I read this blog about artist and thought of holographers.
Would love to know what you all think.
If making holograms of kitties and pokemons made you money but not allow you to play in the lab and make cool stuff, would you do it? And please those of you who do make a living making custom stuff, this is not a slight on anyone, just a rhetorical for the sake of dicussion. geez
Do you need people to buy your stuff to feel validated as a holographer/artist?
http://www.ridiculouslyextraordinary.co ... lling-out/
Hologram as an art
-
Jeffrey Weil
Hologram as an art
I'll answer your question. Its GREAT doing this for a living. I get to travel the world and make cool images that many many millions of people get to see and enjoy. There is nothing stopping me from doing my own stuff if I want to, or playing in the lab as you put it. Why would they be exclusive of each other? One funds the other.
I doubt your playing in the lab is tax deductible...mine is
As far as art....the art world totally made up their mind about art holography many years before embossed and other mass replicated media came out. The pokemon's of the world had no effect at all on the perception of holography as art. The timing is way off.
Art holography and mass replicated stuff are not exclusive of each other either. My work with embossed holography led me to work on the Turrell hologram project and other works from him and other artists. So, doing this for a living doesn't mean you can't work on fine art too. For me, in fact, they have been hand in hand. Without embossed pokemon's I wouldn't have been able to make all the museum pieces I've been able to work on with fine artists both famous and on their way up.
"Do you need people to buy your stuff to feel validated as a holographer/artist?"
No, I need people to buy my stuff to pay the bills and support my other holographic and non holographic projects. I need people to buy my stuff because that IS THE COOL STUFF I make. Those jobs push and force me to teach myself more about holography. When a client comes to you for a job, and that job has a special effect or other object element you've never done before, you learn stuff you would have otherwise never even thought of.
The way I shoot now is pretty different than what I was doing 10 or 20 years ago. The work that came to me forced me to learn new techniques. That would not have happened if I was just doing my own thing.
One more cool thing doing this for a living gives you.....images. Doing my own thing would result in many times less final holograms than I have now.
Plus, in the next few months I'm going to 3 different countries. What's not to love? It's extremely difficult to make it work as a business, but it's great when it does.
Jeff W
NorthBeach Holography Inc.
I doubt your playing in the lab is tax deductible...mine is
As far as art....the art world totally made up their mind about art holography many years before embossed and other mass replicated media came out. The pokemon's of the world had no effect at all on the perception of holography as art. The timing is way off.
Art holography and mass replicated stuff are not exclusive of each other either. My work with embossed holography led me to work on the Turrell hologram project and other works from him and other artists. So, doing this for a living doesn't mean you can't work on fine art too. For me, in fact, they have been hand in hand. Without embossed pokemon's I wouldn't have been able to make all the museum pieces I've been able to work on with fine artists both famous and on their way up.
"Do you need people to buy your stuff to feel validated as a holographer/artist?"
No, I need people to buy my stuff to pay the bills and support my other holographic and non holographic projects. I need people to buy my stuff because that IS THE COOL STUFF I make. Those jobs push and force me to teach myself more about holography. When a client comes to you for a job, and that job has a special effect or other object element you've never done before, you learn stuff you would have otherwise never even thought of.
The way I shoot now is pretty different than what I was doing 10 or 20 years ago. The work that came to me forced me to learn new techniques. That would not have happened if I was just doing my own thing.
One more cool thing doing this for a living gives you.....images. Doing my own thing would result in many times less final holograms than I have now.
Plus, in the next few months I'm going to 3 different countries. What's not to love? It's extremely difficult to make it work as a business, but it's great when it does.
Jeff W
NorthBeach Holography Inc.
-
Johnfp
Hologram as an art
Well, I had a completely different view then Jeffrey but would do almost anything to have that viewpoint and position. I personally have not found a niche to make money making holograms. But I LOVE to play in the lab with things that are for my own inner self satisfaction. I'm not sure I could call it art but more of play.
Who says you cannot make a three color DCG to mimick the real color of the model?
