About photography

When a painter paints a picture, he is an outsider, looking at the world with amusement and curiosity. The moment is private, the painter looks at the world through the comings and goings of the world, at something that wasn't at all apparent but which was always there.
In photography, a different social code protects both participants: the sitter and the photographer. The sitter, his spontaneity suspended and his best appearance displayed, invites scrutiny.
Photographers can supplement the fundamental attitudes of the human mind and body with the more extrinsic gestures of daily behavior. They can profit from the mobility of the snapshot camera, reaching into the world as an intruder and creating a disturbance. The photographer captures the spontaneity of life without leaving any trace of his presence.
Hence the detachment of the artist becomes more of a problem in the photographic media because photographers must immerge themselves bodily into situations which call for human solidarity: the photographer must be where the action is!
The photographic medium is immensely valuable for documentation, but it's less suited to interpet or explain relevant aspects of what's going to be shown. Illustrations are more useful if one desires to clarify spatial relation or tell what belongs apart or together because only drawings are able to translate into visual patterns what has been understood about the object.
Photographs cannot be self-explanatory. Their meaning depends on the total context of which they're a part. It depends on the attitudes and motives of the persons depicted that may not be apparent from the photos, and it also depends on the values attributed by viewers to life, to death and to human beings in general. Consequently, when photography wishes to convey a message, it should try to place the symptoms it exposes into the proper context of cause and effect. This will always require the help of the written or spoken word.

Laws of seeing

Many art students in college don't like studying Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception. I like Arnheim's books, especially Art and Visual Perception; I'm interested in art psychology and I believe that anyone who wishes to study modern art, should study this branch of knowledge and thus take advantage of the fact that non objective or abstract art doesn't offer us the distraction of a specific narrative. This, in fact, is what give such works of art their extreme opticality.

I guess Gestalt theory offers us a useful tool towards an understanding of the laws of seeing: proximity, similarity, closure and continuity.
A viewer's mind tends to group visual forms in order to achieve simplicity or stability. This organizing principle in the way we see forms is a natural tendency of mankind for not only do we tend to detect symmetry: but we prefer to find symmetry in art.
Painters have an innate knowledge of how these systems influence and fascinate their assumed target viewers. Painters use the concept of object recognition to develop figure-ground relationships. They do their best to manipulate the viewer's attention so that a specified part of the painted suface is perceived as the object of interest or "figure" while other areas are seen as background. In fact, because the viewer's attention is focused on the object, the ground becomes of secondary importance.
Modern painters have been concerned with making every part of a painting's surface vital. Composition is one of several ways that painters can undo or subvert the figure-ground ways of seeing. This involves a vast amount of mental organizing .
Our acceptance of abstract art can be seen as the product of an evolving visual sophistication: our culture has invented new ways of seeing paintings. Abstract painting demonstrates the significant development of a new visual paradigm.

What's abstract art?

When I was younger I preferred classical art to abstract art because as I told people "it's more real". Now that I'm a bit older and have more experience, I can tell you that this was a mistake. Abstract art is more real than classical art is.
Let me ask you "Isn't color real in an abstract painting? And what about texture?" I'm sure you don't have to think about the answer. Yes, color and texture are just as real in abstract paintings as they are in classical art. The term abstract refers to form only.
The term non-objective art would probably be more appropriate than abstract art. Abstract art can be ambiguous in a way that realist paintings aren't. Abstract painters have some intuition about the kind of dialogues that a painting will engender because of its difference in volume and direction. Their paintings come from something in the real world.
If we really want to get to know abstract art we should ask ourselves how it began. I don't like the Marxist approach which is a sort of cliché after Peter Burger's talk about avant-garde origins. I don't have any thing against the theory of the influence of socio-economic revolution on abstract art, but I think the true forces at work here are the invention of photography and the search for purity.
It's true that economic independence allows artists to gain artistic independence and freedom from the dictates of style. But I doubt this is enough to explain the artistic revolution.
Who would desire a portait if he had the possibility of using the new technological tools? Many artists feared this would be the end of art. Painters were, in fact, forced to search for new subject matters which could embody their internalized ideals. Many artists found a solution in eliminating details and the illusion of space.

