I usually need art to be dropped unsubtly into my lap for me to really appreciate and consider it. 
I just stumbled across William Eggelston while reading about something else and then I got lost in reading about his influence in getting colour film photography accepted and respected. 
Clearly, more important progress has been made in the last century but I never contemplated a dispute around photography, among other things, as art. 
Some of my friends make or have made art using photography. Some make art using photography and then just take a photo. I’ve seen others make something magical whether intending to or not. 
Is the idea of some of it being one thing and the rest of it being something else pretentious? Is the ‘art’ taking itself too seriously or is my observation of it only ever influenced by how they want me to see it or how I’m told what it’s supposed to be? 
Is it a matter of beauty? ☝🏼this photo is dreamy. MEMPHIS 1965

I’ve only taken photos, I don’t think it’ll ever be any different, nor have I hopes of anything else, but accidents happen. It’s just got me thinking about this business of art. 

Advertisements