|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/22/2003 07:59:23 AM · #1 |
Interesting article by Burt Prelusky
"...In spite of the fact that photographers will be only too happy to talk you to death about shadows, balance and perspective, essentially what they do is take dozens and dozens of snapshots, and then pick out the ones that come out best and show them to you. The camera, a mere piece of equipment, does all the hard work. The photographer simply aims and fires. You might as well suggest that skeet shooting is an art form.
Recently, a great deal of attention has been paid to famous war photographer Robert Capa. Now, really! I wouldn't for a second deny that anybody who goes into battle armed with nothing but a Leica is courageous, even foolhardy. But I've seen Capa's pictures. They're gray and gritty. I've also seen other people's pictures taken in combat zones. And the one thing they have in common is that they all look alike. They're filled with dead or wounded soldiers, blood and mud. Everything is uniform except the uniforms. In short, they look an awful lot like Matthew Brady's pictures of the Civil War.
The accomplishment in these cases isn't one of creativity in which the artist disappears into the work itself. Instead, it is the photographer announcing to the world how brave he was to be right there in the middle of all the action. It's far less an art form than a great way to impress girls..."
Read of the article here..
//lewhunter.com/bp/articles/big-frame-up.html
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 08:17:05 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by sebadore:
Interesting article by Burt Prelusky |
Another author I have deep respect for in the respect of "why photography is art", is Roland Barthes. His book, Camera Lucida, is only about 100 pages long (if that), but is - to me - the very essence of what photography vs snapshots and photography as an artform embodies.
In another fit of narcisistic rage, I take this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the subject:
Originally posted by My article on photography as art - linked below:
Why do people take pictures? I believe this is really the reason for why anybody would call photography an art. What are people trying to convey? For myself, it varies. There are so many reasons for wanting to take pictures of something, but they all boil down to the same thing: The intension of keeping something that is not always there, forever.
There are many good reasons for wanting to do so. A proud parent would possibly want to keep visual memories of how their child looked when it was little. Because the child will grow, and the little child will not be there forever. When on vacation, you might want to capture the views of the Eiffel tower and the canals of Venice, for almost the same reason: The tower and canals will still be there, but you wonÕt be there with them, so to you, they will not be there forever.
So historic preservation - either to capture something that will disappear, or something that you shan't be able to revisit soon - is a reason for taking pictures.
How do you then explain the people who attempt to freeze a drop of water hitting a glass of water? Or those who spend thousands of pounds on macro lenses so they can spend hours on end laying in the dirt photographing tiny leaves of flowers? Or those who spend days setting up a still life, before spending hours to photograph it? All that for some fruit?
This leads me to my next point: Photography can partially be about preservation. A memory-insurance (think the main character in memento, and his Polaroid memories). However, there is another important reason for taking pictures: showing a different morsel of reality from what you normally see. A properly lit apple can be a work of art. A CD disc can be a beautiful image. A glass of water - perhaps one of the most normal sights in the world - can become something breathtaking.
|
The rest of the article is available here
Haje
Message edited by author 2003-06-22 08:21:24.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 08:20:16 AM · #3 |
Let me just say that the writer is not criticizing Adams or Capa. He's basically saying its not the art/photograph, it's the venue that makes the stuff art. Stuff being whatever..a photo, a painting, a toilets etc... This is how the art world works and here is the most recent example of that.
It's when a painting sold in a thift store for $20 dollars become highly collectable item b/c it was shown in a gallery..
//www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/jsaltz/saltz4-23-03.asp
It's when a doodle/art on a post it notepad can be sold for $40 bux when it's shown on the right website.. like below...
//mathieusylvain.net/PostItGallery/
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 08:45:27 AM · #4 |
Perhaps you could rename this thread Photojournalism vs Art. IMHO war photographers are there to bring us news. Granted many war photos look similar, more snapshots then art. Guess its hard to compose a photo, check lighting and angles, and wait for that right timing to snap a pic, when you are in a hole or behind a tree with bullets all over!
However there can be art found here too. A photo that conveys emotion or brings the viewer deep into the action and gives them an understanding of the fighting is, to me, art.
Quote"...In spite of the fact that photographers will be only too happy to talk you to death about shadows, balance and perspective, essentially what they do is take dozens and dozens of snapshots, and then pick out the ones that come out best and show them to you. The camera, a mere piece of equipment, does all the hard work. The photographer simply aims and fires. You might as well suggest that skeet shooting is an art form."..unquote
As far as this goes I doubt very much if any artist shows ALL of his work.There are sketches, rough drawings, and many failed attempts before a painting is shown. All we do is aim and fire?? Right.
And then there is the work done to make a print. Cropping, correcting,
Dodging and burning and other adjustments to bring a feeling,or a different view to the print. That is where a photo becomes art, the camera is like a painters brush, The enlarger(or digital program) his/her palate, and the printer( or developing tank) their paint. I look at the winning photos on this site and I am moved, they have shown me things in a way that I haven't thought to look or bring emotions to the surface. Even if I dont like them, or understand them, if they place in a challenge then they are influencing others. In my opinion that is art.
Mark
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 08:48:50 AM · #5 |
Haje,
The article is not about why we take pictures or what is/makes art to any of us. He's writing more about how things become art in the main stream.. why certain pieces of work end up in museums or become highly collectable.. that sorta stuff.. ya know?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2003 08:58:05 AM · #6 |
Mark,
Please read the entire article by clicking this link.
//lewhunter.com/bp/articles/big-frame-up.html
It's really not an argument about what is or what isn't art to any of us. It's more about the mainstream process of how stuff become art.. stuff being whatever..
Of course art is found here on this site and everywhere... he's not arguing that.
Originally posted by MarkS224:
Perhaps you could rename this thread Photojournalism vs Art. IMHO war photographers are there to bring us news. Granted many war photos look similar, more snapshots then art. Guess its hard to compose a photo, check lighting and angles, and wait for that right timing to snap a pic, when you are in a hole or behind a tree with bullets all over!
However there can be art found here too. A photo that conveys emotion or brings the viewer deep into the action and gives them an understanding of the fighting is, to me, art.
Quote"...In spite of the fact that photographers will be only too happy to talk you to death about shadows, balance and perspective, essentially what they do is take dozens and dozens of snapshots, and then pick out the ones that come out best and show them to you. The camera, a mere piece of equipment, does all the hard work. The photographer simply aims and fires. You might as well suggest that skeet shooting is an art form."..unquote
As far as this goes I doubt very much if any artist shows ALL of his work.There are sketches, rough drawings, and many failed attempts before a painting is shown. All we do is aim and fire?? Right.
And then there is the work done to make a print. Cropping, correcting,
Dodging and burning and other adjustments to bring a feeling,or a different view to the print. That is where a photo becomes art, the camera is like a painters brush, The enlarger(or digital program) his/her palate, and the printer( or developing tank) their paint. I look at the winning photos on this site and I am moved, they have shown me things in a way that I haven't thought to look or bring emotions to the surface. Even if I dont like them, or understand them, if they place in a challenge then they are influencing others. In my opinion that is art.
Mark |
|
|
|
|
06/23/2003 04:49:02 AM · #7 |
I read the article, and I'd say that he was criticising photography by saying that it wasn't an art. He paralled photography/ art with golf/ sport, suggesting that golf may not be a sport, either.
I'd say that the article was weak because he was confusing photojournalism with art photography, and, although he did criticise Adams, he failed to recognise that Adams's work actually was art, whether inspired by commercialism or not.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 03:45:45 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 03:45:45 PM EDT.
|
