I have been pondering the next post to this blog, and with multiple starts I had a difficult time deciding where it should be taken. Existence is a complicated matter, and while it is easy to follow the templates and examples that have been committed by other people in the past, I want this blog to be a direct reflection of me.
I understand that it will take time to reveal the true value of my writing, and while I excitingly scribble any interesting thing into my art journal, I want to take it to the next level.
So I invited myself to think of the most over-arching themes that describe my experiences. How do you possible simplify life in this moment in this time, without being too redundant or cryptic? I have realized that while general concepts are easier to talk about, they are more difficult to define, and bring any genuine revelation to them.
So we begin, and with what in my opinion is the foundation for all of what we know and understand.
Light in Art
Being an artist and a photographer, Light is quite important. Photography, which etymologically speaking translates to "writing with light" is, in the span of human existence, a relatively new invention. It was a combination between achievements in chemistry, understanding of light and lenses, and a drive to understand the world around us.
In the mid to late 1800's, photography was a combination of refracting and reflecting light onto a surface, a surface that is sensitive to light with the use of light-sensitive chemicals. When light hits Silver Nitrate, the main ingredient in traditional black and white photography, it turns black. Scientists during the Age of Enlightenment discovered a process to which they could cease the changing of the Silver Nitrate, preserving the darkness of the grains of silver nitrate. These small grains would be covering a glass plate, in which light is shown through it, effectively leaving an inverse image.
When light enters a small hole, into a dark space or container, then the light from outside the space is projected into the inside and can reveal a very accurate image of what is outside that space. This is called a Camera Obscura, and is the basis for a camera. Before photography, Camera Obscuras the size of whole rooms were made, and the knowledge of the behavior of light was slowly becoming understood. Pin-hole cameras are nothing more than a camera obscura that holds light sensitive film, but the science that it originates from dates back centuries.
But don't think that is was complete human ingenuity that created the camera obscura, in fact our own bodies have built-in ones. Our eyes function in the same way a camera does, by reflecting light to the back of our retina, and interpreting the data and form understanding on our surroundings.
What is peculiar is how Photography was treated during 19th and 20th century; Individuals with knowledge of science created an image that had more accurate details than any exceptional painter. Perhaps there was animosity, but photographers were often rejected as artists, and photography became a scientific tool that belonged to the endeavors of learning and reason.
Why was Photography considered a quasi-art form up to the 20th century, and instead belonging to science? I would think it is because of the nature of a photograph is that it can be measured and can reflect true data. Light reveals truth, yet art often gets excited over what is not easily understood by reason and science. So there was disagreement, photography was used scientifically and artistically and is still done so today. Now we have moving photography, cinematography which allows for more grasp of the nature of light through time.
Luckily as time passed on, agreements on what is and isn't art went beyond just the two categories of painting and sculpture. Contemporary art embraces photography, film, writing, performances, concepts, and much more. In fact as art has grown over history, I find it harder and harder to find something that is not a form of art. Like the way photography is both an aspect of science and art, so is light.
Light in Science
I'm not an astrologist, nor a biologist, physicist or chemist. But just because the photographer is considered an artist, doesn't make him any less a scientist. In fact, the way that artists and scientists ask questions and delve for answers is very similar, and often depend on the same things like light.
But what should be define as light? Afterall, everything we see in this world really is just light reflected off those objects and bounced into your eyes.
Is light even an object in itself? Or is it just energy? Scientists and photographers may like to think we know what it is, but really all we are familiar with is the image residues it leaves behind. Light reveals. Light reveals objects for the artist to study. Light reveals objects for the scientist to study.
The only difference is the nature of truth that the light reveals. An artist my look at a tree with full attention, registering all details, colors and forms and from it may uncover truth about the tree. The knowledge and understanding that he reveals allows him or her to make a true image of the tree, that can then be recognized by anyone. A scientist my look at a star with full attention, measure it's luminosity, color, form and spectrum and may uncover truth about the star. By looking at the light that a star produces, an astronomer can learn truths about the star, such as how big or hot it is, what it's chemically composed of, even its age. All just from light, we can learn so much.
The scientist accumulates data that holds empirical value, or actually numerical and measurable knowledge. The artist accumulates descriptive knowledge, understanding that is not easily defined by numbers and data.