How does one see? A question asked for hundreds of years, especially in art and inevitably answered by every artist through his or her work. However, for David Hockney, this question has dominated his work. His ever changing style and medium is evidence of his continuously changing perception of life and “reality”. However, his struggles with perception and reality become especially apparent in his work with photography and camera, which is characterized by both his attitude and his studies of Picasso and Cubism.
Even as a child, Hockney was always controversial. In school, he did poorly in order to pursue art. He registered for the draft as a continuous objector because he didn’t want to do regular service work. He convinced his parents to send him to art school instead of pursuing a job like the rest of his siblings. It was at art school that he discovered Pablo Picasso’s art which would forever challenge him to change his perspective. In art, his perspective would change through the medium of photography.
Hockney started working with photography like everyone else does, taking pictures mainly for documental value. He began in the 60’s with a Polaroid. He used these photos as a memory aid for his painting, but as his painting started to mirror the photographs, he changed his style. He believed that photos did not accurately portray the way that humans see and perceive the world around them. He began joining photos together. He would take pictures over the course of a day or several days and combine them. These composite Polariods, or “joiners” as he called them, were unlike any other photo collages. He later bought a 35 mm camera and produced larger and more intricate photo collages. He believed that photography lacked a sense of time and that by combining the pictures in this way, he was able to not only add an element of time to the photos, but also more accurately represent the movement and function of the human eye.
With this new perspective gleaned from his photographic study, he went back to paintings and began to look at them more critically. He started to see something different in the classical paintings beginning in the 1500’s and so started to investigate. He believed that the classical artists used optics to alter their perspective so they could draw and paint more accurately. He published this thesis in 2001 and again caused quite a stir. He also translated his photographic lessons to his paintings and these can be easily recognized in later paintings.
Response Questions:
Do #1 and your choice of 2 or 3.
1. Do you believe that photography can be considered an art form, or is it only for documentation? Do you think that photography is “one-eyed” or gives a flawed perspective? Why or why not? Did this presentation change any of your thoughts about the photographic medium?
2. Do you think that using optical devices or memory aids, such as photography or mirrors, is considered cheating? Why or why not? Is the skill of the artist measured by his ability to see or his ability to use his particular medium?
3. Do you feel that Cubism is about abstraction, or about perception? Is there a difference between the two? Can it be both? Can you draw a parallel between the Cubist movement and Hockney’s photographic movement?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that photography can be considered an art form and not just documentation. I took a photography class in high school and there was much more to our work than simply snapping shots of objects and people for the purpose of documentation. Each photograph took a lot of patience, preparation, and scrutiny in order to be up to par. Photography enables artists to capture things as they are at an instant or more in time. The exploitation of form and structure with texture and nuances of light given full value allows the communication of ideas, both simple and complex, which would be virtually impossible in other two-dimensional media. In short, they work with photography's strengths rather than using it to imitate other media. The making of a photograph involves much more than pressing the button on a camera. The fine photograph is the result of a long chain of lucid decisions from concept through to the final work. In painting, artists use models to pose or other objects as inspiration to do their work. The same is true for photography. The only difference is that photography uses different tools. Also, sometimes photography isn’t the act of simply taking a posed picture. Sometimes artists use Photoshop or other tools to abstract the images. It is most definitely a form of art.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that photography can give a flawed perspective to the viewer. A photograph is an instantaneous, two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object. As the camera only has one 'eye', it already sees the world in a very different way from us. Sometimes what we see through a photograph is not necessarily reality. Then again, the same can be said for many other art forms.
In some ways, I think that using optical devices or memory aids to help in drawing or painting can be considered cheating. I think I feel this way because I have seen so many amazing artists who don’t use or need any aids to assist them in their work, so it almost takes away from their abilities when someone else does very good work but has to “cheat” to do so. Then again, someone can look at this practice of “cheating” by using optical aids and make the claim that it is simply another form of art. I think the heart and diligence that an artist puts into his pieces is the true measure of art, not the tools that he uses.
I think that the skill of an artist cannot be measured simply by looking at either his ability to see or his ability to use a particular medium. I think that the skill of an artist is determined by a steady balance of the two. If an artist is able to visualize things very well with his eyes and his mind, but he cannot effectively transfer those images onto canvas or film, he will not be regarded as a skilled artist. He same can be said for an artist who is very skilled at using his particular medium, but he has a hard time visualizing things. He will not be able to work very effectively. An artist that can put those two together and produce quality work is very special.
