The Gallery Wall - Documentary as Art
Paul Seawright - Sectarian Murder
I could access the short video at http://vimeo.com/76940827 (accessed 31/03/2017).
If I keep myself aligned to what Seawright states, the answer to the question "How does this work challenges the boundaries between documentary and art" is relatively simple: according to Seawright if the work is too explicit it gets to be journalistic, but if it is too ambigous it gets to be meaningless.
So - and this is the core of of his argument - if it is a matter of meaning and how fast it arrives to the viewer, the meaning is supposed to arrive slowly, through engagement and context reading, in order to allow space for a personal construction of the meaning itself.
Seawright states that this the boundary between documentary and art.
I feel a contradiction if I read this statement and I look to the work "Sectarian Murder": I look to each picture and, unless I read the caption, I see only what but I cannot construct a (even personal) meaning, based on who, where, when, how. I can only see composition, focus, colours. The caption drives me, it manipulates my personal view, so that, should it be fast or slow, I will arrive, by association, at my non-personal view, non personal meaning. By my opinion the picture is too ambiguous, the caption is too explicit. Could art be only the outcome of two extremes, meaningless and journalistic? Or are we patronized and a bit manipulated?
By my opinion even candid photography can be art, providing that the picture is not too ambigous and the context is not too explicit, in order to leave a real space for a personal construction of meaning, of imagination, of ideas.
I could access the short video at http://vimeo.com/76940827 (accessed 31/03/2017).
If I keep myself aligned to what Seawright states, the answer to the question "How does this work challenges the boundaries between documentary and art" is relatively simple: according to Seawright if the work is too explicit it gets to be journalistic, but if it is too ambigous it gets to be meaningless.
So - and this is the core of of his argument - if it is a matter of meaning and how fast it arrives to the viewer, the meaning is supposed to arrive slowly, through engagement and context reading, in order to allow space for a personal construction of the meaning itself.
Seawright states that this the boundary between documentary and art.
I do not feel I am aligned with this statement: is it only and really a matter of time, of fast and slow?
 |
| From http://www.paulseawright.com/sectarian/ accessed on 7/4/2017 |
I feel a contradiction if I read this statement and I look to the work "Sectarian Murder": I look to each picture and, unless I read the caption, I see only what but I cannot construct a (even personal) meaning, based on who, where, when, how. I can only see composition, focus, colours. The caption drives me, it manipulates my personal view, so that, should it be fast or slow, I will arrive, by association, at my non-personal view, non personal meaning. By my opinion the picture is too ambiguous, the caption is too explicit. Could art be only the outcome of two extremes, meaningless and journalistic? Or are we patronized and a bit manipulated?
By my opinion even candid photography can be art, providing that the picture is not too ambigous and the context is not too explicit, in order to leave a real space for a personal construction of meaning, of imagination, of ideas.
