Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
> 
> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or 
> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the 
> butterfly stroke?
> 
> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of 
> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is 
> more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't 
> appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
> 

I don't know that the idiot would be correct.

Sure, taking a vacation snapshot is easier then painting the same scene, 
whether with oil or with sand. But, should you want to draw a picture, 
you can light it how ever you like. Want each subject lit from a 
different angle, you can just create the picture that way. Want a 
physically impossible scene, there is nothing that prevents it. With a 
camera you are bound by the real world, making that 'perfect' picture of 
a sunset or a rainbow difficult to get. And trying to convince a ladybug 
or a feral cat to take the pose you want . . .

I agree that the worth does not need to be manifest in the work. 
However, it always will be. One person's junk is another's thing of 
beauty, not always for some objective perfection, but through the 
feelings that it brings out in the person experiencing it. Be that 
person the artist knowing that they spent so much time creating it, or 
knowing that they perfected their art so well that they could create the 
piece in but minutes; or be it the viewer seeing the piece and being 
reminded of something important, or just being transported by it. 
Without those, the viewer will just see the 'value' that is held by the 
components of the work; with those feelings, they will see so much more.

> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily 
> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim, 
> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to 
> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third 
> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
> 

That second look should be mandatory, anyways. However, I personally 
find it more impressive when the artist can force me to take a second look.

Post a reply to this message