, 05:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Since the definition of Art or its goal isn't exactly carved in stone, one should realize that some artistic expressions are the result of experimentation. And in order to properly judge the result of that experimentation, an artist might have to produce several units of art. The experimentation then results in a body of work, even though that body of work may represent a failed experiment.

And moreover, the success or failure of experimentation can sometimes not be judged within the lifetime of the artist, as history so clearly has shown, although I should hope that a good artist will mature because of a solid understanding of his/her own creations and body of work.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2012, 10:10:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, Oscar,

 I fully understand experimenting with ones art. Without that there would be no advancement in technique. What bothers me is when the technique becomes more important than the end result, such as the use of the contents of the used condoms or menstrual fluid and such. Like I said before, some of his work seemed to be more about what he used to make the prints than the subject themselves. His use of bodily fluids is for shock value and nothing else, imho.

As far as his water dipped prints go, to me he has removed the original subject and created an abstraction of it. I have no problems with abstract art and quite enjoy some of it. However, I'm not fond of being told what I should be looking at. If that has to be explained in words, the work has failed in my eyes.

The title of this thread notwithstanding, I see art in a lot of things. From house framers to plumbers to furniture builders to science to nature. Some people call some of those things crafts, I think they go a lot deeper than that.

And I prefer black velvet tiger paintings to dogs playing poker. Wink
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2012, 04:04:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Experimenting is just experimenting.

I think we have long exhausted the valid possibilities for artistic expression in terms of style. Any idiot can make absurd experiments and call them whatever he wishes to call them, and anyone can jump onto the bandwagon and agree.

Personally, I see these 'experiments' as shrieks in the dark.

There is challenge enough in doing well whatever artform already exists. When, for example, you can create really great portraits, shoot sport or war or architecture or fashion and even make excellent atmospherics of places, you have something credible at your disposition and a genuine claim to fame. When you can do none of those things well, then it's comforting to say that you plough your own field.

Rob C
Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2012, 04:51:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I didn't say I think this particular experiment is very useful. As a matter of fact, I think it makes very little sense. It makes very little sense because it doesn't take a whole lot of intellect and imagination to predict the outcome, so the original question is not a genuine relevant question that needs to be answered by any experimentation.

Not for the individual artist, neither for the art world in general.

Now, perhaps if he would have captured gloomy portraits of people who donate blood that he uses in his inkjet to print toned B&W, that would somehow make an interesting connection between the physicality of the subject depicted and the medium.

And that would still require a relatively decent ability to capture portraits.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2012, 06:26:25 AM »
ReplyReply

"Everything changes, except possibly the avant-garde" is one of my favorite quotations from the late lamented Gore Vidal. I would say there is no correlation - positive or negative - between experiment and quality. But surely experimenting is a necessary part of learning to do anything well. You can't just follow recipes - you have to try new things and see if they work.
Logged

Fips
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2012, 06:47:47 AM »
ReplyReply

"Salted paper print with contents from found used condoms (in Ikea Ribba frame)"   Undecided

Quote
Now, perhaps if he would have captured gloomy portraits of people who donate blood that he uses in his inkjet to print toned B&W, that would somehow make an interesting connection between the physicality of the subject depicted and the medium.

That's actually a good idea. Technically it shouldn't be much of a problem. Just down the hallway from my office there's a Fujifilm Dimatrix inkjet printer, which can print literally with any liquid you throw at it. Acids, polymers, proteins, photoresists, DNA. Blood shouldn't be a problem. Or, in Brandt's spirit, you could print the image of a condom with...  Cheesy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 09:35:02 AM »
ReplyReply

"Salted paper print with contents from found used condoms (in Ikea Ribba frame)"   Undecided

That's actually a good idea. Technically it shouldn't be much of a problem. Just down the hallway from my office there's a Fujifilm Dimatrix inkjet printer, which can print literally with any liquid you throw at it. Acids, polymers, proteins, photoresists, DNA. Blood shouldn't be a problem. Or, in Brandt's spirit, you could print the image of a condom with...  Cheesy


Puncture repair solution?

(Trust no-one else in these matters.)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad