Novikov on the photographic art of creation vs happenstance

by Callan

Oleg Novikov has a new article where he thinks out loud about the difference, if there are any, between art that is created, and art that just happens:

Despite the seemingly boundless gap between art as purposeful creation and art as pure happenstance, all art is art, and we need to consider what the common ground between the two is. If you ponder long enough you will realise that in both instances art stems from an inner response to a certain stimulus, something that deeply touches us. Sometimes, however, we can have an inner response to what we anticipate to happen, even though we cannot be sure that it will occur. In such instances we invariably leap into action, because what we anticipate to occur has already happened in our mind, and the only remaining question is whether we can capture it with the tool of our choice (i.e., the camera), and, if so, how close the captured image will be to what we visualised in our mind.

The article is a little long for a blog post, but well worth reading. I think he hit the nail on the head; many people have a preconceived notion that all art must be created, but I don’t believe an artist can make something from nothing. There is a visceral, and emotional, need to respond to certain situations, or to an emotion that is evoked from what we see, or read, or hear, or experience, and that response is what prompts us to create that art.

And whatever your medium, or methods, or your tool of choice, be it a paintbrush, a turntable, a musical instrument or a camera, this seems to hold true. Let us know your thoughts on the subject.


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE