Tuesday, November 2, 2010

THE DEBATE: Photography is a lesser medium than paint

Phillips de Pury is an auctioneer's establishment a short walk from Victoria station. The debate on november 1'st 2010 at which about 300 people were present took place in a hall while other smaller adjoining rooms showed a collection of framed photographs, hung on the walls, awaiting auction the following week. There were many by David Bailey yet the one that interested me most was number 2 of a 25 print collection by a deceased photographer called Ian MacMillan who made the famous image of the Beatles walking across a zebra crossing in St.John's Wood that was the cover of their Abbey Road album. It was estimated as having a value of between 3 and 4,00 GBP yet would probably go for more.

The debate saw the 6 speakers sitting behind a long desk facing the audience and flanking the chairman of the discussion, John Gordon, a co-founder of Intelligence Squared, the group responsible for organising the event. What I write is from notes made at the time which miss some points and may construe others yet hopefully relate the substance of the debate.

The first speaker, Michael Mack, a publisher and literary agent, described the evening as little more than intellectual exercise with as much value as the Turner Prize. Photography has credibility but tends to be overdone while there is a kind of guilt attached to its' inherent simplicity. Painters construct, photographers disclose. Digital mediation means photographs don't represent reality. Slipshod snapshots. Photography fulfils the surrealist notion (as proposed by Andre Breton) of elevating the ordinary to the status of art. Artis concerned with intention. Photography elevated painting so much so that painting now owes its' status to photography. Painting will continue to benefit from photography. The interest in images and ideas.

A.A.Gill, who trained in art and worked as an artist, agrees with everything the previous speaker has said, even though he is against the motion rather than for it. The topic is under discussion is both redundant and ridiculous. The subtext for the evening is whether photography is a lesser medium that art and indeed, many use the word art rather than painting which has more complex meanings. Art is about exclusivity, who can and who can't. Photography is everything that art is about, a contemporary form of cave painting. The crux of the argument is, what constitutes art? Who these days has the time to do a large Pre-Raphaelite painting? What about craft? Art is not a craft but singular, not repetitive. Take the skill out of art and you have Photography! The "Decisive Moment" is what Cartier-Bresson referred to the moment in time that marks a photograph. H.C-B liked to draw and paint but was not good at it apparently; his art expressed itself through photography.

Jose Maria Cano, a songwriter and painter, mentions Frieze, an early form of art likened to painting. Came a point when painting no longer represented reality. The art of ideas is conceptual art. Van Gogh not a smart artist unlike Salvador Dali. Art is about intelligence which is difficult to define. 95% of artists today are students! The art of intelligence, intrinsic value. The 1970's American Minimalist artists said "Painting is Dead!" but painting now seeing a revival. Art is whatever you want it to be, shifting definition. Art as expression! Photographers talented but painters put their life into their paintings. Don't look at the Mona Lisa as art but stand 80cm away as Leonardo did! An artist puts himself into the painting.

This was a passionately argued case but I wondered if the speaker was aware of how long a photographer might spend over an image in Photoshop or even setting up a shoot!

No comments:

Post a Comment