Film vs Digital vs Creativity

Lounge
,
54

That’s the evil in banalization… making people believe that to be an artist is just to take a photo, to develop it and that’s it, buy this X brand and become the master of light (how preposterous and ridiculous) they give us the tools and they want us to believe it is easy, but the mettier, the sacrifice, the passion, the discipline that it’s needed to develop and keep the intimacy (motor of the art vehicle) that they do not taught, it is not profitable.
Then the youngsters and not so young go to youtube to copy everything they can and think that will be enough, ja ja ja. We live an era were mediocre copy-cats with cheap tricks reign under a thick thick crust of sweet bullshit ( check Carlile the humorist).

For me what you call “creativity” is an outward->inward->outward (I know you like arrows) loop of relation and relating to … anything, everything inchalah; it’s as sacred and joyful and interactive and profound and light and deep and destructive and constructive and nonsensical and overflown with meaning and researched upon and freeing intuitive thunder thought that wet my pants an act of pure intimacy; but a bit like a low-fi Beauys deeped in oriental cousine, I mean philosophy and sprinkled with leftist chicken bones I always defended that art, an artist encompasses everything, it is not a job; well it is but you cannot take out the working coat and go about your life… I know a zagillion artists and none is like that, it is just not possible, if for nothing else because from a poet to a painter, a musician to a dancer an artist is his/her own filter and has to filter everything.

I make holydays from my feelings Pessoa wrote
Ones art consumes oneself Zatoichi famously said

God isn’t the only one who can be creative: it wasn’t like that to begin with.

If you can put your hands around a copy of (the above mentioned) Jimmie’s book you’ll understand where I’m coming from, Between a Rock and a Hard Place is also very good.

 

 

@Isaac

Just saw an interview with him on CBS Sunday Morning. He doesn’t even make his own art anymore ! Seriously, he has a studio full of underlings who do everything “to his specification”. Still his works sell for millions.

A money-making factory, sadly

I guess thats not too far off from how the Renaissance masters worked, lol!

hummm… don’t know about you but I’m not sure they’re completely the same; I’m gonna meditate on that
=)

55

:thinking: Might just be forgetful: is the characterization of the renaissance found in this thread accurate? Or do we need to profile and / or calibrate? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes::see_no_evil: Some quality sources would be a good start.

56

I agree with most of the OP, but not that part, because:

(a) I don’t think absolute creativity exists. We build on what we have seen before.

(b) I think painting is more creative than photography, because the painter isn’t limited by what is in front of her. I can’t see how any photography with a camera can be absolute creativity. (So I exclude Man Ray’s Rayograms etc.)

(Note: I’m not denying Adams’s creativity, which he combined with vision and technical mastery.)

Film versus digital? For me, in colour, digital provides more creative freedoms than film ever did, because I never mastered the colour film darkroom. But I was more creative (and more satisfied by my creations) with B&W film than I have been with digital colour. One day, I’ll try B&W digital, but I’m almost afraid to.

Personal foibles aside, is digital or film the most creative medium? Which offers the most creative possibilities? I think digital wins that prize.

57

Digital certainly provides the freedom to iterate due to its accessibility and ability to undo, redo, distort and emulate. Iteration allows one to hone skill, technique, pursue ideas and contemplate creativity.

That is what digital does. It allows one to build on past work easily and effortlessly, compared to our analogue past. There are still challenges but digital photography has come a long way. :seedling:

58

Historical art is often only about building on the tradition. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it was less creative. The avant garde idea is basically modernist if I remember correctly.

Now there are some topics I have first hand knowledge about! Hirst has a proper purpose built factory with lots of employee’s. Many contemporary artists have people who execute their work for them. Think of say Richard Serra, he’s not handling those huge bits of steel by himself.

I’m not a huge fan of Hirst but have met him a few times through work. If nothing else he’s very serious about art, I’ve only discussed other peoples art with him, he owns shitloads of other peoples ar and is very passionate about it. I like him for brazenly undermining the gallery system by selling his own stuff in bulk (the Sotheby thing) thus forcing galleries to purchase his work to prevent the value of their collections from falling. Its just funny to see these manipulative galleries scrambling to maintain their rigged system. Speaking of creativity.

