Rigor, Meaning and Art (Fashion Only Forum 1/23/00)

Sitting at the bookstore reading Sokol eviscerate the French post-modernists because of their non-rigorous use of mathematical concepts in sociological context, I realized that the same lack of rigor infects my thought on photography, fashion, art and philosophy.

Recently I had the pleasure of reading my son's papers clarifying, then solving contradictions in some of Katherine McKinnon's feminist writings. (My son is a feminist - so am I. But we have some serious disagreements about the definition of "objectification" and the history and utility thereof.) His writing was rigorous, because the field of philosophy, as a sister of mathematics, demands it in any sound study. I appreciated the beauty in my son's thought. But I couldn't write it myself. My thought isn't rigorous.

There's a piece of paper in a box here somewhere that says I have an adequate understanding of mathematics (and minor understandings of philosophy and military science). But I'm not a mathematician. To be that one has to apply rigor to creativity and make something that withstands the ravages of critics who are also rigorous. Instead I understand and appreciate mathematics.

Often I've quoted John Fisher's comment that "Editorial fashion photography, along with politics and religion, is a fit topic for adult thought." (By this time the quote has probably lost all of it's original words. Sorry John.) The point of that quote, and the reason it has stuck, is that it implies there is something more to "editorial fashion photography" than fashion, or photography. There is something about that particular little niche that is both profound and unique.

Editorial fashion photography places very few restrictions on the photographer (artist). It allows almost limitless creative freedom, but within a few guidelines. Pretty much there must be attractive people used somewhere in the picture. And pretty much a mood can be set, but social commentary is not encouraged. Within these restrictions, it is possible to create universes of mood, mystery, sensuality, and beauty.

Sebastao Salgado is, in my opinion, the best photographer in the world. He produces beauty that transcends the restrictions of having to record what is. We in EF have the ability and the freedom to create what isn't, but as a rule, we don't. There are other niches of photography that also have that freedom, and without the few restriction we have. Fine art. ("Fine" in the original German, "shön," means "beautiful.") On the web "fine art" always means photographs of naked women. And that's a perfectly suitable subject - my favorite even - but it's also mental restriction. In the corporeal world that restriction doesn't exist.

Another book got some of my attention tonight. It was entitled Nuyorican Cafe and was about poetry, competitive poetry, creativity, and the creation of art. Poetry certainly ranks up there with editorial fashion photography, politics and religion. I'm not sure EF ranks up there with poetry as real expression, and have to therefore question both its profundity and uniqueness. But EF still can have the power of poetry if used right.

A major topic of art is art. Self-referencing is now a standard technique. The art asking what is the nature of art? (The photo of me up there is sort of self-referential.) The major topic of historical Western art was promotion. Promotion of the idea of a particular religion, promotion of a nobleman as more noble than the next nobleman. We haven't come all that far, in that our use of photography (in all the commercial areas) is to promote something. Though clever use of self-referencing exists - Newton's photo of the nude in the mirror, with Alice sitting on the side, and himself also in the mirror - it doesn't make up much of EF at this time. As such, we aren't, perhaps, asking enough of ourselves.

Setting a mood or defining an emotion is nice. It's actually pretty shallow, but it is nice, and it promotes something. That picture up there, and most of my pictures promote me. The one up there, because it shows what a hunk I am, as well as how seriously I use my tools. All my other work because it shows what a fine creative photographer I am. Heck, my deal with models is that the photographs can only be used for self-promotion. So what other purpose, if any, do my photographs have?

Garrison Keeler, on "A Prairie Home Companion" today said that the cold of the northern plains makes everything very simple. It distills the makeup of every person to "mammal." Eat, stay warm, and keep the plumbing working. The purpose of photographs is often "feed the kids." That is a basic, good and serious purpose. It is perhaps the most honorable purpose for anything. That was also the purpose of most historical art. But my intent here is to transcend the practical and take a better (rigorous) look at the function of photography (and other fine art.)

I've written on my understanding of the nature of beauty. Since that time I've been introduced by Kant to the differences between that beauty which is "fixed" and that which occurs in nature. Fixed beauty is something created for beauty, and includes art made for that purpose. A friend recently sent me a quote from Hegel that said something like, "Beauty is the sensual expression or appearance of the idea." That one bothers me a whole lot though, as any number of simply beautiful women I've worked with can in no way be called "...the embodiment of an idea." I'm probably missing something there.

So is the creation of beauty a worthwhile goal? Is there anything else worthwhile, besides creating beauty, that can be done with editorial fashion photography? And is this simple goal of introducing beauty into a world already chuck full of beauty anything special?

At this point, I don't think it is worthwhile, as far as any benefit to others. There might be a benefit to me.

At this point "fame and fortune" should be ruled out. Fortune because there isn't any. Don't expect it, and I don't think I really want any. There is a bit of fame, but if that is the benefit of art for me, then it should be ruled out of discussion only because I don't believe that it has any real benefit at all.

So what does the art do for the artist? For me the art is comprised of two different components. The product and the process.

The product makes me happy. When I look on the wall and see the three photographs I've framed and hung, I feel good. When a fan writes and says the photographs have helped her write music, I feel good. When I go through my portfolio and see the supergloss pictures, composed, finished, I feel good. And that good feeling is worth the time and money I put into their creation.

The process is nice too. Any straight middle-aged guy that doesn't like being around beautiful women is basically lying through his teeth. Seeing the light, selecting the slides/negs, seeing my unique taste become firmament (Biblical reference there) gives me immense satisfaction.

Well, with the help of one bottle of Mickey's Fine Malt Liquor, my rigorous search for meaning has once again been distilled down to "...because I like to..." Again, I'm convinced that meaning might be beside the point of art.

-Don