I. Introduction
In the micro-treatise “to Create and understand” already it was said (truth, for a moment) that «… for the full self-realization the author needs to be understood and estimated by other people». On the other hand, in the same place it was underlined that the spectator (the reader, the listener, etc.) «… first of all, like another’s feeling not so much and tries to understand not so much that the author wanted to tell, how many works out own feeling in communication and concerning another’s work of art».
To told above it is necessary to add that the person социален by the nature and consequently the need for a recognition from other people is same basic, as well as need to create and perceive works of art. But if the perception purpose isn’t connected to understand in any way (or it is only slightly connected) the author, whether that can calculate the author for mutual understanding and a recognition accompanying it? And if can, as it to achieve?
More often, authors, answering these questions, place emphasis on novelty. It seems to them that the way to a recognition is simple: to amaze and surprise audience with novelty (contents, judgements, the approach, a creative method, etc.) enough — and the purpose will be by all means reached. Unconditionally, the novelty factor plays large role. But the hypertrophied accent on novelty isn’t deprived also lacks, and most important of them consists that novelty, contrary to a popular belief, at all isn’t a determinative for a recognition. Moreover, hunting behind novelty often leads empty оригинальничанию, besides rather far and from original authoring self-expression, and from art generally.
To attempt of judgement of the contradictions connected to the factor of novelty in art, also this small article is devoted.
II. In what a novelty essence?
Great Raphael Santi for the creative life has written very many Madonnas. He wrote the divine cloths, being in rigid frames of canons. In those days at creation of cloths of the religious content artists were strongly enough are restricted in a choice both the composite decision, and technics of performance. But even in these strictly certain frames at Raphael every time the new, fine and original product absolutely not similar neither on its other operations, nor on products of other masters of a paintbrush turned out. One more example: icons of Feofana of the Greek. They, perhaps, каноничны still in a greater degree. But thus they are fine, majestic and absolutely recognized.
Then that for creation of an original work of art not so mandatory to break all added norms and rules. And not so mandatory to trample on foundations and canons. And aspiration amazing the spectator at any cost, isn’t in the shortest way to masterpiece creation. But what then essence of novelty?
Obviously, novelty consists in the author, in his hands and in his head. And is more true: in his soul. We will recall the Gospel from Onions: «Byv is asked by Pharisees when Tsarstvie Bozhie will come, answered them: Tsarstvie Bozhie will not come in the perceptible image, and won’t tell: here, it here, or: here, there. For here, Tsarstvie Bozhie in you is» [17:20,21]. And so far as it so it is not necessary to spend efforts to nothing defensible search of new forms and empty оригинальничание. Novelty is already put in individuality of the author. And if there are no two identical people can’t be and two identical authors. If, of course, their creativity goes with all the heart, instead of is based on a conjuncture, doesn’t indulge arrogance and doesn’t serve only for earnings.
From this, of course, doesn’t follow that any product owing to authoring originality will have is mandatory though any value for other people. Certainly, it not so. Authoring vision and authoring подчерк are necessary (and essential), but not success sufficient conditions. Mahlo to carry in itself Tsarstvie Bozhie, it is necessary still to be able to use this gift adequately. Here too pertinently to remind that the commercial success not always testifies to high level of authoring skill. Occasionally the situation is added exactly the opposite: commercially successful something ephemeral, hardly having been born, instantly disappear from storage of admirers. However, it is the big separate subject …
Many suppose that the author shouldn’t put the individuality on the foreground. More often (and in a photo, perhaps, even more often, than in other types of creativity) supporters of such approach put before the author only the problem of the fullest and adequate reflection of objectively existing Beauty. But that who divides the similar point of view, it is necessary to remind that the author doesn’t have any other methods of reflection of objectively existing Beauty except subjective playback of results of the subjective perception. Owing to it the person of the author is rather significant, and even in such technical art forms, as a photo.
Whether the author should hide the creative individuality? Or, on the contrary, should underline it? Questions partly idle for the author simply doesn’t have choice. Its any creation will carry automatically on itself the press of its authoring approach.
Two persons, telling about same, create absolutely different narrations. “Different” — not in sense of distinction of an information essence which can quite be same. “Different” — first of all, in sense of authoring style. For this reason someone can tell about any trifling event (for example, how it walked in a bakery), and the crowd of people with interest will listen to its each word. And someone and will tell about the most interesting event so that the audience will start to yawn at its first words. Art is born there where the attention to the question «as is as the corner-stone brought?», instead of «that?». The more talently the author, the more clearly in its creations its individuality is visible.
The same happens and in a photo. Give to two people cameras and ask them to photograph any object. The photos received by them will differ strongly enough. And, besides, distinctions that will be stronger, than more interesting and многогранней there will be authors as persons. Original works of art always differ from each other substantially. Even then, when they narrate about the same subject. Only серость and feebleness always happen equally boring.
Speaking about art creativity, it is necessary to note that any product should be, first of all, a work of art. In this case novelty will be automatically inherent in it for two identical authors don’t happen, especially if authors are rather talented. And, so far as it so in the course of creativity of any special search of novelty it is not required. And if product isn’t a work of art no novelty will make its that.
Thus, it is not necessary to waste time specially and forces on novelty search. But it is not necessary and to avoid it for it should be shown naturally. And, of course, it is not necessary to substitute novelty оригинальничанием. For there is nothing easier, than to try to be original. It is much more difficult to find forces to be oneself.
III. The novelty Factor in photoart
Than more well in mastering this or that art form and the more the number of creators-authors, the costs a question on novelty more sharply. For it seems to authors that novelty is a unique way to признанью and to success. However such people forget that at each creation there is one more rather important element — a sight of the author.
The photo — an accessible and mass art form, therefore for it a described problem costs most sharply. From outside the photographer sees as the person who only pushes the button on the camera. Where here original creativity? To answer this question it is possible two methods. It is possible explicitly and to describe long methods and technology of creation of photographic works of art. And it is possible to ask simply audience attentively to get accustomed to results. And then it becomes obvious that the majority of photos, alas, have no attitude toward art. But it isn’t so bad, for the photo helps the person to solve great variety of tasks. And it not is mandatory should associate with art.
Alexander Lapin hasn’ted: «the Main problem of a photo that it too much, is simply monstrous much. As though all population of a planet painted in oils or composed verses» (the book «the Photo as …»). However it is necessary to recognize such situation problem only partly for similar difficulties are peculiar also to other art forms. For example, the number of competent people considerably exceeds number of potential photographers. Owing to it the flow of various prose for certain is more than flow of photos (about poetry here speech doesn’t go). At institutes and offices, in a life and on manufacture the great variety of documents is born daily. However to anybody and in a head by all means each text with art doesn’t come to associate. Business and in a photo in the same way is. It it is valid much. But its big part also doesn’t claim for carrying a proud rank “work of art”.
The thought on that any special search of novelty isn’t required, is spread, mainly, to a photo as on certain refined (that is cleared of other tasks and the purposes) fine arts type. In other cases (which great variety), the novelty factor can have crucial importance. As an example the scientific photo and the photo report can serve.
However, any sharing here is conditional. The photo rarely appears exceptional in an art role. We take, for example, the same репортажную shooting. On the one hand, its result is the documentary photograph. And here, unconditionally, novelty is important. And novelty of the fact is important first of all. But if thus the photo is also art (owing to what novelty in it is shown also as perception and the relation of the author) it is unconditional plus of photooperation. For through artistry it is easier to get access not only to feelings, but occasionally and to reason of the spectator. And let even spectator emotions won’t coincide with the authoring. Artistry is, first of all, the additional channel