Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: D Fuller on January 18, 2019, 07:19:14 am
-
What a fascinating body of work! In my college days, the chair of out colleges art department had been a student of Josef Albers, ant talked in some depth about his color theory. This work brings me back to that. It’s interesting to imagine the process of lighting and filtration that produces these images, and to think about how (if at all) that might be relevant in my own work. But even aside from that, it’s such interesting work in its own right. The color presentation and proportion are wonderful.
If I could ask for more, it would be a bit deeper glimpse into the process of light and filtration that she uses. Perhaps she was not willing to share that, but while I can make some guesses based on the things I see lying around the studio, it would have been nice for the interview to have gotten a bit more into the Specifics of her process.
-
Good stuff.
-
I read the article but now in viewing the images again, I'm trying to get past the technical aspect. It would be unfortunate if the meaningfulness of the pictures is dependent on knowing the degree of difficulty in the making of them.
-
I read the article but now in viewing the images again, I'm trying to get past the technical aspect. It would be unfortunate if the meaningfulness of the pictures is dependent on knowing the degree of difficulty in the making of them.
I don’t believe this is the case at all. The composition and color design are exquisite in their own rights.
-
... It would be unfortunate if the meaningfulness of the pictures is dependent on knowing the degree of difficulty in the making of them.
More like degree of uniqueness, I think. Anything that makes a piece of art more unique makes it (perceived as) more valuable.
Anything she does can now be recreated in 5 min in Photoshop. But that is not the point. You can buy a Mona Lisa on a chocolate box, but it want make it as valuable as the original, unique thing.
So, yes, we would like to think that pictures should stand on their own, without explanation, but as with all generalizations, this one is also false.
-
Wow! Really good work and, I am guessing, excellent craftsmanship, since she does make analog prints and exhibits them to some acclaim. But I must also commend the author of this excellent article. A sort of combination of brief explanations and letting the work and author speak for themselves. Would love to one day see this work in person. You are subtly drawn in by some harmonious colours, then your eye gets hit by contrasting colour. Awesome work!
JR
-
A bit of searching uncovered this short documentary piece on Eaton’s process:
https://vimeo.com/288883685
Very interesting! (At least to me.)
-
Dan Burkholder's admonition that in photography you don't get extra credit for difficulty comes to mind.
-
More like degree of uniqueness, I think. Anything that makes a piece of art more unique makes it (perceived as) more valuable.
Anything she does can now be recreated in 5 min in Photoshop. But that is not the point. You can buy a Mona Lisa on a chocolate box, but it want make it as valuable as the original, unique thing.
So, yes, we would like to think that pictures should stand on their own, without explanation, but as with all generalizations, this one is also false.
It is not how art is made, but the idea that matters. Of course someone can now duplicate with Photoshop what the artist is doing, but can they imagine how and what Ms. Eaton does? She may or may not be able to put into the physical her ideas using Photoshop, but that is irrelevant. What matters is that she does, however she chooses to do it.
How many of us know how Bethovan's music was composed? Do we really need to know how Delacroix constructed his paintings? Yes, knowing how things are done can be fascinating, but reading a lens teardown by Roger Cicala doesn't make me a better photographer.
Now I'll put on my cynicism hat and address your point on uniqueness: The article makes a point of the fact that the artist uses film rather than a digital sensor. The thing is, yes, the art world is exceedingly cynical and however value can be added to an art piece it will do so unreservedly. It is not coincidence that many of the well known art photographers use film.
Art forgers are very adept at how art is done but generally are not imaginative.
-
Even before I read the part where she had named the series in honor of Joseph Albers and Sol Lewitt, the work made me immediately think of the wonderful Lewitt galleries at MASS MoCA. They have a whole building dedicated to 105 large-scale pieces of his work. Color, form, and the idea at the core are all quite reminiscent of Jessica's work.
-
This piece is a welcome step up. While I don't personally love the photographs, they strike me as rather more substantial than the work we've been seeing since Christmas. The tension between process, concept, and results is always there in photography, and always has been. The essential ease with which photographers make pictures has been a bone of contention since the beginning, and we all have our own resolutions to that conceptual difficulty.