Who says you cannot make a hologram of an ice cube?
Who says you cannot create split beam master or copy set-ups that do not requre a beam splitter?
Who says you cannot make a display on axis hologram that can be illuminated from any angle?
What's that about holographic microscopy ?
Who says you cannot control beam ratios in a SBR hologram?
As you can see, I love to play.
So we have those of us that can make money on holography (yes I am envious), those of us that make holographic art and those of us that just fart around in the lab.
No one needs to buy my stuff to feel validated as a holographer, I know I am surely a holographer. I dont feel I am an artists. If someone bought my stuff, it would not change the fact that I feel I am a holographer but do not feel I am an artist.
Who says you cannot make a three color DCG to mimick the real color of the model?
Who says you cannot make a hologram of an ice cube?
Who says you cannot create split beam master or copy set-ups that do not requre a beam splitter?
Who says you cannot make a display on axis hologram that can be illuminated from any angle?
What's that about holographic microscopy ?
Who says you cannot control beam ratios in a SBR hologram?
As you can see, I love to play.
So we have those of us that can make money on holography (yes I am envious), those of us that make holographic art and those of us that just fart around in the lab.
No one needs to buy my stuff to feel validated as a holographer, I know I am surely a holographer. I dont feel I am an artists. If someone bought my stuff, it would not change the fact that I feel I am a holographer but do not feel I am an artist.
Hologram as an art
Humm ,this is a tough one . I was always envious of these artists able to use their own Creativity to make holograms and get recognized for it (be they sold or simply hung in a museum). Initially i was saddened as i thought what a great gig to be able to make and sell holograms, but alas these days seem to pass quickly ,as if time passed me by. Then along came the internet with used lasers, shared ideas and the want (for me) to learn more. Now many years later and having the knowledge and know how to put lasers and other equipment together i can actually make some money doing this ! The true root for all this is to really make holograms (it was all along), abstract as hell
images that never really existed at all in real space, only in a hologram. Some have called me an artist, maybe but not like these other greats..... in the coming future i plan on selling/making lasers less and making more holograms, and with the encouragements from many of you guys on the forum and other holographic artists ive made friends with I will attempt to sell my holograms. If i can sell them and survive on them that will be a bonus, if not i doubt ill ever stop making them,.......... as its really in my heart that i make them now
not sure if thats what you were looking for as an answer, but i tried anyway !
images that never really existed at all in real space, only in a hologram. Some have called me an artist, maybe but not like these other greats..... in the coming future i plan on selling/making lasers less and making more holograms, and with the encouragements from many of you guys on the forum and other holographic artists ive made friends with I will attempt to sell my holograms. If i can sell them and survive on them that will be a bonus, if not i doubt ill ever stop making them,.......... as its really in my heart that i make them now
not sure if thats what you were looking for as an answer, but i tried anyway !
-
zipsister
Hologram as an art
Who could forget Mark D at the ISDH jumping up at the end of ever artist's paper and asking if they made any money...funny how often everyone said zilch. Rarely do holographer artists sell their works and make money; if that was the criteria for being an artist/holographer then there would be very few indeed. We do what we do because we can't stop, even if we wanted to. At best we might hope to get an occasional grant to buy the materials to do a project, but every cent has to be accounted for and rarely is there money left over as any sort of commission. We look at the world, marvel at its diversity and question it and our place in it and make visual comments? Personally, I work in holography because I love the challenge of making artworks where this medium is the most suitable to match the idea and I enjoy the challenge of doing things that might seem impossible or over the top (like a kilometre hologram). Way back It seemed to me to be just as difficult making a small hologram as a big one so from early on I've been drawn to the challenge of working big with minimal equipment and money..these obstacles have always made me raise the bar and find a way to do the most with the least. I also don't uphold the notion that artists are those who have only been trained at art school; history has many artists who were not academically trained just as there are successful people in many fields without the relevant degrees. It's not the sale or success that makes an artist, it's the reasons for them doing their work, the intention. Having said that there is still room for someone to view a hologram made for a practical purpose and for others to acquire an aesthetic emotion or response from it. "Art is art, everything else is everything else."