Photography is a powerful medium. It is able to capture an exact moment in time, everything in its place for that second, precisely how it appeared. When viewed in this manner, photography would seem to be limited to a documentary technique, but this is for the uncreative. The amazing advances with photography over the past forty years have proven it can be an art form. Distortions to the world that is being captured can be made by using different lenses, posing objects or people, or even employing the various development methods now available for analog and digital film. In these senses, a photograph has the ability to give a very flawed perception of the world, but since it is such a variable medium, anywhere from pure factual standpoint to a very artistic aspect can be developed from the eye of a lens.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hockney realized the wide range of photography. He first began to use photography as a memory aid, but soon realized that the dry perception of a three dimensional world captured in two dimensions did not satisfy him. To alleviate this problem, he began to piece many photos together or “join” them to achieve the faceted aspect he perceived with his eyes. This technique allowed for multiple angles to be seen in one complete work. Just as in life, a person does not see only one viewpoint of an object. Instead, many different vantages are gathered and the object is created in the person’s mind. David Hockney’s collage style of joining photographs gives a more real depiction of the scene then just one photograph ever could.
The static image gathered by the lens of a camera is changed into a depiction that relates time to the viewer in Hockney’s photograph Pear Blossom Highway. This patchwork gives a feel of movement to the normally stagnant road. Its depth perception is changed as if the viewer was in a car, headed down the highway instead of just viewing it from a single stationary point. This style of photography allows for an art form to be created. It may indeed distort perspective, but who is to determine what is distorted and what is not? Perspective of any image is relative to the person, so Hockney’s photography could just be exposing his perspective of the world.
The idea of perspective being relative ties into cubism. Cubism is not mere abstraction; it is a simplification or another representation of the subject, another perspective. Hockney uses an outlook not commonly seen in art, one that is all his own. This is the entire point to Cubism. Depict the world in the perception, even if it is an abstract perception, which the artist sees. As expressed in Hockney’s photography, he does not see the world as a static, based on a blink of an eye sort of place. So instead of using a different medium, he bends the medium to suite his point of view. This is how Hockney creates art from photography instead of the strictly documentary style that most photographs fall into. His mixing of a unique perception and a creative style make his photographs come alive.
I believe that photography is an art form, even though the skill of the artist lies in their eye rather than their dexterity. The definition of what “art” is, I think, lies in a combination of the aesthetic effect of the work and the intentions of its creator. Most anything can be considered art if it is visually arresting, takes time and effort to produce and is presented as art by the artist. I think that if abstracted blobs of paint can be considered art, photography can certainly be considered an art.
ReplyDeleteLike many mediums, it began as a way of recording information. Though ancient cave paintings have their own mystic beauty, their original purpose was probably to commemorate events and chronicle history; a battle, a successful buffalo hunt, a mammoth stampede. Writing, another one of the respected and revered arts, similarly was conceived purely for practical purposes. It was centuries before it was employed to set down oral traditions into narratives, and then finally recognized as an art in and of itself.
Photography is simply a newer descendant of this same lineage of art. Like its predecessors, it began as a way to more accurately capture moments and images. However, it soon became clear that although photos seem super-realistic, the point of view can change what you see and how you see it. Artists began to use photography to display the world from a different set of eyes.
I don’t think photography is “one-eyed”, but I do agree that it can be deceptive. Photos often capture things that we don’t perceive when we are in the moment ourselves. Tiny details that make the photos seem more life-like than paintings often actually go unnoticed in life. How many times have you seen a photo that looked nothing like the actual scene? Maybe the flash was on too bright. Maybe the pupils of the subject were turned red. Maybe the angle of someone’s head was turned at just the right unflattering angle, or maybe they blinked during the crucial moment.
This is perhaps the most important flaw of the photograph: the crucial moment. Instant photography is exactly what it claims to be. It captures an instant, a flash, a frozen slice of time. The passage of time can be shown through a series of photos, but never in just one. That’s what David Hockney hoped to correct through his work. In that respect, I think that he was successful. His work captures a sense of perception and movement that are often absent from photos.
I don’t think that it’s “cheating,” and likewise I don’t think that a camera lucida is “cheating.” I suppose it’s because I don’t consider the sole aim of art to be to display the artist’s excellent hand-eye coordination, or spatial ability. It’s certainly a part of art, and in certain forms of art it is more prominent (like academic painting). However, if this were the only goal of art then the Impressionists would never have gotten off the ground, much less Picasso and his ilk. Art is something more than that. Therefore, if you use a camera lucida to aid your hand in perfecting your true creation, the more power to you, even though some may feel you have “tricked” them. If you use photos as a guide, there is no basis for making accusations. After all, if what was in the photo was all that mattered, why would you paint it, or cut it up and reassemble it? Why not just display the picture? No; it is how you alter reality, how you change it and give it your own voice and perception that matters.
Perhaps that’s the true essence of art: your voice. Through painting, through writing, through photography, we find ways to show the world exactly what we think of it. We try to make others see what we see, feel what we feel, and maybe understand the people that we are and the world we live in. The medium is just the mouthpiece. What makes it art is that we speak.