I’ve been reading “Autumn Light” by Pico Iyer, a gift from my mentor and friend Robert Adams, where I found the following: “Beauty is completed only if we accept the fact of death… Autumn poses the question we all have to live with: How to hold on to the things that we love even though we know that we and they are dying. How to see the world as it is, yet find light within that truth.”

Later in the same book, there is a discussion between Iyer, the Dalai Lama and another Buddist Monk while waiting for the start of an interview between the Dalai Lama and a novelist. The Monk posed the question, “What is the point of art? What is its larger purpose?” The Dali Lama does not respond to the resulting discussion, but Iyer notes that “In his way of thinking, looking closely at reality is the only thing that matters, not all the ways we make embroidered designs around it.”

I was recently asked about the connection in my own work between Art and Science. I have to admit that for me, photography began as an escape from the rigors of Physics, a way to at least temporarily avoid the algebraic torture that seemed to characterize my undergraduate education. Later, it became a release valve from the stress of my work as a research engineer, often dealing with overzealous promotions of immature technologies that sometimes pushed the boundary into fraud. I tried very hard not to connect the two parts of my life.

Is photography Art? That’s a discussion that’s been going on essentially since the invention of photography. Or, turning that question on its head, Robert Adams said “Ok, it’s art—but is it photography?”
It is relatively easy to define “photography”—”an image of an object made from light on a sensitive surface”. Given the near universal use of cell phone cameras, nearly everyone makes photographs.

It is much more difficult to define “Art”. Dictionary.com defines art as “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” The problem with that definition is that not everyone agrees on what is beautiful, appealing, or significant. Something that one person or culture thinks as art might not be art to someone else.

A friend of mine, a photographer, tried to define art as “whatever an artist makes is art”, but that gets us nowhere, because it simply throws the definition back onto who is an artist. If an “artist” shits in a can and calls it “art”, it’s just shit in a can to me, and the creator isn’t an artist, at least not to me.

In the introduction to “Snake Eyes”, John Gossage writes of a letter he received from a friend who was offended by a publication he had done, and wrote, at the end of a paragraph “Duchamp was wrong…” What Duchamp is arguably most famous for is his prank on the art world, “Fountain”, a commercially mass-produced urinal signed “R. Mutt, 1917”. Gossage does not identify the writer of the letter in his essay.
That letter was written by Robert Adams, who in conversation noted that “at the end of the day, it’s still just a urinal.” Adams has been concerned with Beauty—the first book of essays he published was titled “Beauty in Photography: Essays in Defense of Traditional Values”. What he finds offensive in Duchamp is the idea that making something shocking to a viewer makes it significant, and therefore Art. It seems that Duchamp managed to uncover the human urge to pay attention to things that anger us—the same mechanism that allows the Facebook algorithm to spread misinformation. “R. Mutt” and “Q Anon” are cut from the same cloth. While the result may be a big audience, it is clear that ultimately there is not much joy in the experience.

For Adams, Beauty is the only criteria that matters in Art. Adams embraces the Dalai Lama criteria of trying to honestly understand reality. Iyer’s “Looking closely at reality is the only thing that matters” is the same observation as Adams’s “Beauty is… a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life… it helps us meet our worst fear, the suspicion that life may be chaos that therefore our suffering is without meaning. James Dickey was right when he asked rhetorically, ‘What is Heaven, anyway, but the power of dwelling among objects and actions of consequence.’”
For me, nearing the end of my life, I now realize that there was a profound connection between my career as a scientist and my escape from that world as a photographer: both were an attempt to honestly understand reality.