-
Jeffrey Weil
Hologram as an art
I don't know how I feel about this anymore. I've always considered myself a craftsman, not an artist......But lately all my friends that ARE clearly artists are trying to convince me I'm an artist too.Johnfp wrote:, I know I am surely a holographer. I dont feel I am an artists. If someone bought my stuff, it would not change the fact that I feel I am a holographer but do not feel I am an artist.
I've hit them will all my logical reasons of why I'm not an artist, my intent, the commercial aspect of my work, etc.....but they seem to have all those arguments covered pretty well with counter arguments. After all the discussions it seems that if anyone thinks I'm am artist, myself or others....even if I disagree....I am an artist.
I don't feel that way, but lately their points have been well made.
One of them brought up cave paintings from neanderthal times. Those people weren't thinking about a deep concept, the emotional impact of the piece, the works place in art history or anything "arty" like that. They were just showing what was around them, maybe even just to identify the different animals, maybe the paintings were a danger sign.......but now, thousands of years later, we all think of those people as artists. So, at one time that cave painting was just a sign that said "watch out for these guys, they bite" and now it's art.
Normally I would disagree with my friends on this one....but they do know what art is, they are educated and experienced in modern and historic art in ways I am not. I guess I have to submit to their greater knowledge on the subject.....yes, we are artists.
(But I still don't feel like one)
-
Joe Farina
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:10 pm
Hologram as an art
Not to nit-pick, but Neanderthal art is not yet attested. Cave art is associated with Cro-Magnon, which is the same species as modern humans (Homo sapiens). However, there was a recent article which suggested that some of the cave paintings should be dated significantly earlier than what was previously believed, and the question arose as to whether or not Neanderthal art would soon be discovered (although the new dates are still within the range of Cro-Magnon). My own opinion is that Neanderthal art certainly existed, but it hasn't been clearly proven yet.Jeffrey Weil wrote:One of them brought up cave paintings from neanderthal times.
Just as a side-note, certain birds (for example), are known to adorn their nests with items which do not contribute to the utility of the nest. One type of bird builds an elaborate nest, then crowns the construction with a feather at the top. This is pretty close to art.
-
Jeffrey Weil
Hologram as an art
Hello Joe,
I'm sure your correct about all that. I was using the word "neanderthal" more as a general term for people that existed long long ago. My mistake for miss using it.
According to my arty friends, if you think that bird is an artist...then that bird is an artist. I'd like to add, if that bird is using that nest "art" to get some.........well, that bird is an artist indeed!
I'm sure your correct about all that. I was using the word "neanderthal" more as a general term for people that existed long long ago. My mistake for miss using it.
According to my arty friends, if you think that bird is an artist...then that bird is an artist. I'd like to add, if that bird is using that nest "art" to get some.........well, that bird is an artist indeed!
-
Dinesh
Hologram as an art
I think the problem is not "What is art?", or even "What is not art?" The real question is "What is an artist?" and "What is not an artist?". I've asked many, many artists "What is art? What do you actually do?" and have received everything from a bemused smile to outright rage! Artists seem to hate being asked what they actually do! I finally decided that one of the frequent replies I get, "Art is art, what is not art is not art" ( la zipsister's response), may be deeper than I first realised. It may have roots in neurology and psychology. In fact, it may the fundamental difference between an inductive thinking process and a deductive one.
