Photoessay-project WIP: Anatomy of the quotidian

On technique and art:
Science has taught us wonderful things in the last few centuries in particular about how things in the physical world are composed. We were able to turn reality discrete (analyzed and separated into parts) to be able to understand it. This is important and interesting. But it does not generate art. 🙂 Cameras and lenses are products of science. The perfect technique does not generate art. Generate photography, design, etc. It is a product and/or a service. The problem is that science (the type of information it provides) “produced” a kind of art in the twentieth century (modernism, etc.) that using the art components, like the components in the periodic table, only produces combinations of these discrete parts and not complete and living bodies (artistic bodies). The “art” of Mondrian (an example) is a game with discrete parts. The art of Velasquez is ART. Visual art is above all a matter of looking and choices (a practice of the mind the eye and the hand) that put into question the usual hierarchies of reality. It’s not “kill the reality” into small pieces and try to recompose it later (its dead) or perfect technical exercises (this is gymnastics .-) or intellectually exciting concepts, only. So art with the camera is quite difficult because the camera is inherently discreet and quickly falls into the “technical” only or in imitation of art. But it is curiously surreal (remember Susan Sontag), because it produces a new and more dramatic reality, there beside the reality that already exists. The less edited the picture, the more surreal it becomes. Art?
That´s why “entering the atelier” is a needed and also a fascination because you start to have more questions than answers ,-) you need to join technique and emotions, etc; until you start to see something (an image?) that does´t need words. “Naive” art need words. Art does´t. Art is direct to the cortex.
(Thoughts on Sunday using my poor english .-)