Photo Essayby
ubiqueComment by ubique: Originally posted by marnet:
Paul, it is an essay about a photographic ideology rather than a photo essay ... |
Yes it is. An essay about photographs, rather than an essay made out of photographs.
You summarise my point about snapshots very well; that the snapshot is actually quite unique and can’t be parodied or copied, other than in the most superficial (and pointless) way. And that therefore the snapshot is the real heart & soul of photography, and remains for nearly everybody the most essential and meaningful kind of photography. A snapshot will, in one sense, never die, even though its audience may be, as you rightly say, very limited. But an ‘art’ photograph begins dying immediately, and in a photographic generation or two the things that once may have made it remarkable have become clichéd and degraded by parody.
You’re also quite right about the legitimacy of artworks celebrating positive, uplifting feelings and emotions, and inspiring pleasant contemplative diversion. But that is, by virtue of its intentionally limited ambition, mediocre art. Don’t self-ignite over that: ‘mediocre’ doesn’t mean bad â€Â¦ it specifically means ‘neither good nor bad’ in the sense of being inoffensive and unobjectionable. Middle of the road. Most art critics and commentators (and most artists) won’t give that stuff much credit, because they hold art to a higher – or al least more ambitious – standard regarding its purpose and possibilities.
That̢۪s not really the elitist view that it appears to be. It̢۪s just a question of distribution curves. The middle of the curve is
by definition mediocre; that̢۪s what the word means. So if an individual̢۪s expectation of art is that it specifically sets itself in opposition to the mediocre, it̢۪s only to be expected that that observer will eschew the Pollyanna kind of art, and champion the less comforting kind. No choice.
None of that was at all relevant to my lion kill picture, by the way. Its transformation was inspired by classical religious art that in its day was intended to be inspirational and positive.
Having said all that art-snob stuff, I don̢۪t ask anyone else to agree with my views. I̢۪m not interested at all in what you or anyone else believes on this subject, only in what I believe and why.
Originally posted by marnet:
... I think you don't really like photography as most people see it ;) |
And you̢۪re right again, about my views on photography. I̢۪m not much interested in it as a craft. Photography for photography̢۪s sake is, for me, the epitome of dullness. What I like is photographs. I don̢۪t care who took them, or how, or with what.
For me the most interesting photographers in the digital age are the young people who love pictures but wouldn’t be caught dead in a photography store or reading a photography magazine. These people don’t know what they’re doing but they take most of the interesting photographs â€Â¦ again, don’t burst into flames over that claim; they also take most of the awful photographs (because they take most of the photographs).
Committed photo hobbyists are the least interesting photographers. Almost all their pictures are simply boring. And apparently
deliberately boring too. Many are able to take interesting pictures, but seem to be reluctant to do so. The point of photography for them is not the photograph; it̢۪s photography. Photography to produce photography. It̢۪s one of those circular arguments, pointless and eventually self-consuming.
Professional photographers are mostly dull unless they are very good indeed, in which case they are (based on the few I̢۪ve met) mostly mad.
It̢۪s a hard life, being a critic.
Photographer found comment helpful.
