More on Perfection

The problem with the advancing tide of technology is that image-making (be they still or moving, interactive or passive) becomes more about attaining perfection. It becomes more about creating a facsimile of reality that is more and more indistinguishable from actual reality. But aside from the fact that these reality facsimiles are, these days, in effect, often more real than actual reality (can we ever see life as crisply and “flawlessly” as an HD movie of such?)… since when has art – I mean “proper,” meaningful, arty art – been about “perfection”? Since when has image-making been about providing a mere, impartial lens, through which we can see what is merely “out there”? Before the advent of HDTV, high resolution digital cameras, Photoshop and so on… way before… before it was considered a luxurious novelty to be able to see a crackly, grainy, indistinct image on a five inch TV screen… did we consider an image to be “inferior” because we couldn’t see the expressions on the faces of the people behind the glass of the building which was part of the scene we were “capturing”? Were Monet’s water lilies to be denigrated because they were blurry, “low-res” and not very much like real water lilies?

And so on.


4 comments on “More on Perfection

  1. flandrumhill says:

    We are becoming more and more visually-oriented and sophisticated in our choice of images and image-making-technologies. Is it all for naught?

    In Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s ‘The Little Prince,’ the fox tells the prince that ‘that which is essential is invisible to the eye.’ If that is true, as I do believe it is, then all this business surrounding the refinement of visuals is just a chasing after wind.

  2. pepsoid says:

    Spot on!

    Which is, perhaps, why we will always have “art,” which aims to metaphorically define, while never actually precisely categorising, the “essential”…


  3. flandrumhill says:

    Yes yes yes. I have never thought of art in this way. But the best art does capture an essence that is acknowledged across cultures, religions, races and timelines. Just being a human being roaming the planet somehow makes one an arbiter of this.

  4. pepsoid says:

    Although art is often culture (or religion, race, etc) specific, it is also often universal… perhaps then we need more artists in seats of power..?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s