Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
hee hee hee. . .
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2009 - 11:13am PT
|
Couchie, It is ALL real; I saw it with my own eyes!!
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
When I saw the art/car/van, I thought "Royal at Burning Man!"
Nice work Peter.
Peter M.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
Knowing what’s real, as a question or a pursuit, is something much deserved of continual inspection and diligent, if sometimes playful inquiry. …..Playful: enter the artist.
Is the truth best conveyed via the original photograph; limited by the constraints of a strict journalistic style? Or does artistic license yield the initial creator, through their “eyes”, greater means to disperse their interpretation of the real. What is real is often best conveyed in terms of the story within which the event or form is embedded (context).
Perhaps ask how much is contained in Royal looking down upon a particular flower (specifically in the context of being "on the road"); then add to that the cultural narrative of the poppy. Then add to that the temporal element of a man’s personal evolution, spanning a lifetime, perhaps with its inception flowering relevant to a particular and well storied rock such as Taquitz.
If you look at Cubist work, there’s much to be “seen” as described by the artist. Not limited to a direct image pinned to a particular moment in time, but an investigatory mode of reportage whose hallmark is recognition of intersecting elements which come to play within experience, such as extension of time, motion, emotion and interpretive ambiguity, expressed as a multifaceted confluence.
Even a slight tilt of the camera, or adjustment of vantage point, coupled with the way an event is framed can yield a rhythmic poetry which seems separate from, or an addition to, the mere cataloging of the physical aspects present and organized in a particular way at a particular point in time. Or was that peculiar interpretation concerning rhythm of line and flux of shadow always part of the story?
One might argue that art should be fairly representational and transparent to the degree that it defines its own terms: meaning that the viewer might be able to gain all that is being transmitted from the artist merely by looking at the piece. Enter the artist’s statement. Is this a dull acquiescence to the lack of the work’s ability to convey its meaning? Or does it at times justify itself through the enriched narrative it affords the viewer, allowing an even greater appreciation of what might be better seen as “real” as was intended by the artist.
I think these works from Peter would present nicely in a small show, complete with artist’s statement encompassing a bit of detail about the cultural narrative underpinning the "reality" expressed through the constructs, as brought forth, or suggested by the "images".
...and yes, inclusion of the unaltered, original images might enrich the caption to the interpretive statement presented by the artist.
Will the "real" Mr. Haan please step forward?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!