Art is not inherently significant; art is frivolous. Like those whom believe in the divine, art will always be subject to the faith of its author and its viewer.
Every facet in which art can be made has been liberated. Those whom value contemporary art of today recognize that Magritte has come, but he has not gone—art has long been freed from structure beyond expression. Magritte is not alone in such a belief: Berger explains that the meaning and significance of the image seen on print is no longer the image in the viewfinder—as such, the photograph carries no absolute meanings, for the image “multiplies and fragments into many meanings”. Incomplete of its original context, a photograph can never be an authentic representation of its depiction; faith must be present to see an image beyond a fragment of idea.
The mere act of using conventional media does not procure art. The photograph, like every medium used for art, can serve a multitude of purposes. Purpose is what defines and activates the medium. Activation of media emerges from intent. Art emerges from media permeating with creative intent. Creative is a rather vague word for defining art, but this due to art’s authenticity relies solely on the basis that the creator of a work deems it art, and, as such, creates a thing (tangibility irrelevant, from the contemporary standpoint) from imagination. Art is defined by the application or expression of craft and imagination in any form. Photography is simply photograph and photographic process made with creativity, imagination and ideas, in mind; therefore, photography is art. Of course, this ideology is shrouded in optimism—such a state would demand noble endeavors. A cloister of wealth and criticism today protects Art from the unsophisticated imposters, and perhaps, unsophisticated imagination and thought. I believe the hierarchy (gallerists, curators, critics, fellow artists, collectors) protects, inspirits, and restricts the possibilities of today’s art world. The existence of such an order is due, at least in part, to keeping art relevant and aspirational. Art, like all actions of value, demands sufferance. In the world of Art, exceptions occur, in which the proletariat enters the world of sophistication and the unsophisticated enters the world through aristocracy.
Noble does not seek to satisfy the contemporary art’s current furor for elaboration. The appending of assumptions about this body of work would be under the authority of the viewer. My aspiration for this body of work is entirely self-indulgent—it stands as an exhibitionistic monologue about my faith in art: my beliefs, my challenges, and my curiosities.
This series is composed of landscapes that are obstructed; as such, within the genre of landscapes, the images are bound to common strategies to which landscapes are appreciated—composition, emotive qualities, and aesthetics. With a landscape that is interrupted, under the constraints of deciding what is acceptable (what is good?), the image is inherently a failure: to make a fragment of art (which is frivolous to begin with) is a failure, and subsequently, making something of nothing.
The series seek to question whether landscapes can withstand the contemporary dialogues about art, ignorant of social hierarchies, politics, ideas, concepts, and the human experience. Can a null work of expression be considered relevant? This series acts to activate the idea that all art is equal in its absolute frivolousness. All art is mutually supported in the viewer and author’s faith that art is significant.
Although Noble is only a portion of a larger body of work. The whole series acts chronologically as an evolution of my beliefs, faith and interests within art. Noble is merely what I am currently seeking to do with my own art: It fascinates me that we must believe to see, for the viewer ultimately creates perception. I am unafraid of failure; however, failure cannot exist, for the project is solely an exploration of such a possibility.
SPECIFIC RELATIVE GRAVITY