Manchester Airport

[Dinesh]

Erose

In terms of my exclusion of artists, ie pure artists, in the holographic community. Certainly there were quite a few in the 80's. However, holography as an art form never seemed to be accepted by the world of art. In the last few years, when the internet became the primary means of communication between holographers I've tried in vain to understand what exactly "holographic art" was, as opposed to "standard" fine art. The question always seems to fall on deaf ears, if not on mildly aggravated ears. Holographic art is apparently holographic art, and if you don't understand that, you don't understand holographic art. A masterful use of tautology, if ever there was one! Having said that, I was taught by Edwina Orr in London (Richmond Holographics), who was always asking rhetorically why fine artists never took holography seriously. My next mentor was Peter Miller, also a recognised holographic artist, who also complained that the medium was not taken seriously. My brother teaches a Masters course in History of Art at the Courtaulds Institute, so I asked him. He apparently had the view that the "art" was actually seen as a sort of technology. I got the feeling that the "art" did not have the provenance - if that's the right word - of fine art. My own feeling was that the artists mostly exploited the 3rd dimension because it existed; much like the early 3D movies where the actors threw objects at the audience because of the effect of the 3rd dimension. I suspect that the fine art community saw holographic art as they saw "House of Wax". By the way, I knew Dan Schweitzer and I loved his work! We would love to get some of his pieces if we knew how.

Insofar as the outrageous prices you were quoted, I must say I not only agree with you, I've been re-iterating this to the holographic community for nigh on 15 years now, to no effect. As you say, holographers quoted what they wanted, which had no relation to the customers budget. I also believe that a lot of holographers, while excellent holographers, were less adept at business practices. I think there's an impression that an institution must have deep pockets with holes in them, simply because they were an institution. Perhaps reports in the press and movie plots revolving around the basement hobbyists being "discovered" by the Ghetty and being granted millions of dollars because of a pure chance event influence these rather outlandish quotes! Yes, there was irony before Hollywood! There's also an impression the holograms are worth 10's of thousands because they're so cool and they're 3D! I think that a lot of holographers feel that because they're so enamoured of holograms, the public at large must also be as enamoured - or, at least, enamoured enough to part with the big bucks to see a 3D green Buddha.I'm not sure if it occurs to a lot of people that what people like to see and what they willing to pay for are completely different. There's also the fact that holographers sell so few pieces that each piece must be priced high, which of course, takes no notice of the value to the customer.

Let me give you my own experience which may be relevant. Please understand I'm not promoting or marketing Triple Tajke Holographics; that would be inappropriate here. We (myself and wife Joy) started this 11 years ago. I came from a background of theoretical physics, through electronic and software engineering, through display (art?) holography, through diffractive optics and military contracts through mass production holography at a large mass production company. I met Joy at this large mass production company. It seemed obvious to me that the inability of holography to penetrate the marketplace was that holographers tended to charge way too much for not much perceived value by the general public. Nobody wanted to pay close to a hundred dollars for a green dragons and orange Star Wars props. Holographic commisions such as you describe were being charged at insane amounts, far beyond any reasonable ROI (Return On Investment). We got the idea, however, that if we were selling objects which people buy anyway and included a hologram then they wouldn't be buying a hologram, they'd be buying a clock, or a coaster, or an award with an added value of an included hologram. Well, we simply didn't have the marketing skills to pull this off, since we had no idea of how to actually push these concepts into the marketplace. Also, Joy was making these fairly elaborate clocks by hand and cutting glass into aesthetic shapes and contours. When asked how much they were selling for, I think we just pulled a number out of our heads (80 dollars, I think!) Then we got a professional business advisor her in San Diego who was so taken by what we did that he gave us an 80% discount for his professional service! His conclusion was that we were simply out of our league in business and we were in fact simply a paying hobby! He advised us to carefully note the time it took to make these holograms, determine a reasonable per hour rate/salary for ourselves, evaluate the value/worth to the customer of a given product in terms of return to the customer. Also, start every conversation by agreeing to terms, conditions and timelines to deliver product and determining budget restraints. Once we did these evaluations, we found that holographic clocks were simply not feasible as a market. We moved on to optical prototyping, technical diffractive optics and consulting. I still occasionally play with some colour holograms (I'm working on a paper on colour in diffractive optics right now). We had a student ask us how much for a day's course in dcg holography. We worked it out to about 700 dollars a day. She said she couldn't afford that, so we cut it to 300 dollars a day. She was just a student and couldn't afford that either. Finally, I said to Joy, "You know, new holographers are thin on the ground. A few hundred dollars is not a lot to forego for the chance of creating a new holographer. Also, we get to play and make display holograms!" So we settled that we'd teach her dcg for a day for the price of lunch. Yer throws yer bread into the waters and maybe it comes back with jam on it!

