In times of bad weather it is easy to ruminate about the "meaning of life". This year, god knows the exact meteorological mix provoking it, it seems that the question is about photography being or not art, and recursively what kind of photography is art and what not (fine art. fine fine art. fine fine fine art....).

The best one i saw is the one saying that photography is not art cause it takes only a day to master the technical questions and opla you are a photographer.

here is a pointer.

Following the path here we have good news for the ones willing to become a painter, mastering paint takes even less. Buy a canvas some colors and a brush and you are there, total time an hour plus the time to get to the store and it is far less expensive too. You will not need any skill too. You are already at it, according to Leonardo Da Vinci (Trattato della Pittura/Treatise on Painting) , it suffices to observe, and make some abstractions upon, those fine motifs you leave on the toilet paper.

Those considerations reminds me some subtle disquisitions you can read about which is the most important form of art taking place among baroque art experts in the XVII and XVIII century. Futility rules anytime.

Everybody has the art he/she deserves.

Anyway, i do not want to put my statement here, too many relativistic lectures has made me quite uncertain, i am not even sure if the question is worth considering.

But there is a thing i am certain about. In our culture (the happy fat whites one, regardless of skin color) art is also (or it has been) a way of rearranging knowledge in ways not yet considered. There's always has been, so to say, a license to connect concepts without worrying about consistence or exactness or historical/philological or scientific correctness. In this sense (and maybe only in this one) i want to claim for me the right/plesure of being an artist.

No comments: