 |
||||
|
by JAMES ELLIOTT The simple fact that something is moving forward does not mean it is improving. This is a common error in human logic. The truth is, we can be moving forward to someplace better or someplace much worse. Next years fashions or cars may be better or worse than this years. And this is not merely a question of opinion or taste. In fact it has to do with quite the opposite. The ability to make an independent and neutral, critical analysis of exactly how this latest offering compares with previous accomplishments. This must be done in an open minded way. You must essentially love the possibilities of the new, but also have a great knowledge of accomplishments which have gone before. And so it is with Art. Every 'ism' is an innovator with a few acolytes. Mostly group thinking, then. Every contemporary 'ism' is hyped to the heavens with great enthusiasm, even though what we are looking at is inaesthetic, banal or meaningless. Sometimes all three. You get the odd good 'ism' like Impressionism or Surrealism, although both in a way are a triumph of style over substance. Most 'isms' are rubbish. The reason for the enthusiasm for all that is new, is that we use "a step forward" as a metaphor to mean 'an improvement'. This causes many to adopt the erroneous belief that anything new must be better. It patently is not. The corollary of all this is that something old is not necessarily bad. In the Fifties when Dali announced his "Discovery Of America by Christopher Columbus", one museum director made the hilariously fatuous remark that "It turned the clock back on painting a hundred years". A stupid remark, as it was extremely innovative and tremendously accomplished. A timeless masterpiece ignoring the latest frivolous, lightweight trends. What the museum panjandrum was doubtless referring to was the masterful technique, so shame on him for that. Against a background maelstrom of patently dreadful abstract expressionism, Dali must indeed have looked extraordinary. He was after all, a tremendous draughtsman to anyone of discernment and was always revered by the cognoscenti. The obtuse can catch up later. If at all. Some might say that in some ways painting needs to be turned back a hundred years to recapture a lot of the good qualities which were lost. Especially technique. Of course, the breaking up of the painted image, clearly prompted by the advent of photography with its immaculate verisimilitude, encouraged more creativity and that was a good thing. Unfortunately, to a large extent, masterful technique disappeared with it and this rather flushed out the baby with the bath water. Like having a fabulous looking sports car that just doesn't quite run properly - the experience is never going to be as good as it could be. Don't read me wrong - creativity is more important than technique - but I simply don't see why we can't have both. Apathy aside. You can judge all art by two criteria: creative supremacy and technical virtuosity. The former is essential and the latter is highly desirable This is also why, photography and computers are the future of Art. This combination allows a historical breakthrough in technical hyper-fidelity combined with unprecedented creative possibilities. This explosive duality of nature enables imagery of a power which far outstrips all the other visual arts. The best way to convincingly express that, is to create masterpieces of formidable power in these new media, which is exactly what I have been doing for over three decades. Even after 30 years of innovating with computers, I still don't see anyone working in parallel to me. No-one is doing anything comparable. It's exactly the same as when I pioneered photo art 50 years ago. For quite a while there was no-one else at all taking a similar trajectory. I saw little in the history of photography that could rival major name painters and of course, most of it was in black and white. But I knew I would change all that. I am an innovator creating art of the highest stature in the new media. Why the new media? Well, they are more powerful and hey......! Where else would you expect to find an innovator? JAMES ELLIOTT 730 words approx |
||||