by Dinesh » Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:44 pm
A while back, on DeFreitas site, I asked the question: "What holograms do you hate?" I got a barrage of angry responses that suggested that to even mention that a holographer might hate a hologram was the ultimate in crassness. But, over and over again, there was an outpouring of sentiment over holograms made by "recognised" artists. If Augie or Margaret Benyon or Rob Mundy or <fill in name of recognised 'artist' here> made any kind of a hologram, from a crystal cathedral to a puddle of piss the entire holographic community would "ooh!" and "aah!" as if they'd been given a glimpse of some kind of 'promised land"! If, however, Joe Schmitzellgeiser made a hologram of a sculptor with exquisite form and substance the entire holographic community would promptly ignore ol' Joe! I got the distinct feeling that "holographic artists" is the same, amongst the display holographic community, as the expert is in the more technical community! If Hans or Steve Benton or anyone from Zebra were to say 2+2 = 5 sometimes, the entire holographic community would gasp at the profound wisdom they'd just been made aware of. If Dinesh Padiyar or Joe Schmitzellgeiser said exactly the same thing, there would be a mass scorning from the entire community. I call this the "expert syndrome". An "expert" is never wrong and if an "expert" is ever wrong, it's not that he/she is wrong, he/she is simply so profound that you can't understand. Augie is the only holographer that makes wonderful dcg holograms (actually Dave Battin's work is just as good as Augie to this somewhat unschooled eye), Rallison knew everything there was to know about dcg (actually a lot of the writings are speculation that have now been shown to be wrong!) the MIT people know everything there is to know about holographic theory (not so!), Benton was all-knowing (there's a picture of me and Joel Kollin discussing some aspect of holgraphy with Steve, and we were all discussing the topic as equals!).
I got to wonder if the art world also had an "expert" syndrome. If, say, <famous artist> made an art piece of dog poo-poo, would all the art types go into hyperventilation, while if Joe Schnitzelgeiser made exactly the same piece in exactly the same way no "artists" would pay a blind bit of attention? In order to test this hypothesis, I asked, "What holograms do you hate?" It occurred to me that if one were truly judging the "art hologram" in some artistic way, then by the very nature of judgement, some would be judged favourable and some not. After all, even movie directors love some movies and hate others. Musicians who are truly judging a piece of music (as opposed to indulging in the "expert syndrome") love some pieces of music and hate others. So, if art holography truly exists and art holographers were truly judging the art as art, then there must be some pieces they disliked.
The result? Not a peep of countercriticism! Every hologram made by a "famous" art holograper was wonderful! wonderful! wonderful! Every "art" piece made by an amateur or hobbyist "was not bad" and "had promise" but was not in the class of an Augie or a Benyon! Why? No one seemed to know. Margaret Benyon made a pulse hologram of two people with no clothes and it was juust sooo aaartistic. Ron Olsen makes a hologram of two people with no clothes on and , well, it's Ok, I guess. It's a Ron Olsen, right? But, It's not art!!! (This actually from Fred Undershirt!)
So, Tom's reply seems to indicate that there must be some holograms that disturb you, and some that disturb you a lot. So, do these holograms exist, or are the holographic artists too immersed in the "expert syndrome" to actually determine the value? If art is art is art, then why do some people pay millions for a sunset scene because it's a "Turner", but pay nothing for a sunset scene because it's a Joe Schnitzelgeiser! In the end, whetever the value/definition/meaning of art is, then must be some sense of judgement from a work of art. If everyone juuust loooves everyyything, what's the difference between liking and not-liking? Merely the signature on an "art piece"?
Understand, I'm not denigrating the artists. Not even (especially?) the famous ones! There was a funny scene on the evening of zipsisters presentation when he mentioned some fact about someone called Tim Kardashan or some such. I was sitting at the bar that evening with Brittany and Pierre from the University of Arizona, someone from a research institute, myself - a physicist - and Joy - an engineer. To a man (Well, OK, two women and three men) we all said, "Who's Tim Kardashan"? Must be an artist, we all thought. I've since been told that it's Kim and she's the daughter of a lawyer apparently. All-in-all, all the scientists asked each other whether anyone understood the artists and mostly the answer was in the negative! I suspect the artists were all asking the same questions about the scientists! However, if there's one thing that really, really bothers me, it's the "expert syndrome" This destroys creativity and strangles imagination! Question 'em all and doubt everyone, I say!