Is art dead?

Since Hegel, the idea of the end of art has become a staple of aesthetic theory. Will postart be the end of art?

The concept of “postart” was developed by the happening artist Allan Kaprow, based on his idea that life is much more interesting than art, at the expense of art. Postart is not a point of no return and in fact there are many fine artists who continue to make important art. But it was perhaps inevitable that “postart” would be attacked as non-elitist (aristocratic). Marcel Duchamp called it “intellectual expression” over “animal expression”. This can be seen in art with the split between minimal-conceptual art and expressionism.

In his book The End of Art, Donald Kuspit promotes the idea that fear and ignorance of the unconscious have created a climate of creative superficiality in which artists are unwilling to break trhough the surface of their minds to the uncomfortable waters that lie beneath. Militarism and materialism, authoritarianism and capitalism, are more devastating than anything in the unconscious, even though they have roots in unconscious.
Artists are scared of the inner truth about themselves, more particularly, about acknowledging psychic conflict and trauma as well as the primary creativity evidenced by fantasy (especially dreams).
Kuspit traces the genealogy of the postart aesthetic from Duchamp through Warhol’s commercialism to Hirst’s installations (and his preoccupation with banal objects and everyday life situations).
Whereas modern art consist of revolutionary experiments motivated by a desire to express aspects of the newly-discovered “unconscious mind,” postart, Kuspit argues, is shallow, unreflective banality motivated by the desire to become institutionalized.
The End of Art will appeal to anyone who has ever felt bamboozled by the productions of the postmodern establishment.

To be a photographer

Many people think that photography isn't an art because things are depicted as they are. This simply isn't true! The work of a
photographer also entails choosing what he shall describe.

Photographers shoot all they see. It seems an easy and cheap task. How can a mechanical process be made to produce artistic pictures?
This has been one of the aesthetic questions of the eighteenth century. Photography is the product of knowledge and sensibility, trial and error and empirical experiment.
"Will the industry invade the territory of art?" Baudelaire asked himself. Today we could answer him "No, it won't. Look at some photographs. The variety of their imagery is prodigious: the light, the viewpoint, the change in print tonality."
Shooting a photo is less simple than it seems. You can study photo, you can learn as a photographer does. Photographers learn in two ways: from an intimate understanding of their tools and materials and from other photographs. If you can't go to a photography exhibition, you can study John Szarkowski's The Photographer's Eye, a visual history of photography.

Towards a universal theory of color?

Is it possible to accept a universal theory of color?
In the early 20's some Bauhaus painters faced the following problem: was it possible to generate a value scale of equal perceptual steps between black and white? Itten answered in the affirmative. He proposed a scale of seven steps. In the same period the German theorist Wilhelm Ostwald and the American theorist Albert Munsell proposed their color system, which became the most widely used in twenty century color. I 'd have liked to ask them: what do you think about De diversibus artibus?
De diversibus is a book of twelfth century, in which the German monk Theophilus introduces his scale of color with a discussion on painting the rainbow.
"Neither man nor nature could afford to use a mechanism that would provide a special kind of receptor or generator for each color shade" (Rudolph Arnheim).
"A semiotic theory of color universals must take for significance exactly what colors do mean in humans society. They do not mean Munsell color chips" (Berlin and Kay)

Studying color theory

How many theories of color exist? I believe there is one for each style of art. In fact, if you're a student of art history you can distinguish one work of art from another merely on the basis of its colors. It isn't a simple task. In his long essays, John Cage, a master of color, offers some guidelines on how to study color. I learned a great deal from his books. I think I will study them once again. But I also need to see art through the eyes of the color masters, to apply their theories and to work with them. A book is merely a book as good as it may be.

Colour and abstract art

I prefer abstract art for its use of colour. I think colour has a primary role in abstraction, surely more than in representational art. In this I agree with Karl Scheffler: "our time, which, more than any other, depends on the past for its form, has produced a kind of painting in which colour is independent". I really think the early '900 artworks opened up a new era of visual freedom. Will we have another revoultion in art?