[Jeffrey Weil]

Hello Dinesh,

Don't underestimate that student of yours. If you need an employee for anything she's the one you should hire.

After running a holographic production company for 10 years I'd take someone who cares about the subject at hand way before an experienced person that doesn't. No question.

Now, of course if you need someone to check your math......ok, not anyone can do that. But for any position that doesn't require an unpractical amount of training time I'd hire her.

Jeff

[erose]

I don't think there is any more meaning to the term "holographic" art than there would be to "paint" art or "stone" art. But paintings and sculpture are created by artists, and, one can be a holographer as much as one can be a painter or a sculptor. They are all really just artists. Holography will eventually work its way into more important museums and collections. It is just a matter of time and the perseverence of artists using the media. And yes it does have to get past the general idea that it is somehow just a trick or a gimmick and not a true medium. Again, good art will prevail.

Along the same lines I believe we will eventually see many more true and proper uses for holograms as things move forward. Probably good, affordable, full(true) color holography will help us get past some of the other obvious problems. I can be a bit more patient.

[Dinesh]

Maybe this is what I'm struggling with. If I take a picture of a mountain top, it's a picture of a mountain top. When Ansel Adams took a picture of a mountain top, it's art. What's the difference? If I paint a bunch of cows grazing by a river, It's a painting of a bunch of cows, but some British Artist in the 19th century paints a bunch of cows by a river and it's a multi-million dollar piece of art. Why? If I shoot a reflection mermaid, I'm just playing about. If a well-known holographic artist shoots a mermaid it's art. But, it's exactly the same.

If the perception of art is based on the assessment of a specific person as an "artist", how then did this specific person get assessed as an "artist". Perhaps, we holographers assess certain members of our community as "artists", while the world at large does not. Perhaps it's not that holography is not seen as art, but that holographers are not seen as artists?

I'm reminded of the story (probably apocryphal ) of a night guard at a well-known museum cleaning up a pile of bricks in the middle of the floor. There was this huge uproar because it turned out that some famous artist had put those bricks there and it was actually "art"

[dannybee]

When Ansel Adams took a picture of a mountain top, it's art. What's the difference? big diffrence
his was based on skill and knowledge of light and aperture and understanding to control his medium to maximum the tonal range output, the zone system so based on his history it was his skill as a artist to control for end results

[PinkysBrain]

Ultimately if you make enough money anything can get called fine/high art.

[Dinesh]

I'm not sure this is going anywhere, it never did in the past. However, I'm somewhat justified (?), I suppose, in trying to find the answer in that no less than Tolstoy grappled with that question and even wrote an essay about it. He defines art as nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty, but basically a moral value (not sure how that would translate to holography - how do you create a moral dimension to diffraction ) http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/tolstoy.html

[erose]

Ultimately if you make enough money anything can get called fine/high art.

Maybe it should read: "...if ultimately someone PAYS enough money...it is considered good art?" ARGH!

I would never deny someone their right to call themselves an artist. I may not care for their stuff but it's all subjective and who am I to judge. Having lived in NYC for many years and having been close to the art and design community I certainly witnessed enough atrocities committed in the name of "art" to know that bad art knows no bounds. The arbiters of what is considered good, let alone art, are a pretty fickle bunch if you ask me.

I do know that there were certain individuals who's status as an artist I never doubted. And I don't think it always was a question of skill or craft. I believe it is more a product (bad choice of words?) of the internal process each uses or goes thru to get what they want. I had the pleasure of helping Rudie Berkhout on a few projects back in the early 90s and he amazed me at how extremely knowledgable he was of the physics, chemistry and mechanics of what he was doing. But it didn't hamper his very creative process at all.

Another good example of what is and isn't might be how Dan Schweitzer made good use of small figurines in his pieces. Sometimes they were the subject of the hologram or he might say an actor in his little thought play, and sometimes they were part of the final installation. Dan's little figures, which he made himself I believe, never distracted from the art. Yet how many hundreds of holograms feature little modeled figures or animals and are nothing more than just that? I mean would you buy a photograph of a little porcelain doll? So why a hologram of one? This is were the vast number of holograms have been made as nothing more than curiosities, high-tech kitsch.

By the way, along the lines of my very first comment today, both Dan and Rudie gave me major grief for the prices I was asking when I sold a number of mounted holograms to the Museum of Holographies gift shop one year. They actually felt I was not asking enough and thus degrading the form. But again, I did not consider my stuff "art" but more just well-crafted "Craft" pieces. My stuff was more ($75-$250) than the usual trinkets but not in the thousands like their pieces. Hey it covered a good chunk of my holography costs that year.

[Tony]

What is the saying?
I can't tell you what good art is, I know it when I see it..
Or was that love, or God???

Great conversation...