photographing science

June 12, 2007 9:43 PM

Felice Frankel's photography "When people call Felice Frankel an artist, she winces. In the first place, the photographs she makes don't sell. In the second place, her images are not full of emotion or ideology or any other kind of message. As she says, "My stuff is about phenomena." [via]
posted by dhruva (29 comments total)

Here's a webcast featuring Frankel, it's an hour long, realplayer and it really starts around 6 min in.
posted by dhruva at 9:45 PM on June 12, 2007

the photographs she makes don't sell.

Isn't that the mark of an artist? As opposed to, say, the salesmen working in the art business? :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 10:11 PM on June 12, 2007

Isn't that the mark of an artist? As opposed to, say, the salesmen working in the art business? :-)

No. Artists have to pay the bills too.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 10:55 PM on June 12, 2007

Had I the funds, I'd buy several of the series, and I'd hang "Microrotor Detail" and "Proteus Patterns" in places of honor, I love them so.
posted by squasha at 10:57 PM on June 12, 2007

beautiful, thanks dhruva!
posted by madamjujujive at 11:15 PM on June 12, 2007

I wanted to love Laminar Flow, but.. On the other hand, Joanna's Calcite is pretty awesome.
posted by Chuckles at 11:21 PM on June 12, 2007

OverlappingElvis:
That's what patrons are for :) And failing that, it's what puts the "starving" into "starving artist" :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 11:30 PM on June 12, 2007

So the Herald-Tribune didn't supply a sample gallery? Did I miss it? Lame on their part.

Great photos, (thank you NYAS) but bad journalism(assuming, of course, I missed the link).
posted by sourwookie at 11:47 PM on June 12, 2007

Thanks, dhruva, beautiful.
posted by Wolof at 1:17 AM on June 13, 2007

I don't say it often enough, but I read every post on the subject of photography here... there are a lot of them, and they don't all garner a lot of praise, but I learn something from most.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:26 AM on June 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Very good images but I agree they're not art. They're too linear in almost every way—too graphical, and too methodical. There is too much intellect involved. Nothing wrong with that but in this case intellect is required on the viewer's side of the arrangement, and that can get in the way.

I know that some people are going to counter that art is what they damn well say it is, but in this instance the square peg just can't be bashed into that round hole.

But, like I said, these are intriguing and interesting images.
posted by humblepigeon at 1:46 AM on June 13, 2007

Art can't be graphical, methodical, or require intellect from the viewer? This is surely wrong.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:49 AM on June 13, 2007

Art is what I say is art.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:33 AM on June 13, 2007

The whole 'what is art?' argument is a timeless battle, very similar to the whole Viking Conflict recently featured here.

These days, art is whatever the artist says it is:

Cleaner clears up Hirst's ashtray art
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:29 AM on June 13, 2007

These days, art is whatever the artist says it is:

Pretty much. The only requirement to become an artist is to have the desire to create art. Skill and even craft are no longer required of the artist. He can sub-contract that kind of thing.

After that, it's a matter of marketing.

After that, only history will tell.

There's a lot of contemporary truth in this YouTube video when Spock shows us his art, particularly when you consider what the artwork represents.
posted by humblepigeon at 3:50 AM on June 13, 2007

The photographs are beautiful, and I would gladly frame and display many of them AS art. One could classify them as "found art" if one wanted to be picky about it.
posted by konolia at 5:20 AM on June 13, 2007

A lot of photography would have to be called "found art" if one was going to be THAT picky about it. IMHO, the artistry comes from:
1) recognizing the subject as worthy of recording (in whatever medium)
2) composition (the part chosen and the way it appears within the frame is the photographer's choice
3) technical mastery of the tools used to achieve the desired result (in this case the camera/exposure/etc.)

Cool stuff.
posted by spock at 6:16 AM on June 13, 2007

A lot of photography would have to be called "found art" if one was going to be THAT picky about it. IMHO, the artistry comes from:
1) recognizing the subject as worthy of recording (in whatever medium)
2) composition (the part chosen and the way it appears within the frame is the photographer's choice
3) technical mastery of the tools used to achieve the desired result (in this case the camera/exposure/etc.)

I am no art historian nor contemporary authority in ANY minuscule way, but I like this assessment of "found art." I have thought about tackling scientific graphic art. A lot of what I study and hear about can be represented quite beautifully in the graphic art medium. More than just a representation, in many cases, it's how we visualize the natural world. I would love to develop such expressive talents in the future, or at least see some other graphical artists really take the subject and medium seriously. Maybe some links?