I found him a nice guy actually despite his reputation. His staff at science did seem a bit afraid of him however.

I think its a mistake to mix up freedom from constraints with creativity. Suggesting that photography is less creative than photography for instance.

59

I don’t doubt it @nosle; it was never a personal thing; I bet C. Ronaldo is also a very nice guy… I mentioned Hirst as a symbol to try and complement what @isaac was talking about with a modern “case study”, the conversation then derived; re-quoting him:

There is a deal made, I think, once we started to commodify that relationship between creator and audience (and yes, audience is indeed part of the decision process) . On the one hand, you can see how audiences will greatly value creations by individuals who seem gifted in some way at creation. The things they are able to feel when experiencing exquisite creation are valuable to them. It speaks to another part of our human nature, then, when certain individuals began to use their – at first – social capital to gain exclusive rights to such creations, and then their physical capital (aka. “money”) to do the same thing. At these points, the exclusivity of fine creations became tokens of social power, moreso than simply pieces of art.

Now there are some topics I have first hand knowledge about!

Would love to hear more personal stories :slight_smile: and also your take

I think its a mistake to mix up freedom from constraints with creativity. Suggesting that photography is less creative than photography for instance.

+1

60

Your timing in impeccable. Swedish tv just made the film available online (free). I’ve been wanting to see it for years!

Haha I just mentioned it as it surprised me at the time. I was the youngest and least important person in the room at these meetings but he remembered names and just seemed genuinely interested and non pretentious. Imagine the shock!

The contemporary art gallery world cater to a hyper extreme version of @Isaac’s social power token hunters. But it seems it’s not cynical, many hyper rich really believe in art but I can’t help feeling it’s a bit desperate or compensatory. The artist genius myth and and some sort of purity ideal where artists become a channel to ‘real’ things. Same goes for much normal art appreciation, it’s hard to separate learned status seeking from genuine interest. I’m pretty sure it’s most often a unholy fusion, I don’t mind unholy fusions that much.

I’m one who laments the separation of art and life but also work and life. I find institutions such as museums and galleries problematic in how they help create a distance and the potential for the myths mentioned above. I still love going to museums and galleries as it’s the only way of accessing the work.

@isaac do you know if skilled artist/craftsmen were worshiped (broad meaning, think celebrity) in earlier cultures?

61

Exactly what I was hoping would be the reaction! :smiley:
There’s lots of room for creativity even if you color (mostly) within those lines.

62

Ancient cultures melded art, work and life. Science, theology and philosophy weren’t in conflict either. Remnants of this are still evident in certain ethnic groups, at least some more than others.

I think the celebrity culture was different back then. It was more about a master crafts person being good at and proud of what he or she did for the community, and what he or she could pass on. Celebrity would stem from people being commissioned or employed to make items of utility and art for the rich and powerful; also for life altering events such as warfare or the changing of regimes. Such artifacts were more likely to be preserved and / or written about, and also looted, (destroyed) and traded.

63

@elGordo

tamos juntos brother {here socialist emoji without pants}

 
 

Your timing in impeccable. Swedish tv just made the film available online (free). I’ve been wanting to see it for years!

you’re going to love it @nosle, heir of the best qualities of slavish schools such as rigour of thought and a way of presenting and engaging the spectator without cheap tricks… and the portrait of contemporary (rusky) society is, my back hair’s standing, demolishing… good storytelling by any measure =)

 

The artist genius myth and and some sort of purity ideal where artists become a channel to ‘real’ things.

:+1:

That’s something that opens yet another front of discussion: what is there of true and what of myth in the romanticised view of an (fine) artist? aka please come back Baudelaire

 

it’s hard to separate learned status seeking from genuine interest. I’m pretty sure it’s most often a unholy fusion, I don’t mind unholy fusions that much.

Jajaja that’s it keep them unholies coming :+1:

I’m one who laments the separation of art and life but also work and life. I find institutions such as museums and galleries problematic in how they help create a distance and the potential for the myths mentioned above. I still love going to museums and galleries as it’s the only way of accessing the work.

We’re on the same page :open_book:
I’d like to add that funny enough - in my artist days and - despite being rusty validation machines, I actually had a great time working in/for some museums (galleries, hummm)… the good and the bad experiences had always to do with people; sometimes the more square and stale a “temple” was, the “clearer” my “function/work” of putting that to test and exposing it was, loads of fun. Then, in my technical / assistant department days it was a nightmare 'cause it was almost impossible to cut through the ossified BS and the medieval hierarchy and get things done well and promptly, I digress, sorry

 
 

@isaac do you know if skilled artist/craftsmen were worshiped (broad meaning, think celebrity) in earlier cultures?

I think the celebrity culture was different back then. It was more about a master crafts person being good at and proud of what he or she did for the community, and what he or she could pass on. Celebrity would stem from people being commissioned or employed to make items of utility and art for the rich and powerful; also for life altering events such as warfare or the changing of regimes. Such artifacts were more likely to be preserved and / or written about, and also looted, (destroyed) and traded.

@afre You, beast of many names… my art history notion is quite faded and more visual that factual by any account… I’d like to know if back then the patrons commissioned work considering the name or the quality of the “output” or something else/mix

a stupid thought just crossed my mind, what if what we consider good is just what we (historically) know

Nevertheless I would love to be able to witness in situ Mr. DaVincci’s marzipan castle, jajaj ja
:european_castle: :cake:

64

I think for many people that is probably true. But then you have to think of the experiences that rip you right out of that cozy little reality…the first time you saw something by Dali…the first time you heard Hendrix…

But first, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?

As we get bombarded and jaded by the sameness of everything today, the life altering experiences that cause us to challenge our ideas of what is good are getting more and more rare.

65

For juxtaposition, the Proust quote:

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new sights, but in looking with new eyes.

1 Like
66

Sure, we don’t have all of history to go by (even if we had a time machine, we wouldn’t understand the when we would step into); just fragments that we try to piece together with our own lens and preconceptions, and hopefully sound theory and methodology.

Exactly, important things just wiz by because we aren’t looking or don’t want to.

1 Like
67

Well, obviously in the deep deep past it’s impossible to know. Paleolithic artists, such as those who made the paintings at Lascaux or Chauvin, could possibly have been shamans or elders. However, most all hunter gatherer societies are strictly egalitarian, and use all sorts of leveling methods to ensure that individuals do not get out of place. However, in the Neolithic, with the advent of farming came sedentism and the possibility of producing surplus, which lead to the development of private property. Here we see some art elevating above others. For example at the site of 'Ain Ghazal in central Jordan, the most common art objects are simple animal figurines. And then, buried specially and apart, there were these:

3Louvre

Of course we don’t know who made them or why, but clearly these were something very special. And this is ~8200 years ago and before real cities or any Kings or chiefs ever existed. The real roots of social differentiation are in this time. I, and a few others, have argued this in the academic literature (and I won’t rehash it all here), but after this moment, the course was set for social hierarchy, craft specialization, and social inequality.

3 Likes
68

Cool. I don’t think I saw this the two times I visited the Louvre. Then again, it was a long time ago…

69

There’s one in the Louvre, two in the British Museum, and all the rest are in the archaeology museum in Amman. Sometimes they take them around on tour. Definitely worth it to check them out in person if you can!

70

Please allow me to add: or what we have been taught.

2 Likes
71

@isaac

Thanks for the statute’s context and the insights :+1:

 

 

As we get bombarded and jaded by the sameness of everything today, the life altering experiences that cause us to challenge our ideas of what is good are getting more and more rare.

paperdigits:

For juxtaposition, the Proust quote:

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new sights, but in looking with new eyes.

