It is not too difficult to talk about holography in terms of technique and history, because of the exactitude of the item. It is not too difficult, either, to talk about holography as an art form, if this is done merely by stating that these 10 or 25 persons are holographic artists and, consequently, characterizing what comes out of their hands as holographic art.

But it is for many reasons difficult to describe holography as an artform and artmedium, if you try to get beyond the usual external description and concentrate on ideas, aesthetics and media characterization - especially if you want to use the standards otherwise used when you discuss pictorial arts.

Personally I always run into self-contradictions and dilemmas when I have to use the word 'art', which, to me, eventually has come to mean everything and - nothing. Still I use the word" 'art' and 'artist' to make myself more or less understood.

My wellknown fellow-countryman, mathematician and poet Piet Hein seems to me to hit the truth, when he says: Everything is poetry - except poetry which is a cliche. He might as well have said 'art' instead of 'poetry'.

This is of course a philosophical truth as true as a teasing paradox can be. I will later get back to a more practical truth, which may not be so appealing but nonetheless necessary to operate with, if you do not want to reject language. Every word in the language is a question to your association mechanism. Some questions are more precise than others. To me the word 'art' makes a wrong question, if it means an independent domain, unrelated to other areas where creativity is needed, for instance science and technology. But that is the prevailing delusion since the 17th century.

I believe that most artists inspired by, and working with science and technology have learned to recognize creativity - or call it art - in many more disguises than that of the usual obligatory domesticated piece of artwork as a carrier of ideas and feelings.

When science is not art (use of intuition) and art is not science (exploration, discovery, recognition) neither of the two is fascinating. When best both are circling around the same matter in a complementary x- form: science aiming at the truth, now and then hitting beauty, art aiming at beauty, now and then hitting the truth.

In practice the domain between art and science is a No Man's Land, and operating there is usually not worthwhile if you go for temporal success. Mentally it is quite another matter. But operating there will also now and then question the raison d'etre of the word 'art', question the distinction between art and non-art, question the traditional criteria for beauty, question the domestication of art fit for gallery-walls, question the foolish market-mechanism - question the very basis of your existence.

Furthermore, you may feel the necessity of settling with the visually based comprehension-paradigm of earlier times. You may even feel some validity of the image ban, both that of The Old Testament and that of quantum physics (Bohr).

The reason for this seemingly contradictory situation is, of course, that if you put the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.

Your feelings and your experience as image maker tell you that there are certain, albeit unexpressible, principles in visual arts respected by a Cezanne, instinctively respected (or opposed which in the same) by a Warhol or by considerably more provocative artists. On the other hand you sense that on certain reality levels there are no such phenomena that are good or bad, and you can not distinguish between things that do not exist. These levels are not the least interesting for the artist to tell about - if possible. The picture - or art as such - can be a medium for the intellect to find lucidity. But it is difficult to make 2 - or 3-dimensional lucidity out of an e-dimensional reality. Thus most logic questions to art are wrong. With art you may release latent energy fields, you may enfold dreams, but you can never make the in former times desired 1:1 correlation. No map is a land.

So the situation may not be so contradictory. It may be healthy to get a little scatterbrained through all these scruples in order not to get too self-assured. But the practical truth is that you seldom feel guilty breaking any image ban. You do not feel it is a compromise to make domesticated art. During the period of creation you do not think of foolish market- mechanisms. You are fascinated by - in whatever medium - painting and sculpting. You are fascinated by the attempt to fill useless gadgets with meaningful beauty.

The practical truth is also that there is art and there is junk. It can not be proved, but you may recognize both, when you meet them.

The quality hierarchy is, of course, not a distinctive feature especially about what we call holographic art - it goes for all imagery. The distinctive feature is the unbalance: too much junk. Artists working with holography are, unfortunately, very few. That is a problem, because the quality hierarchy is much more going on in the technical area than in the aesthetic. Brilliant scientific and technical concepts can have much beauty to show (just think of Nils Abramson's Light in Flight) but very often they are shown in a overburdened way. Very often advertising display holography shows very good taste, but good taste radically differs from beauty, even if some aesthetic principles are mutual. Too few have realized that a cautious knock at the door to the imaginary may have more power than a lot of noise. Too many have been playing around in a not too interesting and overcrowded 'doll'= house universe' instead of examining the advantages and limitations of a wonderful new image-base. Too few have found out that understatement could be a solution when you work with such a fraudulent medium as holography. Too many squander the values in too little time or space. I love illusionist tricks, but I do not like the illusionist attitude in holographic art. The attitude is limiting. Nobody believes no much in the laws of nature as the illusionist.

One of the most important things to obtain in a work of art is authenticity. To obtain authenticity in holography it is important not to have too much eye to photography, because you do not have the same methods of abstraction as the photographer.

Authenticity has nothing to do with imitation, and the information-redundance in the medium has a tendency to sabotage any attempt to abstraction. That is why a photographer can always transform a doll into a human figure, while the holographer inevitably always will end up with an unveiling imitation. Holographic artists work more or less dependent on objects, if they do not work with pure light or computer-generation. For those who are dependent on objects it is extremely important to be strong in their choice. It is crucial that holographic objects possess authencity and honesty that can endure the close-reading of a hologram - the 'doll's house universe' is boring.

This new - for artists so obviously interesting - visual medium is on a collision course bound for a dull mannerism with a lot of lost possibilities in its wake.

But I think we have gone far if we can look at the holographic light sculpture on equal terms with other sculptural materials as an extension of the sculptural possibilities. And if holographic art can obtain qualified criticism - and use a very strong self-criticism.

Frithioff Johansen Pulheim, 10th June 1988