What I dislike is this kind of breathless hagiography. It is a standard form for this kind of material, but it is always faintly ludicrous. The suggestion that "even professionals can't figure out how she does it" serves no purpose, and comes across as rather silly, for instance.
-
...What matters is that she does, however she chooses to do it...
But if she chooses to do it in 5 min in Photoshop, the end result would have the same aesthetic appeal on the internet or in magazines, just not the same (monetary) value in galleries and among collectors. Just as the Mona Lisa's aesthetic appeal is the same on the chocolate box as in the Louvre.
-
What a pleasant surprise to see Jessica Eaton featured on Lula. The article is well-written and illustrated — and it's nice to see the final work set against pictures of the studio. I hope this a sign of things to come.
-
I agree with Slobodan that some of those treatments could be duplicated in Photoshop, but that's just mechanics.
On the other hand, she has developed a systematic approach to laying down and combining various color shades and shapes, and that is part of her secret.
-
I agree with Slobodan that some of those treatments could be duplicated in Photoshop, but that's just mechanics.
On the other hand, she has developed a systematic approach to laying down and combining various color shades and shapes, and that is part of her secret.
Absolutely. But not being a collector, her secrets are not important to me. I'm more interested in her ideas and imagination.
But if she chooses to do it in 5 min in Photoshop, the end result would have the same aesthetic appeal on the internet or in magazines, just not the same (monetary) value in galleries and among collectors. Just as the Mona Lisa's aesthetic appeal is the same on the chocolate box as in the Louvre.
Well, a reproduction is just that, whether on a chocolate box, poster or magazine. An original, whether by Photoshop and printed, or physical construction, is always an original. How the art world choose to value one or the other is the issue. The video shows the actual film being scanned, photoshopped, and then ink jet printed. The prints then were marked for correction but it isn't clear if the corrections were done by rephotographing or by Photoshop.
Photography has always had the "it's a copy" problem within the art world. How Cindy Sherman gets past that I wish I knew.
Jessica Eaton's ideas are very interesting and I'm not dismissing her efforts. Still, I can't help but believe that the video was produced as proof of provenance for collectors.
-
The Art World does a lot of work to generate artificial scarcity. I might have the artist wrong here, but let Dan Flavin at any rate stand in for whatever sculptor in fluorescent light tubes I am thinking of, if he isn't the right one.
Many of Flavin's works would be easy to reproduce, they're simply an arrangement of commercially available fluorescent light tubes. Many of his works exist only as descriptions of that arrangement, because many were never even assembled during his lifespan. At least for a time, much of his work existed only in potentia, being perhaps the third in an edition of three, which had not yet sold (and therefore not yet built).
The thing is, if you own a Flavin but don't have a certificate, you don't own a Flavin, You own a lamp.
Somewhat controversially, the estate is now banging out these things, with certificates, natch.
-
Omer, at this point I am not sure what exactly are you disputing in what I said? My initial point was that the uniqueness of her method, its complexity as well, does play a significant role in the market/gallery valuation of her work, and not just its aesthetic appeal.
-
Omer, at this point I am not sure what exactly are you disputing in what I said? My initial point was that the uniqueness of her method, its complexity as well, does play a significant role in the market/gallery valuation of her work, and not just its aesthetic appeal.
We agree more than not.
But you said "So, yes, we would like to think that pictures should stand on their own, without explanation, but as with all generalizations, this one is also false." We disagree on this. ;D
-
... But you said "So, yes, we would like to think that pictures should stand on their own, without explanation, but as with all generalizations, this one is also false." We disagree on this. ;D
You can't... it is logic (especially in the case of "all generalizations") ;)
Most, of even vast majority of pictures should and do stand on their own. That does not mean that there aren't those whose appeal (marketing especially) is helped by uniqueness, scarcity, difficulty in reproducing (the original method, not the end product), explanatory title or legend, etc. Their existence does not devalue the original premise (about images standing on their own merit), on the contrary, it reinforces it (as in "exceptions prove the rule").
