Does the difficulty that is required to make art figure into the artistic value of it? This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now.
I have had the chance to travel quite a bit over the last few years. In the process of these travels I try and visit every art gallery that I can. Some places make it hard to visit all the galleries, like in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where there are so many but I visit lots of them.
I have noticed that different galleries will take different approaches to presenting the art. Some focus on the art itself, what it portrays, and what it brings out in the viewer. In some galleries they focus more on the creation process and usually the difficulty of that process than on the actual art itself.This always seems odd to me.
So does this make a difference?
First of all, let me say that some artistic processes are incredibly difficult, but can yield amazing results. That isn’t in question.
As I have considered this subject, my mind strayed to cooking. My wife is an excellent cook, and I have several friends who are professional caterers. So does the difficulty of the creation process or the amount of work required change the taste of something? Does the elbow grease required make something taste better?
The answer is no (of course this is my opinion). The finished product speaks for itself. The quality of my dinner isn’t proportionally related to the effort and suffering my wife has gone through to make it. Many of my favorite meals are 5 minute jobs, while some require a week or more of planning and effort. The final taste and presentation of the food is what is important. It is all about the final product.
I believe the same goes for any medium of art. In this case I am considering photography.
I have several images that were easy to make. Just a bit of research and be in the right place at the right time. Like the one above.
Others that were difficult because of timing or actually finding a nice composition. Some that required the years of learning and experience I have gone through before I was able to make them, like the one above.
Some effects or results will obviously require certain processes to achieve. So some difficulty may be required.
Sometimes the suffering and difficulty that is bragged about is important in the creation of the final product.
Here I am back to a previous statement I made. “Some artistic processes are incredibly difficult, but can yield amazing results. That isn’t in question.” I will add now, that the process used to create art alone doesn’t make it amazing. This is only a small part of the final product that actually is the art. Other factors like the artist’s vision, and final choices about presentation I believe are more important.
Most of all though art will speak for itself. For me something is art not because of how hard it was to create, but because of how it influences and inspires me.
The conclusion I have come to is that when artists and galleries focus on the difficulty of a process or the arts rarity instead of the actual art they are putting up barriers that keep me from connecting to the art itself. Perhaps their goal is to establish their arts value right away, and this will convince me of its worth. Bad choice in my mind, if I can connect with a piece of art, cost and value are no longer an issue for me.
What about you? Are my images less artistic because I was sincerely enjoying myself rather than ultimately suffering in the creation process? Do you think we need to focus on the process to justify the cost and to determine value?
