I’m not sure how Batsheva (above left) and Adam and Eve (above right) would feel about their having been reimagined within a 21st century digital Jerusalem – but Israeli artist and activist Mike Darnell certainly makes you wonder. His exhibition of these and other Biblical portraits are part of his “Digital Zion” exhibition that opens tonight at the Jerusalem Open House and is on view at the Yellow Submarine through March 12th. While the Adam and Eve print recalls the painting by 16th century German painter Lucas Cranach the Elder within a digital viewpoint, Darnell wholly reconfigures Batsheva. The digital imaging works on two levels: not only forcing us to ‘see’ Batsheva differently but by doing so, we able to question her behavior and character. As Darnell puts it, “How much of Batsheva’s motivation for her nightly ablution was purely hygienic, and how much an exhibitionist’s seductive display…” Find more about these and other digital works by Darnell here.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Joyce Rubenstein // Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Do yoiu believe that this is a form of photography since the images were first photographed then reconfigured on the computer? Many of my friends at camera club feel that it is a form of photography. We disagree. What is your take on this issue?
2 Mike Darnell // Feb 22, 2008 at 8:16 am
thx for the write up : )
video and photos from the opening of the exhibition “Digital Zion” are now available:
http://www.facebook.com/album......=535785604
http://www.facebook.com/album......=535785604
http://www.facebook.com/album......=535785604
http://www.facebook.com/album......=535785604
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=St94boLJkFs
Best regards : )
Mike Darnell
3 Ziva // Feb 23, 2008 at 8:33 am
I wouldn’t necessarily wonder whether it counts as photography because both photography and digital art are both categories and practices of fine art. I don’t think that manipulating photographs – as in changing contrasts, color or sharpness – changes the category of the work’s art (ie. photographs are still photographs). And I do think that the category of digital art encompasses a range of practices and technologies that make it a separate art form. Does that answer your question? Anyone else wanna take a stab? Mike?
4 Mike Darnell // Feb 23, 2008 at 11:41 am
Does it really matter?
When asked I usually describe my giclee prints as “Digital Collages” because they are rarely composed of a single image.
However, in my humble opinion, people tend to place far too much emphasis on the medium.
As if it really makes a difference…
We have this need to classify in order to feel that we are achieving comprehension. The subjects of our efforts do not require our comprehension, or our classification, – they simply are.
This is obviously not an original thought: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2).
I think Shakespeare shows us the inherent fallacy of attempting to grant meaning to our own attempts at ordering the universe by naming it.
The history of art is in many respects the story of a succession of struggles by champions of new and unfamiliar mediums to “prove” their medium’s worth to what, paradoxically, is a very conservative audience. One would expect that “Art Lovers” be more accepting of the avant-garde, but this is not the case.
Photography, Cinema, Video, Installation , etc. etc., all have had to transcend their initial “curio” status in order to gain the acceptance of the traditional art world. Digital Art is uniwue in the respect that it has a far wider grass-roots appeal and if far more accessible than any art-form before it.
In essence, it really doesn’t matter what the art-world thinks anymore (thank God…).
Youtube, myspace, facebook, etc., have long sealed the debate in Digital Art’s favor…
Mike
http://www.DigitalArtPrintGallery.com
5 Joyce Rubenstein // Feb 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Mike, Thanks for your comments. I will share with my photo friends, who love to put labels on forms of art. Maybe this will end the “the great debate”.
6 mike darnell // Feb 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I have no illusions that any drivel of mine has the power to convince even the most accepting of connoisseurs …
Such is the nature of the beast – as an artist I have learned to accept and indeed love it. It is said that Love tames even the wildest of beasts…
: )
Mike
7 Joyce Rubenstein // Feb 26, 2008 at 12:58 am
Mike, I love your art ,whatever it is. I just want you to know that. I respect your opinion. It is not dribble.
8 mike darnell // Feb 26, 2008 at 8:57 am
Hi Joyce,
Thank you so much for loving my art – this is exactly the type of feedback that gives me the strength I need to continue down my path : )
Mike
Leave a Comment