I think this is a dangerous trend… blurry photos.
I was told of a story once from the Digital Journalist about the absurdities of blurry photos and artsy-ness. He said he sent in the first blurred take-up frames from a bunch of rolls of film (that the camera automatically shot as it loaded the film) for some sort of artist’s license or art society in New York City. Of course, he was approved.
I had a conversation about what constitues art the other day. How many times has this been left unanswerable? It’s like asking, what is the meaning of life, right?
My conclusion is that art requires a process. An active process from the “artist.” However, for it to be RELEVANT art, it must be able to be interpretable and interpreted by someone OTHER than the artist himself. If I do extremely long mathematical equations that nobody else in the world can decipher and put it on a wall in a gallery saying that the math itself is the art, I claim: foul. No art there.
Maybe saying the inexplicable math stands for something and can be interpreted as such? Okay, there’s plenty of stuff like that in the Tate Modern.
If I go to Haiti and bring back nothing but blurry photographs saying this is my “impression” of Haiti and chaos and blah blah blah, I would say you wasted your time, but it still could be art!
Think of the Pentecostal church’s explanation of “speaking in tongues.” Contrary to what you might hear, there must actually be a priest or someone present to be able to INTERPRET what you babble and wail for it to actually be “legit.”
So… why shouldn’t art be this way?
The difference between Picasso, Polluck, and the next starving artist that slings paint at a wall and calls it art? Innovation, creation, interpretation: all of these as equally important as the others.
Polluck was slinging paint at a wall in his anger and frustration and insanity just about before anyone else. He created his pieces carefully – believe it or not – and the art community has been torn about the merits of his work ever since. But… there is something about his work. Go see the massive prints for yourself. They’re actually quite impressive and you get a feeling or a mood from them: the use of colors and the amounts and the density.
Swirls of neon made by twisting the camera on a quarter-second exposure? Not art. I would never try to convince you that this photograph up there is art. Ever. No context, certainly no innovation or creativity.
Yes, it took a certain amount of technical skill (barely) to take this photograph of the neon O’Charley’s sign, but I would rather burn it than hang it anywhere.
But I’m using it as an illustration. What is art? Can anything be art?
Stay tuned,
-Noah D.
