P3D Why-3D/ Why 3D-Art

["Xal razutis" <razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why 3D, indeed.

As a field of professional endeavor, it's hardships outweigh the advantages. 
  It's not just about 'making money', but about bringing visions to the 
public.  And these visions have more to do with interpreting spatial 
subjects and in a spirit of experimentation - innovation than celebrating 
particular technologies.

At a 3D video art exhibition in Vancouver (Sept. 98) I was asked if 3D video 
had replaced my interests in holography.  I responded that each was a 
separate and distinct medium for interpreting spatial subjects.  Each had 
its strenghts, limitations and weakenesses. And I saw no reason to give up 
one for the other.

The historical similarities in what afflicts both Stereo 3D and holography 
and their development to the mass cultural market I would like to add to the 
discussion.

Simply put: Fine Arts curators don't know 'that to make of it' when 
presented with stereo 3D or holography as an 'art form', since there is a 
scarcity of informed writing on the 'aesthetics of' 3D motion-pictures and 
video, as well as 'holographic art'.

I would also add that there is a scarcity about photo and photo-3D 
aesthetics.  The 1/30th rule is not an aesthetic.

(Regarding holography, I published a magazine in the 80's (Wavefront) which 
attempted to address the lack of critial theory and aesthetics in 
holography.  I know the history pretty well.)

Aside from casual opinions expressed on this list about what people 'like' 
or 'dislike', aside from technical explanations of 'limits of viewing 
comfort', aside from long revues of Montreal 3D film fests by an author who 
has yet to make a motion picture, aside from our wonderful debates, there is 
a scarcity of aethetic theory about what UNIQUE AESTHETICS are available in 
3D film and video.

To address that issue requires inclusion of motion-picture aesthetics at 
large, and  the many valuable critical theories that have come from those 
debates. To further address that issue requires creating works that 
challenge established interpretations, and present new interpretations of 
spatial static or motion-picture subjects.  And then to defend those 
aesthetic assertions publicly.

We also have the spectacle of corporate people making bad decisions about 
what 'sells', what is 'mass-market'.  From Santa Barbara to New York to 
Europe we see a lack of diversity and content, a lack of art and 
experimentation in their minimal 3D distribution portfolios.  I've talked to 
them, heard their views, see the disappointing results.

It is as if those who see 3D video and motion-pictures as the 'new medium' 
are assuming that their 'mass audience' is as visually illiterate as they 
are.  An assumption that is bound to fail.

And consider if advertising itself was so conservative, so technically 
biased towards 'resolution', so predictably 'greedy' about immediate 
returns, then there would be no designers, no variations in pushing the 
limits of design, no taking chances, no ART in advertising.

In holography, from the early 70's (when my involvement started) to the 
present, we saw a early fascination with the medium expressed by both art 
and commercial sectors, the heroic efforts of a few individuals to create 
museum and art gallery exhibitions (world-wide), a number of conferences 
that combined art and science topics and presentations, and ultimately a 
'betrayal' of the medium by those commercially-greedy 
individuals/corporations that thought nothing of appropriating other 
people's ideas, patents, designs, and labor, and sell the medium as a 
'novelty' complete with toys, wrappers, cards, glasses, or as 
anti-counterfeiting 'security' (Visa stickers, drivers licenses, Super-Bowl 
tickets).

When the novelty wore out, those corporations moved to digital technologies. 
  The art was always a 'thing to use and discard'.  First Kodak, then AGFA 
ceased to manufacture the silver-halide film for the making of holograms. 
There was not enough volume to sustain the special needs (of artists).

I am convinced that we need more enlightened distributors and a more 
enlightened view of our audience of the future.  Novelty wears off, but 
content and diversity make the 3D medium flourish.  We need more enlightened 
interpreters of 3D.

When Ray Zone told me of his collaboration with James Turrell, the 
celebrated US artist, on a large 3D anaglylph, I was impressed with that 
level of 'interpretation'.  Tony Alderson's corporation activities extend to 
also interpret 3D to a wider audience.  IMAX 3D would benefit by involving 
itself in the home market, and directly through fostering production of 
video and DVD for that market.

It requires guts and vision to buck the conservative tide of 'small profits 
and quick returns' and all the IPOs out there.

Al Razutis




Visual Alchemy
razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx
razutis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://www.alchemists.com/
film-3D-video-holography-VRML

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com