|
|
Re: Toothless Doberman Attacks Current Phipps Exhibitions
Posted:
Mar 21, 2004 12:21 PM
|
|
> Nothing on both counts. To my mind - the most
> constructive thing I can do to counter Fallon's
> review - is to express my anger and disgust - which I
> have - and then continue on to creating images
> regardless of further criticisms/comments
> posted/published in the public/professional sector.
>
> Along with that, I have to state that I have no real
> need or desire to 'defend' or 'explain' my choice of
>
> 'over-manipulating' my digital imagery.
> Really...'over-manipulating' is in the eye of the
> beholder...that comment is a subjective response to
> something that I have chosen to integrate into much
> of my art. What is not apparent from the works I
> have chosen to post on-line, is that along with
> working in the visually intense manner that I
> prefer...I'm working at the same time in a style
> that is highly subdued and refined. I will not post
> any works that come from working that way as I'm
> convinced that viewing them on a monitor is not the
> most appropriate way to actually experience them.
> During the 40+ years I've been pursuing art as a
> professional, I have acquired a 'take-it or leave-it'
> attitude once my work leaves the studio. It's very
> good to find viewers responding positively, but it's
> also very good if they cannot. Either way...it tells
> me that they've had an art experience of some kind
> with my work and that's really enough for me. I've
> never created anything with pleasing critics or the
> public as a goal. That's ridiculous. Negative or
> outright bad reviews can be either constructive or
> destructive.
> In the case of Fallon's pure and simple 'attack' on
> the The Phipps and the artists currently showing
> there (March 4 - April 4) recently, how could one
> 'constructively' reply to it? What would be the
> purpose? Trying to enlighten the critic or the
> public by responding to specific /points subjects
> singled out for 'attack' (and there's no other way to
> describe it) by Fallon in his intitial diatribe...now
> that the piece has circulated and past the point of
> its intended damaging effect on the reputation of The
> Phipps, and the artists he's discussed...for
> me...would be a wasted effort. I believe nothing
> would be achieved by doing so.
> In this case, my reactions to Fallon's attack quickly
> morphed into my taking energetic and positive
> actions...in the form of returning refreshed to a
> continuation of my work...with an eye towards not
> allowing anyone who agrees/disagrees with the intent
> or esthetic of my art (and feels the need to concern
> themselves with writing about it somewhere in the
> public/professional sector) to tempt me to cling to
> his transient negativity. Truthfully, none of us can
> count on anything past this moment in time...nothing
> is permanent...certainly not our physical lives...our
> thoughts.
> My anger over Michael Fallon's review only helps to
> illustrate for me that I have to be more careful in
> the future so as not to confuse mole-hills for
> mountains. Doing so is akin to inviting pollution
> into the stream of my creative process.
> Thus, my 'constructive response' to Fallon's review
> is to continue doing exactly what it is I'm doing
> today...working in my studio on my digital 'image of
> the moment'.
> (And if this leads to any 'over-manipulation' on my
> part of the visual elements in the composition...one
> can decide to either take it or leave it. Who
> knows...I may even decide to draw outside the lines.)
>
>
> Thank you .
> JML
Sorry to have been unclear on the over use of digital manipulatioin. I meant, rather, that the manipulation of images digitally, and computer generated images themselves, are over-used at this point in art in general. I don't feel that you personally are over-manipulating your images. Your statement makes clear your history with the medium. You do it well. I believe your skill level at programs like photoshop is probably quite high.
The thing I think sets your work apart, and gives it more "validation", is the day to day image diary aspect. This I also beleive to be contemporary. A documentary of one person as an artist. This is my questioning interest in the "snap-shot" level of development in the "photography" on the front page. It would seem much more validated if this documentary thing is behind it. Otherwise, its just amateurish and boring. (I am not directly or indirectly referring to your work in this way, James, but rather Michael's use of the word "snapshot" in regards to photography in general.) Especially boring to me as I have worked in half the photo labs in the city. I think I question the photography more because of having worked on the processing side. Having to "save" so many "photographers" "work". I am no photographer. I take "snapshots" my self. However, with a computer I have manipulated many images and used them for published projects.
|
|
