Notes from Keith Arnatt

5/02/18

Notes:

Arnatt was talking about his unsettled childhood – leading to difficult behaviour at school, (not thought of in a positive way). He developed an interest in art of the back of someone encouraging him to try for the local junior art school from age 13, he drew constantly then. He came across the work of Paul Nash as an art student (the image referenced above). Visited the Ashmolean in Oxford and became interested in landscape paintings. Moving to London he saw a wider range of paintings and explored more abstract work, he comments ‘became more visually aware’ and aware of idea of scale in images and that there are implications in what you are doing ‘a history and a future and a present’ – so where you are and where you are going becomes important. Notes how reading and exploring works of other artists (in all genres and places) becomes relevant to how you think leading to the thought that ‘Art is a tangible manifestation of ideas’ . It does matter what has been done – you may not be able to see it but could possibly see the ongoing effect (Earthplug and similar works). Eventually other people started making photographic documentation of his work so that people would know what he was doing – recording of ephemeral events. Then realised the importance of photographs – so what he did was with ‘the photograph in mind’ e.g. himself being buried (1969) ‘invisible art – art disappearing and the artist disappearing’ , also be aware that ‘your intentions and assumptions’ are not what occur to others. What narrative do other people impute to your work? Work on building boxes – all subtly different – made a collection of objects, you know they are different but may not perceive them differently. ‘Making works of art that depend on knowing runs against the kind of myth that works of art speak for themselves’. ‘Could the subject matter of art be about the difficulties of being an artist?’ – is that valid? He the developed an interest in photographing the people who visited Tintern Abbey – many people visiting there and taking the same images from the same spot – if you then photo them – how do people respond to the camera? Went on to series ‘Walking the Dog’ (associated with Sanders image of man with alsatian)- there was a behavioural element in taking the images – getting man and dog to comply at the same time – not knowing what would happen. ‘Things appear in image that you haven’t taken into account….editing process is the primary creative act’. – He became more uncomfortable with the idea of taking pictures of people and increasingly interested in landscape – so moved in that direction taking ‘documentary’ pictures of a place he lived, including the ‘tatty’ bits in an ‘area of outstanding natural beauty’ – myth versus documentation of an area – related to changes in the world as it is now. What people get from images will differ depending on their experience i.e. photographic experts, or people knowledgeable in art history versus amateurs or people in the pub. Does that matter? Are you (am I) taking images for myself, for the ‘expert’ or for the (probably mythical) average person? Is a photographer an artist?  Can photographers be ‘collectible’? Role of preconception – what you get might be very different from what you have planned. ‘I do something, then reflect on it and that might tell me where I want to go’. Used black and white because of reference to tradition of photographers from Walker etc, but colour references my interest in painting and important in some images eg golden light and red plastic (Miss Graces Lane) – the camera can transform eg rubbish to a fascinating image. (Howler’s Hill) – may, when looking at image in editing process, may find it references a historical painting – it is the accident in this that is interesting, less interesting when planned. Rubbish not equal to main preoccupation in ecological issues – but rather to what the image is pictorially – making pictures that are not chaotic out of chaos – ‘bring some kind of sense to it’.  – reference to still life = reference to notion of vanitas and mortality. I look for things that are not traditionally photographed ‘the marginal slices of life’ ‘looking at the overlooked’. What is acceptable to photograph? And in what context – eg forensic, medical might be acceptable while not in ‘art’ world. Could you look at medical photography as metaphors? Where your work is shown will give a different context to it – it may be understood differently in different places – may not be under your control – other than by choosing the gallery, venue etc. Reasons for making photographs are the same (?) as in making any other pictures – is this true? Is there a distinction between art and life – ‘life is what we make of it’ through language and vision. = ‘when I recognise as stage photographs I tend to have lost interest’. ‘Photograph of something out there in the world that is not staged – its the product of a vision’  ‘various ways of photographing… bring a degree of attention and control…. I like perversity and playing with it’ ‘is now-ness important…. Different from what you can do in painting or sculpture; ‘I like things that we don’t value or need much – the last piece of paper on a bog roll’  Start with nothing with painting – different you don’t have to make references to the outside world (although you do) – so many choices. Photo is a fragment – a fraction of a second .