Photography as a form of art

art?

Now that I have experimented a couple of weeks with my new digital camera (simple model) I see results about which I’m satisfied, I worked on half-satisfying results to make something out of it (often in vain), and last but not least I shared pictures on the Internet and felt amazed by the awareness that people from all over the world respond on what you show, within the same day. No days or weeks of waiting, no stamp sticking or address writing, just one press on a button and your photo is posted, for everybody to see. I felt happy with a response from Iran, telling me that inter-religious and inter-state conflicts are for a great deal a matter of political leaders and their factions, and are not a hindrance to share expressions of what you have in common, when Internet is used.

I started thinking again about art in general, and photography as a form of it. I remembered the title of a textbook on Dutch literature we used in high school (translated): “literary art”, and how this title prompted a discussion about “what exactly is art”. We learned that some things cannot be defined exactly, and among them was “art”. There are cultures and eras in which fabulous art was created which wasn’t called “art” because people didn’t recognize objects or readings as “art”, it was simply craftsmanship, however highly appreciated though, and very expensive, too. The concept of “l’art pour l’art” (art for its own sake) was a Western invention, developed in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. I think it differs from other aesthetic, religious, magical or poetic expressions by the acknowledgment of experimentation outside the traditionally prescribed rules of the craft. It appeared to be successful because many people got excited about certain results of experimentation in such a way, that these results also became tradition. At his time Mozart was acknowledged as a great composer, but he made two kinds of compositions: great compositions for a large audience, and great compositions in which he expressed his own inspirations, full of aberrations from the traditional paths of “how good music should sound”. Now these aberrations are not recognized as such anymore, on the contrary, they are considered as “typically baroque”.

Photography is a form of art, belonging to the traditional class of “visual arts” next to literature and music. Until only recently, a number of experts found that photography didn’t deserve that title because it “only” captured real things, as a reproduction or representation of what one “really” could see. The not-outspoken reason however was I think that photography was a “modern” invention, made possible by complex technology. We now often see the same controversy between dark room photography and digital photography. I am convinced that digital photography will allocate its dark room equivalent definitively to the museum of daguerrotypes, silver-plate photography and other techniques that still have their adherents who practise them but are by far not mainstream anymore. I have experience with both now and I cannot deny that the computer allows you to do the same work as you did in the dark room in your living room with a set of buttons, without all the paraphernalia and doings, administration, cleaning up, putting ready, bath temperatures, counting, drying, etc.

Now what makes something a “piece of art”, distinguishing it from other expressions with the same means? Take a glass and put it on a table under certain light conditions. It can be photographed as “a piece of art” and as a “simple picture of a glass on a table”. Now the essential thing is that it has to be recognized as a piece of art. The beholder must not say to himself “this is art because it meets the art criteria”, but has to feel “wow”, or get impressed emotionally. If there are no beholders who “see”, in other words, “get touched” then it’s no piece of art. That’s why I like so much the proverb which I learnt from Freemasonry: “The word is only given to him who already possesses it”. You have to have it already, and get surprised, almost in an “Aha-Erlebnis” (Ah-experience) how it can manifest itself in the picture, the sculpture, the etching, the aria, poem, novel, etc.

The diversification of many “mainstreams” in art also explains why there are different “arts” for different groups, cultures and individuals. When I visit somebody at home and my host shows me a painting on his wall, telling me what a beautiful painting it is, and it evokes nothing in me but aversion, should I condemn his taste, then? I must honestly say that visiting the several photoblogs yielded many aversions in me, but what stroke me was the many compliments these pictures got. As a rule, I learned, it’s not done to criticize someone else’s products as “bad quality”. Some pictures made me re-consider my first feelings and I got gradually a sense of appreciation of what at first didn’t interest me. So if you don’t have “the word” already inside you, you can learn to get it, or, better, to fit the word inside you to better receive it.

Art is a mysterious thing, only possessed by people. Shakespeare and Hans Holbein didn’t work as artists, but as craftsmen. But, what’s in a name? It’s the feeling something evokes, the emotion, the sense of recognition of what you already have inside you. And what is it then, that thing you possess inside you? Dreams, ideals, strivings, hopes etc., all concepts separating themselves from each other but are reflections, manifestations of something that cannot be separated, but also cannot be named. Some people call it soul, or universal truth. I cannot help thinking of book-burning and destroying pictures. When Alexandria was conquered by the Arab Muslims, its library, the biggest and richest of the time, was deliberately set in fire. When Holland fought his was against the Spaniards, all Roman Catholic paintings and statues in churches were destroyed by mobs. When the Taliban got hold of giant centuries-old Buddha statues hewn out in the rocks somewhere in Afghanistan, they blew them up. One does the same when rejecting someone else’s attempts to tell you something worthwhile. Maybe it’s not your art, maybe it’s his or hers. In one of my first postings I expressed my negative feelings about a modern sculpture in front of our school entrance, but I see how other people are enthousiastic about it. And still, how much I try, I don’t get the feeling. Also, I can’t appreciate the experimental architecture of a modern bridge between traditional buildings (painted in light purple, of all colours!) in the city centre of Leeuwarden. For me, those are not pieces of art and I still think that city architects should not try to spread their feelings of over the thousands of people that see their expressions daily. Then they work the other way around: I know, they must think, that these colours and forms are not appreciated by the majority of people who see them, but that’s their fault. No, then I would prefer an “ugly” and cheap apartment building or the traditional “standard green”.