And, as for the idea that achievements of intellect are required to decipher the meaning of the art, well, recently going to MASS MoCA, and recalling my visits to MoMA in NYC, I have to confess that it took me a bit of reading to get a good understanding of the artistic merit of otherwise aesthetically complex works. Also, what better way to bring the strangeness of science within the faculties of the otherwise engaged?
posted by quanta and qualia at 6:43 AM on June 13, 2007

Perhaps they don't sell because the websites don't tell you anyway of buying them? I love some of these and would have liked to at least been able to see how far out of my reach they are...
posted by Maias at 7:12 AM on June 13, 2007

That's what patrons are for :) And failing that, it's what puts the "starving" into "starving artist" :-)

Patrons are in short supply these days, and ordinary working artists put a lot of effort into not being starving. I don't mean to harp on the subject, but this (very prevalent) view about what art and artists should be (broke, starving and happy about that, because it lets them keep their integrity) devalues the artist's work and makes it even harder to make a living.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 8:14 AM on June 13, 2007

She says "phenomena"
posted by DreamerFi at 9:49 AM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can understand how Frankel's exposure to the "art world" might turn her off classifying herself as an "artist", but I fail to see why her work wouldn't be classified as art.

As the blogging gallery owner who's referred to in the [via] link points out, she uses aesthetics to "help us see the world in a new way". And isn't that one of the central functions of art?
posted by jodrell banksmeadow at 9:57 AM on June 13, 2007

And defining functions... what I meant to say
posted by jodrell banksmeadow at 10:02 AM on June 13, 2007

And isn't that one of the central functions of art?

If you ask me, and you didn't, but I'm gonna tell you anyway, good art is capable of one thing: arousing emotion within the viewer. Art should make you feel. How it does this is entirely up to the artist. That's where the technique comes in.

Now you might say that Disney is therefore art, because Bambi makes you cry. But I'm talking specifically about visual art here.

These photos didn't make me feel anything other than appreciation for what is essentially graphical patterns. Cartier Bresson's photographs do stir something inside me. Like all good photographs, they somehow transcend simply portraying a subject, and tap into something within our minds.
posted by humblepigeon at 10:27 AM on June 13, 2007

Wait, humblepigeon, are you saying Disney movies aren't visual? That makes no sense. Neither does it make sense to define art in such a way that (for example) music doesn't qualify.

Anyway, IMHO, art is stuff whose creation (or use or appreciation) satisfies (or caters to) an aesthetic impulse — the idea that including any intellectual or functional aspect destroys any artistic aspect is fairly perverse. (If I think about Bach too much does his music become non-art? If I become interseted in the brush techniques or pigments used by a painter do their paintings become non-art?) I'm pretty inclusive when it comes to defining art, obviously.
posted by hattifattener at 12:49 PM on June 13, 2007

Wait, humblepigeon, are you saying Disney movies aren't visual? That makes no sense.

Well, in my book, visual arts implies representative art such as painting. I'm fairly well qualified here because visual art was part of my university degree. Film-making was something else that belonged to the Theatre department (although some people used film in their art, but that's a different matter). That said, we're talking across oceans here—I'm in the UK, and my terminology might not be precisely the same as yours. I notice that the Wikipedia entry includes film-making under its visual arts heading, and I'd disagree with that. The Encyclopedia Britannica on my computer agrees with my definition.

I don't know what your argument is, and I don't think you understood mine. Art should move you, plain and simple. It's not an intellectual exercise. I think this lady's "art" is more of an intellectual exercise, and I think those who think of it as art do so because it interests them and is pretty.

None of this means art defies understanding or analysis, which might be what you're implying I said. But I know that few successful artists work from a checklist. Art comes from the soul, and is destined for the soul.
posted by humblepigeon at 1:41 PM on June 13, 2007

So the Herald-Tribune didn't supply a sample gallery? Did I miss it?

Yup you missed it. I didn't link to it since , well, I linked to the article :)
posted by dhruva at 5:59 PM on June 13, 2007

but this (very prevalent) view about what art and artists should be (broke, starving and happy about that, because it lets them keep their integrity) devalues the artist's work and makes it even harder to make a living.

I suggest that art failing to sell does not disqualify its creator from being an artist, not that not selling is required for the creator to qualify as an artist.

Also, I'm not being very serious here. I am an artist. My circle of friends and acquaintances has included all types of artist, starving and otherwise. I've seen the scene(s), I've been part of it, I've done my time. And to some of us, the view you brought up is a friendly misconception that we use to jokingly impugn each other's success :-)

Back on topic, she might not view herself as an artist, but I'm just not inclined to put much weight on her opinion. I much prefer my opinion :-p
posted by -harlequin- at 9:31 PM on June 13, 2007

I am an artist. ... I much prefer my opinion :-p

Sounds more like an art critic :)
posted by Chuckles at 8:10 AM on June 14, 2007