There are people who think holistically. These people don't deconstruct or decompose the world, but see the world as an entire whole. So, there are people who can take in a concept, or create one, that in some sense is a representation of a holistic view of some aspect of the world. Jeff mentions the cave drawings. Perhaps, the cave drawings are the representation of a holistic view of "hunting" or "food". The actual colours used, the pigments that make those colours or the size of the images are not as important as the narrative - the holistic representation of a world view. So, when an artist makes a hologram, it's not a hologram of "this" or "that"; it's not a "porcelain cat" or a "pink bunny rabbit", it's a narrative, an idea that needs to be swallowed whole. A holistic world view. In this sense, I would argue that actual money is simply icing on the cake. I suspect there are artists who are proud to be called "starving artists"! Now look at an artist that is very, very successful, money wise. Let's take Kincaid. Every artist I've talked to sneered at Kincaid! Why? Simply because he made a lot of money? I don't think so. I think it's because the narrative never changed. Kincaid, it seems to me, found a lucrative niche narrative and exploited it to the full! I believe, in this theory, "true artists" (if you like) explore different world views, constantly trying to change the narrative. So, is Jeff an artist simply because he records an image. Not in this theory! Jeff is not trying to create a world view, not trying to form a narrative. Jeff creates display images at the behest of his customers with a fairly strict set of criteria in terms of colour, geometry and size. Martina, on the other hand, seemed to be creating this holistic idea of the observer and the hologram - the viewer and the viewed - a single narrative that some seems to fold back on itself. In this theory, she is an artist. Of course, this theory is not so restricting that there cannot be gradations of this concept to take into account commercial art, for example. However, in this theory, I can see why artists seem to hate being asked "What is art?". I suspect musicians hate being asked, "What are your songs about?"
So, no I don't think that a display holographer who simply makes display holograms is an artist, per se.
If you now take the deductive viewpoint of a scientist, the scientists deconstructs everything! To a scientist, there is no holistic view, no narrative, there is simply:"Take the phenomenon apart, examine all of its component parts, then put it all back together" A deductive kind of mind asks, "What is it" because the deductive mind wants to know what receptacle to place the thing into: animal? vegetable? mineral? To a scientist, a rose is a thing that emits certain frequencies and certain chemicals. These frequencies exhibit certain responses in the mammalian eye and the chemicals elicit certain responses in the scent centers of the mammalian brain. It's amazing that nature has tuned the chemicals and the frequencies to the response function of bees so that there is this symbiotic relationship. How exactly does such a symbiotic relationship occur? Well, let's deconstruct the bee - take a bee apart and see what the various parts of the bee do. Then we combine the characteristics of the bee with the characteristics of the rose and create a functional relationship of certain parts of the bee with certain parts of the rose. Artists simply shake their heads at this kind of deconstruction, just as scientists simply shake their heads at "art". There was, by the way, a lot of shaking of heads between the two at ISDH!
I think the "bridge" if you will, between the two is imagination! The scientist looks at the world and tries to imagine possible structural relationships to help understand the core phenomena - how large is a raindrop? Are the raindrops the same size as they fall to earth? Why are clouds white when the sky is clear and grey when it's about to rain? The artist I suspect, looks at the world and tries to imagine, "What is this trying to tell me?"
Understand however, that I'm stating an absolute fact. This is not a case of "right" or "wrong". What 'm trying to do is to deconstruct that which apparently cannot be deconstructed, with a theory to explain why it cannot be deconstructed! If artist (some artists?) recognises themselves by this theory, then the theory has some points of success!