-
You can't... it is logic (especially in the case of "all generalizations") ;)
Most, of even vast majority of pictures should and do stand on their own. That does not mean that there aren't those whose appeal (marketing especially) is helped by uniqueness, scarcity, difficulty in reproducing (the original method, not the end product), explanatory title or legend, etc. Their existence does not devalue the original premise (about images standing on their own merit), on the contrary, it reinforces it (as in "exceptions prove the rule").
I’m not sure I follow the argument fully. What you are saying if I understand correctly when you say that images can and should stand on their own is no wordy underpinning. No explaining and describing. Perhaps no title even, not sure about that. Is that what you mean by standing on their own?
Where this position fails for me, if I am understanding you correctly, is there is always some context because of shared experiences and shared cultural standards and what not. What I’m trying to say is the context is implicit, shared and understood. That means the artist or photographer can never stray too far from mainstream norms of his or her audience because then the image won’t be able to stand on its own. Is that not a bit limiting?
-
I’m not sure I follow the argument fully. What you are saying if I understand correctly when you say that images can and should stand on their own is no wordy underpinning. No explaining and describing. Perhaps no title even, not sure about that. Is that what you mean by standing on their own?
Where this position fails for me, if I am understanding you correctly, is there is always some context because of shared experiences and shared cultural standards and what not. What I’m trying to say is the context is implicit, shared and understood. That means the artist or photographer can never stray too far from mainstream norms of his or her audience because then the image won’t be able to stand on its own. Is that not a bit limiting?
Martin, I have no idea what you’re saying. Or if I do, I don’t think the logic holds.
Contexts are not the same for all viewers. That’s a fundamental problem (consideration?) for art in the past century or so. It’s usually less so for photography, because photographs are usually pictures of something, and that something carries context with it. These images share the problems of abstract art in that they are images in their own right. They are not of anything. Their beauty comes purely from their form and color. Context is largely irrelevant, I think.
-
You can't... it is logic (especially in the case of "all generalizations") ;)
Most, of even vast majority of pictures should and do stand on their own. That does not mean that there aren't those whose appeal (marketing especially) is helped by uniqueness, scarcity, difficulty in reproducing (the original method, not the end product), explanatory title or legend, etc. Their existence does not devalue the original premise (about images standing on their own merit), on the contrary, it reinforces it (as in "exceptions prove the rule").
Marketing is indeed helped by uniqueness, etc. On that we agree.
Also, explanatory or method of conception does not devalue a premise. Agree again.
But does outlining the method of production help reinforce the value? Only to galleries, curators and collectors, as both of us have said. If everyday art visitors to an exhibition of Ms. Eaton’s pictures were subjected to a lengthy explanation of her process, they would probably say “Uh, huh,” and walk away without having gained a better understanding of her ideas.
I’m not against a salient, coherent explanation of some artist’s ideas, so long as it isn’t just some MFA boilerplate blather. Interestingly, there is very little in the article that gives the reader a notion of what Ms. Eaton ideas are, in fact.
-
I’m not sure I follow the argument fully. What you are saying if I understand correctly when you say that images can and should stand on their own is no wordy underpinning. No explaining and describing. Perhaps no title even, not sure about that. Is that what you mean by standing on their own?...
Martin, I am equally puzzled by your understanding. Have I not said, explicitly, the following:
That does not mean that there aren't those whose appeal (marketing especially) is helped by uniqueness, scarcity, difficulty in reproducing (the original method, not the end product), explanatory title or legend, etc. T
It is not an either-or proposition, i.e., either it stands on its own or it requires an explanation. It is both, in the sense that there are pictures that can stand on their own, and there are those that are helped by a context, title, legend etc.
-
Marketing is indeed helped by uniqueness, etc. On that we agree.
Also, explanatory or method of conception does not devalue a premise. Agree again.
But does outlining the method of production help reinforce the value? Only to galleries, curators and collectors, as both of us have said. If everyday art visitors to an exhibition of Ms. Eaton’s pictures were subjected to a lengthy explanation of her process, they would probably say “Uh, huh,” and walk away without having gained a better understanding of her ideas.
