It seems that in the vastness of the ever-expanding universe there is an elemental necessity to become “perfect”. Such a necessity, a drive of vast proportion, lends to the ever-changing world that many have called home. Behind everything that exists in the cosmos, there is this necessity, albeit that perfection is not necessarily a state of unscathed smoothness or unmolested serenity. Perfection is not some unreal goal established by a cruel universe. It is not some myth invented to make people less than their capacity. The real perfection of the universe is not always an end. Perfection is not always objective and it’s not always subjective. Perfection is not always perfect, and imperfection is not always imperfect.

Out of the many examples of perfection, evolution is one with the most intriguing value. Evolution, a process that has occurred since the beginning of conceivable time, is the process of changing with the environment in order to create the ‘best’ version of something. Not a subjective best, like the best ‘80s Christian Rock Song’ or best ‘Nominated Picture’. This best is not measured by opinion or reason, it is measured by the capacity of surviving, minimalizing energy consumption, the ability to reproduce, as well as several other characteristics. When a planet or a species maximises how much it can maintain all these factors, evolution stops. Consequently, in the eyes of evolution, it is perfect.

The Earth, before its state of devolution, was perfect. At some point, the magma calmed down and life evolved. When the Earth stopped developing, it was perfection. While said perfection did not last, it did exist. Humans are perfect. Humans may not be morally or intellectually perfect, but the being of humans itself is perfect. Long ago did it stop evolving, stop changing. The human body, evolutionarily, reached perfection.

Objective perfection is thus so exemplified by evolution. But, objective perfection is seldom the example when one mentions perfection. It is the subjective perfection that receives much of the attention and exertion. It is the changeable, achievable perfection of self-disposition. The things within the control of the human psyche.

Subjective perfection is just that: subjective. When something is subjective, it is ‘subject to interpretation’. Subject morality is a great example of something being subjective. Everyone has this distinct compass, this flow of thought that, regardless of religion, leads them to decide what is right and what is wrong. This subjectivity is proven with objective religion.  As an example, people of the Christian faith tend to explain that their morality comes from the Bible. However, every Christian interprets it differently. They pick and choose which rules and sins are worth following and they value them differently. For example, many quote from the book of Leviticus to say that homosexuality is wrong; however, they disregard the part of Leviticus telling them to not shave nor to not eat shellfish. They choose what they thought was worth agreeing with and obeying. They used subjective morality.

The reason for mentioning such an example as subjective morality is to emphasise that word: subjective. The perfection that people often mention and debate follows this same logic. Individual people set different standards and goals. When they feel that they have met said goal, they succumb to ‘perfection’. And, they also hold other people to these goals and standards. When people fail to achieve such goals, which they may even be unaware of, they are deemed ‘not perfect’ or ‘imperfect’. Subjective perfection in this sense can cap the abilities of humans and things to grow.

When a mother calls her child a failure every day of their life, the child very often grows up to be a failure. In the mother’s eyes, the child is not perfect, or maybe the mother herself feels imperfect about herself or the way her child came into the world. The child often does not know why or how they failed, they only know that they’ve failed. Without the knowledge of what to do or how to improve, how can anyone improve? They can’t. Perfection only works when it can better a person, not belittle them.

Understanding the object subjectivity of perfection is how one can unlock the key to understanding and growth. Accepting imperfection in others allows one to be in a state of ‘perfection’. Being faulty does not mean imperfection; who’s to say that that person is even at fault? Again, the whole premise of good/bad, fault/perfect, worst/best is subjective when it comes to human consciousness. If the acceptance of something other than this can occur, why does this subjectivity need to even exist? Is it possible that one day everyone can live in the same, collective thought? That humanity could be one, objective form of perfection? Such a world would be colourless, and the desire to be perfect would be satiated. Would this not be boring?

Last night I read a couple of essays I found tucked away as pdfs on my computer, which I store sort and organise using evernote, an application I will write a separate blog entry for another day.

One article was an AGSNW education kit about Photography and Place and exhibition held in 2011 at the gallery. [I don't recall seeing the exhibition however]. As a consequence I went in search of the 'catalogue' for it in the AGNSW's online book shop, in the process, I found this book.

Callahan, Siskind and Sommer,  Keith F Davis, Britt Salvesen, Radius Books ISBN 9781934435151

Here is the amazon description of the book.

At the Crossroads of American Photography examines the aesthetic and personal interrelationships of three photographers who helped define the course of American photography after Steiglitz: Frederick Sommer (1905-1999), Harry Callahan (1912-1999) and Aaron Siskind (1903-1991). Although each member of this "holy trinity" (as they were dubbed by photographer and publisher Jonathan Williams) has been honored with individual museum retrospectives, this is the first full comparison of their work, as well as an exploration of their robust, prescient exchange of ideas about photography, abstraction and metaphor over the course of their 25 years as colleagues and friends. Self-taught as photographers, this trio helped shape a national community of peers and the evolution of photography as an art form, creating a bridge between the purity of Group f/64-era photography at midcentury and the hybrid approaches to the medium seen today. This exquisitely produced exhibition catalogue highlights the powerful role of such camaraderie in shaping photography at this seminal time, before the emergence of a market for photography and before widespread artistic acceptance of the medium. It brings to light contrasting philosophies of the artist/photographer's role (influenced by Existentialism for Siskind and by the writings of Spinoza for Sommer), the interest in chance as an artistic process, the expressive potential of photographic found objects and collage, experimental abstraction, close affiliations with fine art movements (New Bauhaus, Abstract Expressionism and Surrealism), and changing attitudes toward the fine-print tradition.

An interesting combination and comparison one I would never have thought of making. Well just another one to add to my "wishlist" I guess?

Yesterday I read The Digital Eye... Photographic Art in the Electronic Age, by Sylvia Wolf, a bit light on but useful for my future classes, it has a wonderful succinct wrap-up of the history of digital art photography, that is particularly easy to digest.

After all that no sign of the actual exhibition catalogue, ah well, a good way to fritter way several hours online I guess.