I’ve tried the Camouflage photo idea on a few other objects (see Gallery 1 and Gallery 2) with varying degrees of success. First, what I like about it – I like the effect of the photo of x left within its original “place in the (normal, external, non-art) world”. I still like the simplicity of the first picture better. I like the interaction between the world and people, man and material, – the need for people for art. I like the way it refers to ideas beyond minimalism – in relation to the idea of bringing art down to its foundations, the ultimate concept of foundational art being art-that-hasn’t-been-made-yet; hasn’t even been thought of yet – then it is all around us. Everything is potential art. So photographing it seems to frame it and categorise it as art but still leave it in its original context – rather than taking a readymade out of its original context and putting it into the art context. This points at the original context and leaves it there. The un-noticed is as valid as anything else.
I’ve been directed at Victor Burgin’s Photopath:
which is a very similar idea, but while I like its simplicity and scale I also like the less-obvious quality that having something smaller brings, the fact you have to look infers that it is all around you and is not immediately obvious.
I appreciate the paradox in making it art and not-art, but my point is to bring up the idea, the question for the viewer to consider. (Ideally the photos would be left on the original but for archiving/documentation I’ve used photos of the photos-on-the-original.)
The method – hand holding the camera made the pictures with and without photo too variable, no matter how hard I tried to line perspective up with the original, so I tried with a tripod. This made it too precise though, I need some difference for it to be noticeable at all, although it was interesting to have one or two of these, to hint at it being around you and not only do you not notice it, you have to actively look for it. I’ve experimented with different amounts of editing from the original in tone, contrast etc but it works much better if I keep it as close to the original as possible with just a faint line/shadow showing a slightly different plane and making the viewer question if what they are seeing is the real scenario. Too much editing looks too obvious and doesn’t leave much to question. It also works better with good lighting to give shade below the photo and make it clearer where the border lies.
I’m quite keen on the shots having an interaction between nature and man eg the tractor tracks, the felled tree – as is a manmade product, there is no ‘category’ in the absence of people. These are probably the photos that went less well though so if I took it further it’d need more work.
A few people have asked me if I’d used a mirror and were interested in how the mirror showed an almost exact replica of the underneath. I found this quite interesting – although it wasn’t intended, it does remind me of Robert Smithson’s Mirror Displacement :
– having both a physical aspect and a non-physical/metaphysical or cognitive aspect. I might experiment with mirrors to see where they could take me.
So what don’t I like about it? Ultimately I don’t like it because does it really mean anything, is it at all clear any meaning or activity behind it? In itself, no. It doesn’t communicate anything much about Nothingness, it got sidetracked away from Potential Art or Nothingness towards mimimalism in conceptual art.
But along with other pieces I’ve had a go at regarding Nothingness and its meaning, yes. And that’s really what I’m getting at in what I’m thinking about regarding art – in itself it is not clear, it’s pretty meaningless – it’s the concept, meaning, understanding behind it that’s important. I want to make it clearer to myself what I mean by Nothingness, what I mean by conceptual art. So as a process it has a function but in itself it is meaningless.