I’m not against a salient, coherent explanation of some artist’s ideas, so long as it isn’t just some MFA boilerplate blather. Interestingly, there is very little in the article that gives the reader a notion of what Ms. Eaton ideas are, in fact.
I think in this case, because the method of production is so unique, it does help reinforce the value. But I don’t think it’s required at all for an appreciation of the images; those are strong enough to stand on their own in any gallery.
I too would love to know more about her ideas and specifically how she thinks about color and light. As she works. But that is, I think, because I think about those things all the time, and have for most of my life. Nobody reallly needed to know Albers’ color theories to appreciate his paintings, but if you were interested, there was enough depth there to keep you interested for a long time.
-
Honestly, the method of production is what we know as "photomontage" and it was a broadly applied artistic technique as of 100 years ago.
I have not heard of anyone else building up color (rather than tone) through multiple exposures, but I would be astonished to find that Eaton is the first. I suspect that if we poked around in the light painting community we'd find people doing this, albeit with LED wands rather than flash-exposed neutral objects, but that's a technical quibble.
This is not to dismiss the work, at all. She is doing her own thing, it has unique and distinct features, and she is doing it with real ability and clarity of purpose. Good on 'er. But it is not really a revolutionary method, it is distinctly evolutionary. It is being pitched in this piece as revolutionary, but that is a polite fiction.
-
Sorry I confused so many. I was mistakenly assuming Slobodan to be saying images should stand on their own unsupported by any type of explanation.
My apologies for adding nothing but puzzlement to this discussion.
-
Really enjoyed this article, the short film clarified things too.
-
Shakespeare said it best: much ado about nothing.
:-)
-
It is worth mentioning, I think, that Eaton has done quite a bit of work beyond what we see in the front page piece. It is all, as far as I have found, cut from the same cloth, but there is far more breadth than we might imagine.
-
Every artist looking to make money is trying to do something unique. That's what sells. Aesthetics comes second.
-
Every artist looking to make money is trying to do something unique. That's what sells. Aesthetics comes second.
Someone for whom money is important is probably not going to become an artist.
-
There's a clear dichotomy in the visual arts between work that is representational in nature, that references, renders or interprets objective reality in some fashion, and work that is non-representational. Non-representational work split off from the mainstream of traditional Western visual art circa early 1900s. In photography there's a long tradition of non-representational work, from Alvin Langdon Coburn's 'vortographs' to Carl Chiarenza's torn paper 'landscapes'.
Non-representational work now utterly dominates contemporary art, the 'cutting edge' stuff for very wealthy collectors whose dealers and art consultants tell them what's good. From Damien Hirst's stuffed shark to Jeff Koons' balloon animals to Tracy Emins' unmade bed, the driving force is the concept, the conceit, the wit behind the work, rather than skill in the rendering. Traditional representational art is often derided by promoters of non-representational work as mere kitsch, outdated, philistine. But it resonates with many if not most viewers, and provides boundless room for interpretation and creativity without abandoning its grounding in objective visual reality.
No accounting for taste, whatever floats your boat. If you love non-representational art, knock yourself out. But it's not what I think of when I think of a luminous landscape. If this is a harbinger of the future direction of LuLa, I suspect many longtime readers will vote with their virtual feet.
-
No accounting for taste, whatever floats your boat. If you love non-representational art, knock yourself out. But it's not what I think of when I think of a luminous landscape. If this is a harbinger of the future direction of LuLa, I suspect many longtime readers will vote with their virtual feet.
I don't recall the content of this site ever having been restricted much to traditional landscape. For fun, I just went to the main site, clicked on Articles, and scrolled back through 2-3 years of headline content. I saw all kinds of content, not just landscape. And the forums have always included non-landscape discussions. So why should the presence of a non-landscape article now cause an exodus of readers.
-
There's a clear dichotomy in the visual arts between work that is representational in nature, that references, renders or interprets objective reality in some fashion, and work that is non-representational. Non-representational work split off from the mainstream of traditional Western visual art circa early 1900s. In photography there's a long tradition of non-representational work, from Alvin Langdon Coburn's 'vortographs' to Carl Chiarenza's torn paper 'landscapes'.
Non-representational work now utterly dominates contemporary art, the 'cutting edge' stuff for very wealthy collectors whose dealers and art consultants tell them what's good. From Damien Hirst's stuffed shark to Jeff Koons' balloon animals to Tracy Emins' unmade bed, the driving force is the concept, the conceit, the wit behind the work, rather than skill in the rendering. Traditional representational art is often derided by promoters of non-representational work as mere kitsch, outdated, philistine. But it resonates with many if not most viewers, and provides boundless room for interpretation and creativity without abandoning its grounding in objective visual reality.
No accounting for taste, whatever floats your boat. If you love non-representational art, knock yourself out. But it's not what I think of when I think of a luminous landscape. If this is a harbinger of the future direction of LuLa, I suspect many longtime readers will vote with their virtual feet.
As an artist and photographer I can and do appreciate what many would describe as representational art. As an artist and photographer I can and do appreciate what many would describe as conceptual art. As an artist and photographer what I don't appreciate are hard distinctions.
I can and do appreciate the mix here on LuLa as I do in the real world.
-
As an artist and photographer I can and do appreciate what many would describe as representational art. As an artist and photographer I can and do appreciate what many would describe as conceptual art. As an artist and photographer what I don't appreciate are hard distinctions.
I can and do appreciate the mix here on LuLa as I do in the real world.
Beautifully expressed, Keith. I am in full agreement.
-
There's a clear dichotomy...
Well put, G.
-
Someone for whom money is important is probably not going to become an artist.
Lik?
-
..l what I don't appreciate are hard distinctions...
You can appreciate white, and you can appreciate black, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hard distinction.
-
Lik?
A perfect example, in my book. ;)
-
One ought to be a little careful with words like "nonrepresentational" which tends to get used as a synonym for "abstract", but it's not.
Koons animals are abstract, but representational, like Cubist paintings and so on. There are clearly objects from the real world that are represented by these things, although the representations are abstracted. Contemporary art is often, but not always, abstracted. It is sometimes, but not always, non-representational. It is almost invariably conceptual, in the sense that the idea is the thing that matters, the execution is secondary.
Eaton is non-representational, abstract, but honestly the concept seems to be lacking. In the piece on the front page, she articulates no concept beyond the business about "you have to pick the simplest form and repeat it until the form loses meaning and the idea becomes the art" which is so circular as to be slightly silly. Your idea is to repeat the work until the idea becomes the art? But.. where does the idea come in?
She is a hard worker, making an appealing thing at a rate that proves she can make more work, but not so fast that it floods the market and becomes un-special. She has a pretty good story to tell. So, she's got gallery representation and is presumably selling pretty well. Good for her!
Making these things seems to me the most boring job conceivable, but she seems to enjoy it. A bit OCD, maybe.
-
You can appreciate white, and you can appreciate black, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hard distinction.
Even in my relatively short time(2016) with LuLa there have been distinct front page showcase articles. But, it seems now attention to those differences has been heightened solely by the change in management.
It has yet to be month since the change. I would think it is a little early to declare the end of everything. ::)
-
One ought to be a little careful with words like "nonrepresentational" which tends to get used as a synonym for "abstract", but it's not.
Koons animals are abstract, but representational, like Cubist paintings and so on.
They don't look at all abstract to me. They're very accurate representations of ballon-dogs (albeit somewhat larger) — a representation of a representation.
-
Koons is PLAYING WITH A DIALECTIC between DOGS and BALLOON DOGS. He places his works IN CONVERSATION WITH actual dogs.
Actually that would be kind of cool to photograph actual dogs interacting with Koons dogs. Hmm.
-
... I would think it is a little early to declare the end of everything. ::)
Nobody declares anything. However...
... If this is a harbinger of the future direction of LuLa...
-
Someone for whom money is important is probably not going to become an artist.
Interesting; so you may as well rule out all the old masters, the later ones and every pro photographer.
