plastic caddy...

it's nearly 2 a.m. (will be after by the time i get done writing this) and i'm still up. luckily i have the power of darvocet on my side, so all is good and happy in the world. well, ok, maybe not good and happy, but i'm loopy so it doesn't really matter.

i'm waiting on a painting i'm working on to dry so i can work on it some more. that's the problem with some of my stuff. it becomes this complicated painstaking process where i can only do a bit at a time. this just means that the thing drags on and on, and eventually i will probably lose interest in it or change it completely to finish it in one day. -shrug- i like where it's going currently, i just don't know that i have the patience to stick with it. as rob pointed out the other day, i am the most impatient person in the world. not that i didn't already know that, i just thought it funny that he felt the need to tell me...again. like telling someone that they are impatient is really going to change that. really? or do people just need feel the need to point out the obvious or already known every now and then? i don't know. i'm guilty of it too, i just think it's funny when anyone does it because it honestly makes no sense. regardless...

so i got to thinking about this in my humanities class on the last day when we were playing board games. all photography can be classified as 'documentary' or 'journalistic' photography. yes, even ansel adams crap, and set up stuff. i say this because there was a question in one of the games that had something to do with what art form pushed surrealism and something else and the choices were: film, poetry, sculpture, and photography. my first instinct was immediately film because for so long, and even today photography has struggled to be seen as a true art form. organizations such as the f64 group still believe that photography is solely documentary and should only be seen as such.
ok, so that seems pretty extreme, i know, and i felt the same way until that question came up and i really got to thinking about it. (by the way, the answer was both film and photography, but mainly film...it was a bad question really). after thinking about it for awhile i started to really agree with that. if you think about it, every picture documents something. whether it be a place, a moment in time, an idea, an emotion, or an event, something is being recorded and documented with every release of the shutter. so truly, all photography really is documentary photography.
does that mean that photography isn't also art? who knows. i think anything can be art if it's made to be such. art for art's sake is still art regardless. so yeah, photography can be both documentary/journalistic and still be art. it's all in the eye of the beholder. my only problem with that is when someone will go to a museum and say, 'oh, that's not art,' just because they don't understand it or just don't like it. just because you do not like or agree or understand something does not make it any less art. it just makes it 'bad art' to *you*. but calling something 'not art' just because you don't like is very degrading to the artist. think about it...what if someone told you that whatever you do for a living wasn't what it was supposed to be? that it wasn't good enough to qualify as a product of your efforts simply because that one person didn't like it. or even worse, didn't get it and made no attempt to even try and get it. yeah...not very cool.

ok, so now that i'm done ranting, i think my painting is dry, so i'm giong to put another coat on it and then probably head to bed. well, after checking my email and turning my phone off so i stop texting and getting texts!
night all. or maybe mornin'!

=e