Liquid Intelligence

While Jeff Wall talks about his views on photography growing up during the 60s and 70s and what was believed to be the obsoletion of photography, his discussion on the aesthetics of viewing art is what caught my attention. On page 176 of "Frames of Reference" he talks about viewing photography in an art gallery versus in a book, and that they are much more pleasing up close. Paintings, however, that take up a wall very nicely are better viewed from a reasonable distance and that there is a separation between the two.

I agree that viewing the art from two different angles can change the feeling or appearance of some art, but to imply that all photography is 'too small for the format' of the wall and that paintings are to be viewed further away is not realistic. Photographs are better viewed in books or albums only because most film is quite small, but that is not to say that an image can't be blown up large enough to compete with the scale of these paintings Wall is so fond of. Likewise, paintings are quite interesting when studied very close. To see how an effect was achieved or study a detail in magnification is just as important to the viewing process as it is to take in the painting in its entirety. What is also interesting is that most people can relate to what Wall is saying when he expresses the need to view photographs in albums. It is the most common and efficient way to store and view photographic art, thus reinforcing his point.

Later, Wall explains that all film is is a series of photographs shown one after another. I would like for him to see the modern Imax and see how he feels about photographs being viewed on hundred foot screens by millions of people every day. The broadening of the painting, photographic, and cinematic fields in scale, quantity, and ingenuity will continue to expand the possibilities of viewing art. The perspective, emotion, and viewing experience may forever grow and expand to unknown territory and cannot be restricted to a simple method of examination.