While cameras aren't allowed, a visual artist of other mediums is.
I suppose it is less intrusive, but it's also a little more nuanced than taking a strict photo, which is exactly what the lens sees, a moment copied and pasted to its memory card, and reproduced pixel by pixel. A visual piece...well, I could only image (not being a visual artist myself), that it captures much more than a moment.
The artist at the trial?
William J. Hennessy Jr. You can check out his website, www.courtroomart.com.
I tried, in vain, to explain why I, sitting on the defendant's side of the courtroom, was intrigued at the role, his role, of an artist in this system. I managed to get out the fact that I was an arts administrator, and quickly realized that I should just cut short my losses, and let him get on with his work, while the memories and images were still fresh.
I suppose, as personal and emotional as trials can, the visual artist plays a role that a photographer can't, specifically because of the product they produce.
At its core, unless you're going for complete realism, maybe there isn't the sense of a breach of privacy when one see his or her likeness in pastel (or other medium of choice), versus a picture. I don't know, maybe there are other reasons, but at the end it doesn't seem as...well, I can't think of another word: as intrusive as an actual photograph might. That's my own take on it, anyway.
Maybe actual courtroom artists can speak to how they view their role, their work, and how it differs from that of photography, on any level.
The frustrating thing was, his presence was a reminder that I now have this arts management lens on (thank you AU) that, even in dealing with an ongoing, personal tragedy, will never come off. Or maybe it's a good thing in that the path I'm going down in my life is relevant in ways I couldn't imagine.
Either way, it only makes me hope that the artist can forgive me for interrupting his process.
- J Street Jr
No comments:
Post a Comment