MakingImages

I’ve just uploaded this new digital interpretation to the digital gallery.

Germaine Greer in the Guardian:

The work of art, or, as we now tend to say, the artwork, is first of all a commodity.

The most moving battle of 20th-century art has been to redeem itself from its degrading role as commodity, a battle it has decidedly lost. Art prices are higher than ever, and even the trashiest installations are treated as if they were priceless monuments.

…

It’s never been more difficult to decide what is good art, or more fun trying to. The true field of art is the mind of the beholder; what is being worked on is the relation of the beholder to his perception of reality, of duration, relativity, acceptance, rejection, alienation. The artist positions you in a dark room and turns the light on, and off again. He does no more because there is no need to do more. In finding yourself equal to the encounter, you are empowered with the artist’s own intellectual energy. For the time you are together, you are sharing the same cerebral space.

I’m tempted to say exactly but that would be giving in to the position that successful art is one where the communication between the artist and the viewer is understood. Greer is on the right track in as much as there’s recognition of context (perception of reality etc.) as being fundamentally important. There is more however. Because contexts can vary wildely, a viewers’ appreciation is not inextricably linked with the intent of the artist. As I speculate here, [p]erhaps art is an appeal to the context of an individual and successful art is art that finds a match. Perhaps that is why, without intending to communicate anything in particular, a photograph can accidentally be successful from the perspective of a viewer [ie it stirs something in the viewer's context that does not exist in the photographer's]. Just because art is accidental it does not make it worthless, though the photographer may suffer a certain amount of work related stress because of it. Who are we to deny the viewer the right to call any of our photographs successful art? Members of the art establishment?

I had plans for photographing garlic. Taking this was not part of those plans but you know how it is, you’ve finished making the image you want, the lights are set, the tent is up and you just run to the cupboard and grab what you can before clearing the whole thing away.

I kind of like it. The surface, again, is black acrylic sheet but I bent a large piece of black card over the top of the set which blocked out light from above and the back which helped to reduce reflections in the sheet.

A larger image can be seen here.

I don’t know if you’ve ever tried photographing on black acrylic but if you have I offer you my sympathies. The effort involved in keeping the surface clean and scratch free is almost prohibitive. I mean, what special and magical properties must the material have to attract so much attention from every single fibre in the whole house? Clothes strain against their hangers, boxes of tissue paper edge across kitchen surfaces, toilet rolls unravel from their holders as every fibrous material in the house makes its way to the small acrylic sheet and it’s single bowl of uncooked rice.

And what is it about dust which seems to consider black acrylic as being akin to a black hole? From everywhere it comes! Wooosh. Like some kind of fundamental principle of the universe.

When it comes to difficult surfaces to photograph on, even the moon is easier.

I’ve installed some new gallery software on this site which is linked to from the individual categories on the main page. A direct route to all the galleries is available through this link. This means that the Image RSS feed for the old gallery software no longer functions. The new image feed is here. Naturally, the blog RSS feed remains the same.

I’ve got to say, I’m drawn to Amanda Jackson’s work particularly her diva gallery. Lovely.

I’m not a big fan of the Moon but this makes me think I’m being a little too harsh.