Exactly, important things just wiz by because we aren’t looking or don’t want to.

quote of quote of quote … and then a quote all that once was directly lived has become mere representation - The Society of the Spectacle - Wikipedia << Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle

Many years ago a friend of mine talked about a book (pretty sure it was from Burroughs, shamefully I’m talking 'bout aomething I haven’t read) where there was a guy whose job was watching multiple tv screens / streams and selecting just the “wow” moments that would then channel into a single stream where everything and anything showed was the climax… pure entertainment

 

 

a stupid thought just crossed my mind, what if what we consider good is just what we (historically) know

Please allow me to add: or what we have been taught .

@Claes absolut BUT to me it’s implicit both as cultural value and as reference context… even if someone hadn’t the “priviledge” of access to basic schooling homogenization, when the brain is most soft and deeper the inprint, and is “selft taught” &1 since last breastfed it would end up with a system of values that’s not “out of gamut”; being the gamut everything we know… it’s a bit of a loop, that’s what I mean with implicit; hopefully doesn’t sound too chajafasm (sorry, out of gamut :stuck_out_tongue: )

&1 that’s another intersting perspective… if you had no contact with other individuals what would you “learn”?

There’s a wonderful film around the subject from one of my favourite (at least pre 2000s) film directors Werner Herzog, I bet you’d love it. Is with the incomparable Bruno S (also worth seeing with him Stroszek ) Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle 1974 ~ Everyone for himself and God against all and which is wrongly titled as The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser .

While I’m at it, let me do-you a bit of vacuum-cleaner sales pitch: Herzog’s trilogy of power ( around the figure of crazy Klaus Kinsky) is an UnaMuCiT (unavoidable must cinema thing): Aguirre, Wrath of God 1972 (with a terrific soundtrack from Popol Vuh, just that alone…), Fitzcarraldo 1982 ( me cool mum took me to the cinema to watch it… and still today I dream of that boat crossing the mountain; the doc about the making of the film and Herzog’s and Kinski love-hate relationship is superb too) and Cobra Verde the weakest of the 3. Don’t get me started on his docus, je je ej

 

 
@elGordo

I think for many people that is probably true. But then you have to think of the experiences that rip you right out of that cozy little reality…the first time you saw something by Dali…the first time you heard Hendrix…

A thousand times had I “listened” Hendrix before… but one winter afternoon I was ridding me bike ( Sweeden) and very loudly listening to a MiniDisc (had the coolest Danish roomate that took vynils from the Library and transfered them to MiniDiscs) with a Hendrix album, I cannot recall (something something experience for sure, je je)… all from the sudden the clouds started to move fast, too fast and turn pink and magenta and ever softer and the ground became strangely bumpy yet bland; like a curtain of vivid blur, had to stop, left the bike and just listen while integrating this “new” unseen realityl it was fucking cold but I stood there till the end of the album. Something of sorts happened with Coltrane, man some music you can do but sit and listen, no background sountrack, nuthin’ just be there in the moment… welll that has been me experinece with pop icarus =)

Cloudddsss goo soo fasttt

2 Likes
72

…and you will carry that time in your mind for the rest of your life. Those are the moments that alter your path.

2 Likes
73

There was a flash game that I encountered, when flash was starting to become unpopular, that was pure bliss. After playing one sitting of it, it was gone; couldn’t find it again! Basically, from what I could remember, it was mesmerizing 8-bit art, animation and audio, with wacky colours and sprites. The screen was divided into quadrants, in each rectangle a separate mini-game with different things happening including the audio, running simultaneously with the rest. I think one was a jump-man / Mario clone, another was a logic puzzle, the third was a connect 4 clone and the last was something else. In that one sitting, I must have played for 1 hour in complete concentration without “dying”. After 1 hour, I had the self control to stop. Ahem, I may have spent more than that before this 1-hour-without-dying attempt.

Anyway, this ephemeral, silly-stupid little game captured my imagination and entertainment, despite it being encumbered by a fan spinning flash player with a dozen embeds and ads on a website just as blinding and facepalm inducing. I totally got my fill of analogue nostalgia, digital precision and creative socks being knocked off. Is it mundane or is it genius? You decide or objectively declare!

1 Like