I am sure that it has already happened somewhere, but I am waiting for someone to make a big deal of someone's exhibition of photographs taken with the new photo capable cell phones.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Thursdays is "Galleries" column day in the Post and today Jessica Dawson reviews a library art show.
Jessica reviews Where We Come From - an exhibit of work by Emily Jacir at Provisions Library (formerly the Resource Center for Activism and Arts) in Dupont Circle area.
And a few of days ago, the Washington Times' Joanna Shaw-Eagle reviewed "Himalayas: An Aesthetic Adventure" at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery
And on Artnet Magazine, former Hirshhorn Museum Press Officer and sometimes curator (and quite an accomplished artist as well) Sidney Lawrence reviews "Beyond the Frame, Impressionism Revisited: The Sculptures of J. Seward Johnson, Jr.," at the Corcoran and offers a slightly different perspective. For my take on this weird show, see my Oct. 24 entry.
The most misused word in the world of art is the word "print," as used in definiting work as "limited edition print," etc.
In the narrow, but true art definition of what an original art print is, a print is a work of art produced from an image worked by the artist on another material, usually a metal, plexiglass, wood, linoleum, plastic plate, etc.
Everything else is a reproduction.
And lawsuits will happen if suddenly a collector discovers that their "print" or "original" is in fact a reproduction.
So if an artist paints or draws an image on any medium, and then has multiple images made from that original by an electro-mechanical or mechanical process using photographic or digital images (such as Iris or Gyclee), those images are reproductions - not prints.
However, because it would really be hard to market an artist's work as "limited edition, signed and numbered reproductions," the word "print" has been kidnapped by the marketeers of art to apply to any set of multiple images - regardless of how they came to be, or what part the artist played in its creation.
It gets a bit murky when it comes to digital art - that is artwork that is created from scratch through the use of a computer or a photograph taken with a digital camera.
Once the file is done and finished and saved, then one can say that the image that comes out of the printer is the "print" in the true sense of the narrow art definition - much like the negative in traditional photography produces the photographic print.
However, a photograph that is taken, developed, printed in the darkroom and then scanned so that Giclees or Iris "prints" can be made from the photographic image means that those are reproductions made from the original photograph. But a photograph taken with a digital camera and then has Iris/Giclees or any other digital prints made from the digital image in the memory card is a "real" print!
So a digital medium like Giclee/Iris can be either a reproduction or a real print - it all depends on what the original source of the image is!
And what happens when computers become good enough to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to "learn" to "create" a painting or photograph based on verbal or typed instructions?
In 1987 my Naval Postgraduate School thesis was "Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems to Naval Cryptologic Operations", and let me tell you folks... the future is slightly terrifying as Terminator fans know.
Back to art... so if a painting or photo is created, or painted, or printed by a AI- savvy computer... is that "art"?
We shouldn't hide from technologies that advance art... as photography historians know. But AI and art do present some interesting questions!
What do you even call it? If ever we're able to teach and then tell a computer to print something that looks and feels like a photo, but based on our commands, and something comes out of a printer that looks and feels like a photograph... what is that?
An "AIgraph"? If it's quick we can add foreign words to make it more artsy: a "rapidograph"... or a "prontograph"...
Someone stop me! Get back on track Campello!
Printmakers are especially sensitive to the misuse of the work "print" to market reproductions of artwork. One of the best places in town to buy true prints from very talented printmakers is the Washington Printmakers Gallery in the Dupont Circle area.
Printmakers are especially sensitive to the misuse of the work "print" to market reproductions of artwork. One of the best places in town to buy true prints from very talented printmakers is the Washington Printmakers Gallery in the Dupont Circle area.
Just back from a visit to Penn State. While there I visited the Palmer Museum and saw a small but very interesting exhibition: Through the Looking Glass: Women and Self-Representation in Contemporary Art. Also saw the faculty exhibition at the Zoller Gallery.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Isla Torturada
When I was a student at the University of Washington in lovely Seattle, I was going for a double degree. One was in Mathematics (Numerical Analysis) and the other in Art. Both degrees were part of the College of Arts and Sciences - so together they shared a lot of common courses.
Because of the heavy load, I often did art projects which could be used in two separate classes (drawing with sculptural elements, etc.) In 1980 I did 100 lithographs - mostly fairly small... around 5x7 inches - they all had the island of Cuba as the central focus, and each was an individually hand-colored and done differently - so each one was unique.
I sold most of them at the Pike Place Market in Seattle, and a to one fellow student (the only other Cuban American whom I knew at the UW). She must have bought 20 of them!
Here's one:
 |
| Cuba: Isla Torturada 1980 mixed media monoprint by F. Lennox Campello |
Monday, October 27, 2003
It's circa 1961 and was acquired by the present owner in 1976... of course we all wonder how much he/she paid for it.
There's also this nice Kenneth Noland on the left... 45 by 45 inches - circa 1962 and acquired by the present owner in 1963!
This was an art collector with an early Greenbergian eye for the Washington Color School... the Noland is expected to go for $100-$150,000 which is surprisingly low - one would think.
And even more surprising: This Rothko is expected to beat Van Gogh.
OK, OK it's a huge Rothko oil versus a small Van Gogh watercolor....
There are also 128 Whistlers on the auction block (mostly prints).
The Franz and Virginia Bader Fund invites visual artists (excluding filmmakers, video artists, and performance artists) to apply for grants to enable recipients to develop their talent and concentrate on their art. Artists must be 40 years or older, and must live within 150 miles of Washington, D.C.
Two grants will be awarded in December 2003, one for $25,000, the other for $20,000. Applications must be postmarked no later than November 28, 2003. To obtain a current application form, visit the Fund's website, www.baderfund.org, or write to the Fund at 5505 Connecticut Avenue, NW #268, Washington, D.C. 20015. Send email inquiries to grants@baderfund.org. Telephone: 202-288-4608 and Fax: 202-364-3453
For those a little younger, the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities's Young Artists Grant Program has a deadline of December 1, 2003. For District residents between the ages of 18 and 30. They can apply for up to $3,500 for community service projects or $2,500 for independent art projects. For more information or to obtain an application form visit the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities or call 202-724-5613.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
