as we are imperfect, art is also
Written on 8/28/2006
One of the more prolific posters at f295 has a blog, and posted a long piece, from which I excerpt below.
Photographs are proxy-holders. They possess an Orwellian Newthink duality whereby the viewer simultaneously holds two diametrically opposing views to be equally true: that, on the one hand, the photograph possesses the power to be equated with the subject represented; and second, that the photograph is a mere representation, an abstraction, of a disparate subject matter.
This duality defines the chasm between what we now know as art versus craft. Art suspends disbelief long enough for us to know that the picture of a mountain is, in fact, a mountain; craft suspends the suspension of disbelief for us to know that this is, in fact, a picture of a mountain, and not the mountain itself. The focus of craft upon the materials and techniques at hand helps to break the spell of Orwellian Newthink that possesses contemporary media.
Artifacts. Art + i + fact. Artifacts, we were told, are unwanted byproducts of the imperfect medium through which information must be conveyed. Ghost images. Graininess. Distortions of various kinds. We were told things were getting better, that the new media would contain fewer artifacts, would be able to convey The Truth without distortion. Implicit to this propagandizing is the promise that, with the arrival of the new hi-definition media, Truth would at last be laid bare, for all to see, brought to you by our sponsors.
Not sure I agree with this 100%. Are the artifacts always unwanted? I think for people who just want a good picture of their kid, they may be, but for those of us kooks who like taking pictures with flawed cameras, with old film, even getting them processed in the wrong chemistry, the limitations are part of the fun. Is the picture the scene photographed? No more than the map is the territory.
Filed in: learning from my mistakes, observations.
On my flight today, I read Bob Dylan’s interview in Rolling Stone, where he says nobody has made a record in the last 15 years that sounds good — the suggestion being that digital doesn’t reproduce the performed work well.
He also talked about himself as a producer, and judges himself too documentary, which suggests the producer, like the photographer, takes an active role in deciding how representative to be. I don’t remember anyone promising The Truth from CDs, or from digicams, as your commenter suggests.
The interesting stuff seems to come from the people who can straddle both sides of the line, stepping over to the representative when necessary, and the creative when necessary.
I went to the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame last night, and one of my favorite artifacts was the piece that David Byrne created for the cover of More Songs about Buildings and Food: the squares are actually Polaroids shot lifesize (with some sort of filter), then assembled into the grid which was itself photographed for the album cover.
The white grid is actually the white border of each Polaroid, with the larger “chin” covered so all the gridlines are the same size.
Each photo is representative of part of one of the band, but the whole is clearly not representative.
I think the claim that no record of the past 15 years sounding good as a result of digital vs analog recording is about as valid as the claim that CDs sound markedly different from LPs.
The WSJ ran this piece on the demise of analog tape
My guess would be that there is a certain routine or ritual aspect to this, akin to a hand-rolled smoke vs machine-rolled or an oil change and tune-up under the shade tree vs the local Jiffy Quik. The meditative benefits of these things are not to be under-rated, but nor should they be over-rated.
Is the idea that a medium that deteriorates with use (vinyl records, tape) is a better medium that digital for simply recording music really defensible? All recordings are shadows of the thing being recorded, just as no photograph conveys as much detail as the human eye.