On Art

Approaching Fog

Over on TOP, here, and here, there have been several posts with some good commentary about the work of Doug Rickard in the book "A New American Picture". His work rephotographs and manipulates Google street view images.

Some of my thoughts:

Why is every slightly “lonely” street photo compared to Edward Hopper, when the compared work has none of the psychological or emotional investment Hopper imbued his work with?

I have a pretty loose definition of Art; it can be built on a foundation of 10,000 hours of technical skill and craft, or not. It can come from the hand of a child (Picasso had some thoughts about that) or even the wave action of a great body of water, but it is transcendent of it’s material origins.

I think it’s Art, therefore it is.

As to Rickard's work, I’m ambivalent about the concept, and thus the work, because it is so removed from the actual reality, and seems emotionally distant. Quite the opposite of Edward Hopper. I have the same response to much marble sculpture; it rarely is the hand of the artist who designed the maquette. Michelangelo's David is a notable exception. I guess I like more personal involvement, even if the "hand" is Lake Michigan sculpting a piece of driftwood.
But, as I say, there are some good thoughts on the nature of personal involvement in Art.

I reserve the right to be completely inconsistent. 8-)