As I went down to the Rock n Roll Gallery down at the Library today to get information to write this Gallery Write-Up, I was confused. Apparently so many of my classmates have used this Gallery as a way to fill in their slot-requirement, but I don’t even see the relevance to non-DMA students to going to this Gallery. I do not see the point to going to a gallery purely for the sake of looking over the cover art of whichever Record Album a particular band or Artist chose to include with their music.
But maybe this is more of a personal opinion? I am quite disdained towards the idea of photography for the sake of itself anyway. I never use a camera to preserve a moment, rather, I enjoy that moment naturally and experience a new one. So when I see so many albums with just the Musicians standing in some edited or choreographed way, I just wonder, why would someone find it so fascinating to see each and every one of these people’s faces?
A Musician is defined by his or her music, and maybe their own character and personality if they are a public enough image, but their face itself? their album name? That’s like putting the box art of a collection of VHS tapes up in a gallery showing, really, there’s no point. They were used primarily to make their product visually appealing besides just a title, and yet, that’s all they still are if you look at them.
So many of the record albums I’ve seem are just pictures of the artists, the name of their album, and the name of the band. How is this worthy of reverence? Of presentation? Now, if they were going to go and PLAY the music presented by the album, I would understand, the music on these albums are some of the best of Rock n Roll in general. But JUST the cover art? There’s no point or value in my opinion. Especially since only a handful of these Albums actually used art outside of the musicians posing in front of the camera.
Sorry to all you music lovers out there who were overjoyed that they saw all these albums together, it was just pointless to me