Since my late night post last evening I have received an email from the photographer on the website I mentioned. He sent me a very terse and slightly testy response. His reply consisted of letting me know that he did not comment on legal issues and referred me to 'copyright law'.
I thought this was kind of a shame because I'm afraid he missed the point. I didn't send the email, or make the post, to debate any perceived legal issue. What I was trying to discuss was the topic of ethics. Some of his photographs of sculptures are truly incredible and are clearly works of art in their own right. A sculpture is three dimensional and how you choose to light it and in every other way frame the image is an aesthetic choice. However, when your goal is to photograph a painting so that you create an exact digital reproduction you are acting as little more than a human digital scanner. In fact, this should certainly be your goal. Though lighting is important, the goal is to reproduce the original flat two-dimensional image in as exacting detail as possible.
Sure, you have a *legal* right to slap a copyright notice one it. I just don't know that it is anything you should be particularily proud of. Isn't it enough to share that art with the rest of the world? For what it is worth, I will never 'copyright' any photograph I ever take in my entire life and post on the Internet. My friends, please enjoy my sunset glowing disco ball. I know that is why you keep coming back here.
Also, since I posted late last night, I have had more time to take a look at the 'Art Renewal Center'.
THIS WEBSITE IS THE GREATEST THING IN THE WORLD!
The entire purpose of this website it to promote the philosophy that contemporary art is a fraud! I could not agree more. While the impressionists and the early surrealistists did have something to say, this led down a slippery slope to where modern art museums carry canvases painted with white paint that is called 'art'.
Art is about a human being taking a paintbrush, pencil, or chisel, in their hands and using their talent to communicate a vision about the world that we can see, feel, touch, and understand.
I have no interest in seeing, feeling, or touching a urinal hanging on a wall. I do, however, love the works of the great artists of the ages. Just this evening while browsing the 'Art Renewal Center' I discovered the most amazing artist I had never seen before. His name is Sir Alma-Tadema and the images (without massive embossed copyright notices) can be downloaded from their site.
Give your high speed internet a work-out and let the following image completely download in your browser.
This, my friends, is *ART*.
Comments
The type of realism in painting or sculpture that he advocates is nice, but for me only one of many kinds of art that can have a great impact on me. And that does certainly include certain modern artists. I for one can appreciate a Beuys exhibit or Megadeth song no less than a photorealistic rendition of a classical theme. He is right that most modern art is not worth the materials its made of, but that doesn't mean that all of it is hogwash. There are great exceptions.
--Adam
I believe that paintings of white canvases, urinals, piss in a jar, and all of the other crap that contemporary art has become is fundamentally a 'fraud'.
Of course, ultimately, art is a subjective thing. Nevertheless, in my opinion, if you can't demonstrate talent I have little time or patience for someone's 'art'.
He says that the purpose of art is to communicate a message while the purpose of games is to entertain, so maybe you will say this comparison is inapropriate, but I think the two domains are close enough, esp. considering some of us view games as artform:
I believe it would be like saying that high production value, realistic 3D games like Doom 3 are the only true games, while abstract works like tetris are worthless. In my mind tetris is vastly more entertaining than most recent 3D games.
You say that there must be a demonstration of talent -- in tetris' case its creator Alexey Pajitnov failed IMO to create a single other game that has even come close to the genius of tetris, and it was not for a lack of trying -- so maybe that implies that he may not have had talent -- he just got lucky with an idea. At least to me, talent implies repeatability.
--Adam
Within that very narrowly defined medium I still, personally, look for an exhibition of talent and/or easily consumed message of significance.
In the specific example of a flat canvas painted white is where I can best demonstrate the problem I see. This is not some false example but is, instead, quite typical of the kind of art you see in contemporary museums.
I have had individuals actually attempt to 'explain' the meaning to me of a white canvas painted white. I was not amused. First of all, I shouldn't need it 'explained' and, second of all, I fail to grasp how there is an 'art' to how the white paint strokes were applied to the canvas.
If you listen to the 'art-speak' of those who attempt to justify this content, while perpetuating their fraud, it would make any reasonable person want to vomit in his throat.
So, I think we are talking past each other on this point. For me it is the distinction between the extremes of a great french classical painting and a white canvas covered in white paint. In between these two extremes lie all manner of subtle intepretations of the medium. While there is no clear dividing line, I like to have a minimum requirement that I find it visually appealing and I do not need someone else to tell me what it means. I should be able to view it and make that determination for myself. I put a burden on the artist to convey his message to me with no other source material than the art itself.
He does not acknowledge the subtleties between the extremes. :0)