In an effort to understand a couple of concepts better, I took these random photos of my ceiling lamp. I have no idea what I was doing beyond trying to understand “Fine Art Photography“, which does not appear to mean what I thought it meant. Apparently, Fine Art has nothing to do with the actual physical/visual quality of the art, but the purpose of the art, the message that one is trying to convey through his or her chosen discipline.
Mind you, if you look at these photos and deem me perverted, then I should thank you to note that I have accomplished my mission of relaying some kind of message and, thus have created Fine Art.
That last bit was a joke. I suppose what I’m getting at with these photos is there is energy bound in “lifeless” objects, from the light bulb of the ceiling lamp to its fan; that, in essence, since it has energy, it is alive and is capable of expressing itself as such. I feel the photographs that depict this notion best are Energy IV and Energy VI. What do you think? I’m think about birds and shit.
Enjoy the photos! I’d very much enjoy hearing what you all think!
Hi just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you
know a few of the pictures aren’t loading properly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue.
I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same results.
Pingback: Back to the Happy Place: Latest Work 11-17 March 2013 | The Arkside of Thought
Um, it’s a light? Yeah, I’m the wrong person to ask for this stuff.
I’m attempting to understand. I’m trying to sell artwork, but I need it to mean something, otherwise it’s not worth anyone having. What can I learn from a lamp? Let there be light, the truth of the Universe itself; the action of existing.
Do you know that light, itself, if a record of all of history?
I know what you’re thinking: “That just blew my mind.” And even if you’re not thinking that, I’m still going to assume you are. >:-D
I probably have this wrong, a saying I heard a while back. “Art is in the eye of the beholder, Fine Art is in the eye of whomever is willing to pay me for it…”
You could photograph Horse Poo and someone could pay you a million bucks and call you a photographic genius. You could then photograph the finest sunset ever seen by man, and someone could call you a talent less hack with a camera. The whole “art” scene is confusing to me.
Misconception with fine art. It’s not so much what you take a picture of, but the message you’re trying to convey. It all seems senseless on the surface (I’m trying to understand how a cut piece of shoestring on a wall is worth over $3,000). The photo, for it to be fine art photography, has to say something; has to be expressing some sort of purpose. That poo on the sidewalk could mean something, like how careless people are in Urban settings. We, essentially, shit on all the good things.
Why you’d be called a talent hack photographing the finest sunset is because the finest sunset has been done too many times to count. It’s a cliche, that is. Of course, I disagree a person should be called a talent hack because, ultimately, a perfectly executed photo is still a great photo.
Some of the fine art realm, though, is perceived just how your quote illustrates; that it is in the eye of whomever is willing to pay me for it. For my part, mine isn’t fine art because I’d like to be paid for it; it’s part of my subjective experience. Of course, I’m willing to admit that I don’t personally create artworks for just the sake of creation; I love what I do, and I’d like to be paid for doing what I love (versus being paid for doing a job that I’m never going to love).
It’s all about how you, the viewer, perceives what the artist is trying to accomplish. The experience will always be a subjective one and open to interpretation. A good thing, that.