Unless a dilettante born to riches, where the artist who doesn't have to hustle to earn his keep and, to do that, money is of huge concern.
It's just one of those annoying, silly bits of folklore best ignored. I worked my ass off to make enough to feed self and family; do you think that now, retired, were I simply a mercenary I'd spend the time I do on this website, that any other professional image maker here would do so too?
Rob
-
Interesting; so you may as well rule out all the old masters, the later ones and every pro photographer.
Unless a dilettante born to riches, where the artist who doesn't have to hustle to earn his keep and, to do that, money is of huge concern.
It's just one of those annoying, silly bits of folklore best ignored. I worked my ass off to make enough to feed self and family; do you think that now, retired, were I simply a mercenary I'd spend the time I do on this website, that any other professional image maker here would do so too?
Rob
Rob - I think you've misunderstood. I don't doubt that you worked hard to feed your family. My point was that if money had been a big motivator you'd have made more of it and worked a lot less doing something else.
-
Nobody declares anything. However...
Yeah, if. And barley a month isn't a harbinger, just a bit of spice. Like the Cuban culture in Florida. ;D
-
I read the article but now in viewing the images again, I'm trying to get past the technical aspect. It would be unfortunate if the meaningfulness of the pictures is dependent on knowing the degree of difficulty in the making of them.
Hi OmerV
I have come to the point that if I really like or love someone's work, I do not read about the making. For me the images are what I need to consider for my world. Reading too much about process often will destroy it's mystery. Like a magic trick. Once the secret is revealed the childlike wonderment is gone forever.
Peter
-
Hi OmerV
I have come to the point that if I really like or love someone's work, I do not read about the making. For me the images are what I need to consider for my world. Reading too much about process often will destroy it's mystery. Like a magic trick. Once the secret is revealed the childlike wonderment is gone forever.
Peter
I tend to agree. As little no as you talking about the technical stuff. I don’t care what camera, lens, film, whatever.
I do like to hear what motivated the photographer though. What they choose to shoot what they shoot. That interests me.
-
... I have come to the point that if I really like or love someone's work, I do not read about the making. For me the images are what I need to consider for my world. Reading too much about process often will destroy it's mystery. Like a magic trick. Once the secret is revealed the childlike wonderment is gone forever.
There is something to it.
I had a high-school friend who didn't speak English but nevertheless loved many pop and rock songs. Later in life he learned English and then told me how disappointed he is now, listening to his favorite songs from his youth. The words now sound banal, nothing compared to the lyrics' meaning he imagined it had.
-
I do like to hear what motivated the photographer though. What they choose to shoot what they shoot. That interests me.
For me it has to be the WHY things are made, not how. When you read about an artist explain their work, It's a delicious air of enlightenment that is brought to the table. No it's not a code breaking, just the clarity of a unique vision.
Peter
-
Hi OmerV
I have come to the point that if I really like or love someone's work, I do not read about the making. For me the images are what I need to consider for my world. Reading too much about process often will destroy it's mystery. Like a magic trick. Once the secret is revealed the childlike wonderment is gone forever.
Peter
Well, I’d not known of Ms. Eaton before the article so without some notion of her ideas, everything then was her daunting process.
I think most people would find the initial construction of the Satute of Liberty interesting, but the meaning of the statue is undoubtedly the salient point.
-
I find the work very pretty. And, with the peek behind the curtain I find it very clever, if too amazingly complicated for the net result.
Rand
-
Eaton's move towards abstraction, and her use of analog techniques to mimic digital effects, can be seen as part of a broader movement in contemporary photographic art practice. See Charlotte Cotton's 'Photography is Magic', Aperture, 2015 (which features Eaton amongst many other artists):
https://www.amazon.com/Photography-Magic-Charlotte-Cotton/dp/159711331X
For a more historical view of abstraction in photography, see the catalogue of Tate Modern's recent exhibition 'Shape of Light':
https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Light-Years-Photography-Abstract/dp/1942884311
Lyle Rexer's book on abstract photography is also worth a look:
https://www.amazon.com/Lyle-Rexer-Vision-Abstraction-Photography/dp/1597112429
-
I had a high-school friend who didn't speak English but nevertheless loved many pop and rock songs. Later in life he learned English and then told me how disappointed he is now, listening to his favorite songs from his youth. The words now sound banal, nothing compared to the lyrics' meaning he imagined it had.
Of course, it might be that now he had grown up, songs about teenage angst no longer held meaning for him.
Jeremy
-
Of course, it might be that now he had grown up, songs about teenage angst no longer held meaning for him.
Jeremy
Not only that, when you are young, music is about rhythm and dance, and how it might facilitate your sex life. Apart from the hook, it really doesn't matter what the words are, as a quick look at any top forty list will show you. The advent of the music video concept made that abundantly obvious, where words ceased to mean anything at all.
There were some great videos.
;-)
-
When I sing - and I sing very badly - my wife tells me I always get the words wrong. Perhaps it's just her way of saying darling, give it a rest.
-
When I sing - and I sing very badly - my wife tells me I always get the words wrong. Perhaps it's just her way of saying darling, give it a rest.
Mine simply did the same as she did when I had my swamp pop rock on in the office: she quietly closed the door, with me on the other side. For some unknown reason, I hardly ever used the earphones back then.
Today, I have them on a lot, which is nice: I fail to hear the 'phone ring - whan it does - and whenever I check out the lost call it invariably ends up in my long unwanted calls list. Bluetooth is a handy invention. It allows the dishes to be done in no time at all, which is a remarkable feature that I should perhaps have pointed out in the other thread, the one about time shrinking as one ages.
-
I find the work very pretty. And, with the peek behind the curtain I find it very clever, if too amazingly complicated for the net result.
Rand
This work only seems amazingly complicated compared to processes you are familiar with. To many, this idea of stitching a panorama seems over-complicated. It’s really all context. I used to do quite a lot of stop-action animation (on film). The glimpses of Eaton’s process in the video remind me a lot of that process—meticulous, but not really that complicated, once you’ve figured out the “language.”
Process aside, I find her work quite beautiful. I love the abstract painters of the post WW II era, and this work seems to have a very honest connection with some of those artists. Not just a passing nod, but a much deeper connection with the color theories that were being explored.
-
This work only seems amazingly complicated compared to processes you are familiar with. To many, this idea of stitching a panorama seems over-complicated. It’s really all context. I used to do quite a lot of stop-action animation (on film). The glimpses of Eaton’s process in the video remind me a lot of that process—meticulous, but not really that complicated, once you’ve figured out the “language.”
Process aside, I find her work quite beautiful. I love the abstract painters of the post WW II era, and this work seems to have a very honest connection with some of those artists. Not just a passing nod, but a much deeper connection with the color theories that were being explored.
I wonder how you arrive at making a comparison between a mechanically derived process, more mechanical even than straight photography is held to be in some quarters, and work that's purely the product of mind (imagination) and hand as is abstract painting?
Yes, I realise this can be seen as dangerously close to the original objections posed by painters and their promoters when photography began to gain some artistic traction in the world, but this present stuff is happening in a different era when those original objections have largely been overcome; frankly, it strikes me as a wilfully painful path without any special artistic merit at the end of it; that it can be sold, of course, is another matter altogether.
-
I must cattily remark here that my favorite bit is this:
"It was Lewitt who said that if you want to make art about an idea, you have to pick the simplest form and repeat it until the form loses meaning and the idea becomes the art."
which is something Eaton repeats a lot when interviewed. What I cannot make out is what the idea she has is, which idea is becoming the art.
Is her idea the idea that the idea becomes the art? So by repeatedly photographing cubes the idea of the idea becoming the art becomes the art? Not to put too fine of a point on it, that's ridiculous. Maybe the idea is something more abstract, something that can't be put into words, but a) she never seems to say that, always referencing Lewitt and leaving it at that and b) I certainly do not discern any such thing in the pictures.
Doesn't mean it's not there, of course.