A while back, on DeFreitas site, I asked the question: "What holograms do you hate?" I got a barrage of angry responses that suggested that to even mention that a holographer might hate a hologram was the ultimate in crassness. But, over and over again, there was an outpouring of sentiment over holograms made by "recognised" artists. If Augie or Margaret Benyon or Rob Mundy or <fill in name of recognised 'artist' here> made any kind of a hologram, from a crystal cathedral to a puddle of piss the entire holographic community would "ooh!" and "aah!" as if they'd been given a glimpse of some kind of 'promised land"! If, however, Joe Schmitzellgeiser made a hologram of a sculptor with exquisite form and substance the entire holographic community would promptly ignore ol' Joe! I got the distinct feeling that "holographic artists" is the same, amongst the display holographic community, as the expert is in the more technical community! If Hans or Steve Benton or anyone from Zebra were to say 2+2 = 5 sometimes, the entire holographic community would gasp at the profound wisdom they'd just been made aware of. If Dinesh Padiyar or Joe Schmitzellgeiser said exactly the same thing, there would be a mass scorning from the entire community. I call this the "expert syndrome". An "expert" is never wrong and if an "expert" is ever wrong, it's not that he/she is wrong, he/she is simply so profound that you can't understand. Augie is the only holographer that makes wonderful dcg holograms (actually Dave Battin's work is just as good as Augie to this somewhat unschooled eye), Rallison knew everything there was to know about dcg (actually a lot of the writings are speculation that have now been shown to be wrong!) the MIT people know everything there is to know about holographic theory (not so!), Benton was all-knowing (there's a picture of me and Joel Kollin discussing some aspect of holgraphy with Steve, and we were all discussing the topic as equals!).
I got to wonder if the art world also had an "expert" syndrome. If, say, <famous artist> made an art piece of dog poo-poo, would all the art types go into hyperventilation, while if Joe Schnitzelgeiser made exactly the same piece in exactly the same way no "artists" would pay a blind bit of attention? In order to test this hypothesis, I asked, "What holograms do you hate?" It occurred to me that if one were truly judging the "art hologram" in some artistic way, then by the very nature of judgement, some would be judged favourable and some not. After all, even movie directors love some movies and hate others. Musicians who are truly judging a piece of music (as opposed to indulging in the "expert syndrome") love some pieces of music and hate others. So, if art holography truly exists and art holographers were truly judging the art as art, then there must be some pieces they disliked.
The result? Not a peep of countercriticism! Every hologram made by a "famous" art holograper was wonderful! wonderful! wonderful! Every "art" piece made by an amateur or hobbyist "was not bad" and "had promise" but was not in the class of an Augie or a Benyon! Why? No one seemed to know. Margaret Benyon made a pulse hologram of two people with no clothes and it was juust sooo aaartistic. Ron Olsen makes a hologram of two people with no clothes on and , well, it's Ok, I guess. It's a Ron Olsen, right? But, It's not art!!! (This actually from Fred Undershirt!)
So, Tom's reply seems to indicate that there must be some holograms that disturb you, and some that disturb you a lot. So, do these holograms exist, or are the holographic artists too immersed in the "expert syndrome" to actually determine the value? If art is art is art, then why do some people pay millions for a sunset scene because it's a "Turner", but pay nothing for a sunset scene because it's a Joe Schnitzelgeiser! In the end, whetever the value/definition/meaning of art is, then must be some sense of judgement from a work of art. If everyone juuust loooves everyyything, what's the difference between liking and not-liking? Merely the signature on an "art piece"?
Understand, I'm not denigrating the artists. Not even (especially?) the famous ones! There was a funny scene on the evening of zipsisters presentation when he mentioned some fact about someone called Tim Kardashan or some such. I was sitting at the bar that evening with Brittany and Pierre from the University of Arizona, someone from a research institute, myself - a physicist - and Joy - an engineer. To a man (Well, OK, two women and three men) we all said, "Who's Tim Kardashan"? Must be an artist, we all thought. I've since been told that it's Kim and she's the daughter of a lawyer apparently. All-in-all, all the scientists asked each other whether anyone understood the artists and mostly the answer was in the negative! I suspect the artists were all asking the same questions about the scientists! However, if there's one thing that really, really bothers me, it's the "expert syndrome" This destroys creativity and strangles imagination! Question 'em all and doubt everyone, I say!