As an artist who still has a foot stuck in the mud of skills, techniques and high-craft, I believe that there is merit in painting or constructing something "well;" that is having an ability to control one's medium. Though I do not believe it is integral to producing a successful work, I often wonder if, in our intensely stimulated culture, we overlook skill in favor of novelty or "originality." This idea came from the point in Dick Torchia's talk when he mentioned that the use of the camera obscura during the Renaissance was seen as cheating, and had the capability of discrediting one's work. This comes as a rather fresh thought today, in the age of Light Boxes, Digital Cameras, Projectors, and Photoshop, where artists are almost expected to use something extra to push their work beyond paint on canvas, or clay on a pedestal. If I were to paint two landscapes tomorrow, one plein-air, and one using a camera obscura, which would be the talk of the town? I doubt that it would be the standard landscape even if it was a "better" painting. I am not trying to say we should go back to the Academy model, I truly believe we should use any means necessary to develop our ideas most successfully, indeed whatever it takes. However I couldn't help noticing the discrepancy between eras, those previously scorned for innovation would be exalted in today's art world.
No comments:
Post a Comment