I recently started reading Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory, an empirical view on "the sublime, ugly and the beautiful" and how these concepts "frame and distil human experience" which "ultimately underlies aesthetics" 1. In the beginning couple of pages, Adorno poses the uncertain question of art's purpose. 2 This is something I have always wrestled with, and, I hope, Adorno will bring me closer to an answer. I think it is relevant to consider this question in relation to photography and it's place within both the fine and applied arts.
Within my own photographic practice, I am exploring the position in which my work can be placed. In one aspect, it could sit within the fine art realm. My current project is conceptualising ideas around Productivism, the role photography can play in industry, and applied art in general. In this sense, one could consider it art. The core concept within this body of work - photography in industry, however, by nature places it in the field of applied art. This raises the question, could photography be both a fine art and an applied art simultaneously? Can the nature of photography maintain a paradox?
References:
1 Adorno, T 1970, Aesthetic Theory, Ed. Adorno, G and Tiedemann, R, Trans. Hullot-Kentor, R 2004, London. Blurb.
2 Adorno, T 1970, Aesthetic Theory, Ed. Adorno, G and Tiedemann, R, Trans. Hullot-Kentor, R 2004, London. P 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment