Thursday, May 08, 2008

Liz Kuball

This project has a concept behind it. It grows from something that I came to realise as I wrote my thesis. I have tended to look at photographers work and like the "gear envy" to which some succumb, I have envied the location or the chance to photograph the subject. A sort of well Ansel Adams was great but of course he had Yosemite. It's the same as when people come up to you in the street and say "nice camera I bet it takes great pictures" you are left with a dilemma it is and it does and it cost a mint but where does that leave the person behind the camera. If photography is about vision then subject, location and equipment are not crucial - it must be possible to make images here within a mile of the place they will be exhibited and still reveal something which is new/fresh at least to me.

On the other hand I am victim of Orwell's "Double Think" I like the idea of conceptual art - its intellectual rigour- but - I also feel the emperor's new clothes and wonder if I am being had.

Liz Kuball is better with words than I am but sums up my uncertainty.

The academics seem to have a stronger hold on artists than they do on writers. Artists think and talk in terms of critical constructs that you just don’t hear writers using. It’s not just about the artist creating; the artist has to have a concept for her work. Concept, schmoncept. It’s as though the scholars and critics have gotten into artists’ minds, and the artists have bought in to what the critics are saying. Don’t get me wrong—I think there’s a place for the kind of intellectualizing that academics groove on. I just wonder whether it has any place in the realm of creativity. How much can you possibly produce when you have all that theory—all that stuff that should come after you’re finished with your work—floating around in your mind?

No comments: