The Relentless Jessica Eaton

[amolitor]

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.

[faberryman]

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.

[D Fuller]

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.




(Albers Images from the Amherst College collection, Eaton images from the article on this site.)

[D Fuller]

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?

[elliot_n]

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.

[Rob C]

The example are damning evidence of, in my opinion, nothing but contrived plagiarism.

How that gets glory is another thing, but shit happens.

:-)

[elliot_n]

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'.

[D Fuller]

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.

[Rob C]

Oh, come on — her work is titled 'Cubes For Albers and LeWitt'.

Homages cover many sins.

:-)

[Rob C]

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.