-
I must cattily remark here that my favorite bit is this:
"It was Lewitt who said that if you want to make art about an idea, you have to pick the simplest form and repeat it until the form loses meaning and the idea becomes the art."
which is something Eaton repeats a lot when interviewed. What I cannot make out is what the idea she has is, which idea is becoming the art.
Is her idea the idea that the idea becomes the art? So by repeatedly photographing cubes the idea of the idea becoming the art becomes the art? Not to put too fine of a point on it, that's ridiculous. Maybe the idea is something more abstract, something that can't be put into words, but a) she never seems to say that, always referencing Lewitt and leaving it at that and b) I certainly do not discern any such thing in the pictures.
Doesn't mean it's not there, of course.
Here work is entirely derivative. How can I make a photograph look like a Joseph Albers painting? Original process. Recycled idea.
-
I wonder how you arrive at making a comparison between a mechanically derived process, more mechanical even than straight photography is held to be in some quarters, and work that's purely the product of mind (imagination) and hand as is abstract painting?
I arrive at it simply - by looking at the work. You can look at painting as a mechanical process as well, if you like, but while that may be interesting (or not) I find the results comparable, and the ideas as well. Both Albers and Eaton seem to be exploring the relationship of colors using forms that leave color as the main subject. "Abstracting" color if you will, from its usual pictoral references.
(http://airstream.pictures/pics/LuLa/Albers-Eaton1.jpg)
(http://airstream.pictures/pics/LuLa/Albers-Eaton2.jpg)
(Albers Images from the Amherst College collection, Eaton images from the article on this site.)
-
Here work is entirely derivative. How can I make a photograph look like a Joseph Albers painting? Original process. Recycled idea.
Most artwork is derivative. One might ask how can I make my street photography look like H C-B. Does that make it not worth doing?
-
I must cattily remark here that my favorite bit is this:
"It was Lewitt who said that if you want to make art about an idea, you have to pick the simplest form and repeat it until the form loses meaning and the idea becomes the art."
which is something Eaton repeats a lot when interviewed. What I cannot make out is what the idea she has is, which idea is becoming the art.
Is her idea the idea that the idea becomes the art? So by repeatedly photographing cubes the idea of the idea becoming the art becomes the art? Not to put too fine of a point on it, that's ridiculous. Maybe the idea is something more abstract, something that can't be put into words, but a) she never seems to say that, always referencing Lewitt and leaving it at that and b) I certainly do not discern any such thing in the pictures.
Doesn't mean it's not there, of course.
Her idea is very simple — take multiple exposures of a white cube, with different coloured filters for each exposure.
That's it.
The idea doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. See the abstract painting of the two artists she references — Josef Albers and Sol LeWitt.
-
The example are damning evidence of, in my opinion, nothing but contrived plagiarism.
How that gets glory is another thing, but shit happens.
:-)
-
The example are damning evidence of, in my opinion, nothing but contrived plagiarism.
Oh, come on — her work is titled 'Cubes For Albers and LeWitt'.
-
The example are damning evidence of, in my opinion, nothing but contrived plagiarism.
How that gets glory is another thing, but shit happens.
:-)
OK, first you say the two media can't be compared, and now you say Eaton's work is plagiarism. I get that you're not a fan of her work, Rob, but that's a little over the top.
I like the work, and as a long-time admirer of Albers' work, I found Eaton's take on those ideas exciting--interesting that they should explore the ideas in light rather than pigment--resonant with a particular (and quite well-established) thread of modern art.
-
Oh, come on — her work is titled 'Cubes For Albers and LeWitt'.
Homages cover many sins.
:-)
-
OK, first you say the two media can't be compared, and now you say Eaton's work is plagiarism. I get that you're not a fan of her work, Rob, but that's a little over the top.
I like the work, and as a long-time admirer of Albers' work, I found Eaton's take on those ideas exciting--interesting that they should explore the ideas in light rather than pigment--resonant with a particular (and quite well-established) thread of modern art.
There is no conflict in thinking that producing obviously very similar pictures in two different mediums amounts to little other than copying; imitating the same end product on another medium is hardly a cool thing to do.
IMO, of course.