There are people who think holistically. These people don't deconstruct or decompose the world, but see the world as an entire whole. So, there are people who can take in a concept, or create one, that in some sense is a representation of a holistic view of some aspect of the world. Jeff mentions the cave drawings. Perhaps, the cave drawings are the representation of a holistic view of "hunting" or "food". The actual colours used, the pigments that make those colours or the size of the images are not as important as the narrative - the holistic representation of a world view. So, when an artist makes a hologram, it's not a hologram of "this" or "that"; it's not a "porcelain cat" or a "pink bunny rabbit", it's a narrative, an idea that needs to be swallowed whole. A holistic world view. In this sense, I would argue that actual money is simply icing on the cake. I suspect there are artists who are proud to be called "starving artists"! Now look at an artist that is very, very successful, money wise. Let's take Kincaid. Every artist I've talked to sneered at Kincaid! Why? Simply because he made a lot of money? I don't think so. I think it's because the narrative never changed. Kincaid, it seems to me, found a lucrative niche narrative and exploited it to the full! I believe, in this theory, "true artists" (if you like) explore different world views, constantly trying to change the narrative. So, is Jeff an artist simply because he records an image. Not in this theory! Jeff is not trying to create a world view, not trying to form a narrative. Jeff creates display images at the behest of his customers with a fairly strict set of criteria in terms of colour, geometry and size. Martina, on the other hand, seemed to be creating this holistic idea of the observer and the hologram - the viewer and the viewed - a single narrative that some seems to fold back on itself. In this theory, she is an artist. Of course, this theory is not so restricting that there cannot be gradations of this concept to take into account commercial art, for example. However, in this theory, I can see why artists seem to hate being asked "What is art?". I suspect musicians hate being asked, "What are your songs about?"
So, no I don't think that a display holographer who simply makes display holograms is an artist, per se.
If you now take the deductive viewpoint of a scientist, the scientists deconstructs everything! To a scientist, there is no holistic view, no narrative, there is simply:"Take the phenomenon apart, examine all of its component parts, then put it all back together" A deductive kind of mind asks, "What is it" because the deductive mind wants to know what receptacle to place the thing into: animal? vegetable? mineral? To a scientist, a rose is a thing that emits certain frequencies and certain chemicals. These frequencies exhibit certain responses in the mammalian eye and the chemicals elicit certain responses in the scent centers of the mammalian brain. It's amazing that nature has tuned the chemicals and the frequencies to the response function of bees so that there is this symbiotic relationship. How exactly does such a symbiotic relationship occur? Well, let's deconstruct the bee - take a bee apart and see what the various parts of the bee do. Then we combine the characteristics of the bee with the characteristics of the rose and create a functional relationship of certain parts of the bee with certain parts of the rose. Artists simply shake their heads at this kind of deconstruction, just as scientists simply shake their heads at "art". There was, by the way, a lot of shaking of heads between the two at ISDH!
I think the "bridge" if you will, between the two is imagination! The scientist looks at the world and tries to imagine possible structural relationships to help understand the core phenomena - how large is a raindrop? Are the raindrops the same size as they fall to earth? Why are clouds white when the sky is clear and grey when it's about to rain? The artist I suspect, looks at the world and tries to imagine, "What is this trying to tell me?"
Understand however, that I'm stating an absolute fact. This is not a case of "right" or "wrong". What 'm trying to do is to deconstruct that which apparently cannot be deconstructed, with a theory to explain why it cannot be deconstructed! If artist (some artists?) recognises themselves by this theory, then the theory has some points of success!
-
Jeffrey Weil
Hologram as an art
I agree with your argument that I'm not an artist, I've used that exact same premise on my artist friends. It didn't work very well. I can't articulate it as well as they did so I won't even try but they beat that argument into dust.
I've asked a bunch of non connected friends and they always say holographers like us are artists. Even with client constraints dictating color and things like that. They often point out that if two different holographers shoot the exact same image they will not look exactly the same. I see that as just different technical approaches between the two holographers. They point that out as a part of what makes us artists.
Dinesh, ask some of your friends that you consider "real" artists what they think. They will be able to state their position much better than I can. They might even start to change your mind on the subject.
Rob Munday is one of the people I was talking to about this. He certainly understands both commercial holography and fine art. Ask Rob about this the next time you see him.
I've asked a bunch of non connected friends and they always say holographers like us are artists. Even with client constraints dictating color and things like that. They often point out that if two different holographers shoot the exact same image they will not look exactly the same. I see that as just different technical approaches between the two holographers. They point that out as a part of what makes us artists.
Dinesh, ask some of your friends that you consider "real" artists what they think. They will be able to state their position much better than I can. They might even start to change your mind on the subject.
Rob Munday is one of the people I was talking to about this. He certainly understands both commercial holography and fine art. Ask Rob about this the next time you see him.