Photography's place in art: what is really real?

12/11/2003 09:30:19 AM · #1

First off, I don't profess to be any more than a psuedo intellectual at best, and I know this is deep, but, I'm interested hearing what people think. I do not view photgraphy from the traditional perspective, like a lot of other people- I am loking at this discussion from a general arts point of view and I'd like to hear what photographers have to say.

I belive it has been said that "perception is reality" and that when it comes to visual arts, the painting or photo print is simply our perception of light hitting a canvas- or chemicals on a photo sheet.
I believe that Plato's theory was that the ideal of the object was more real that the object itself, ie., the concept of a table in your head was actually more substantial than a table in your kitchen;( in poetry the concept is the "object correlative" in that a comparison to say- Helen of Troy- as a beautiful woman- was something everyone could understand.)
My point is that we assume that a photograph of something is as real a representation of something that we can find. But is that so?
It is said that a viewer of an impressionist painting must stand for at least 2 minutes an try to get the overall feel of the picture. If you do that- a seemingly blurry or mostly white painting becomes much more "real" or vivid than even the most clear and sharp photographic representation. or does it?

what do you think?

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

12/11/2003 09:56:25 AM · #2

i'm confused ;}

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

12/11/2003 10:03:04 AM · #3

Me thinks one doth think too much! Verily!

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/11/2003 10:13:59 AM · #4

I dunno. I just like takin pitchers. I like it a lot.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/11/2003 10:15:11 AM · #5

I think the basic assumption is incorrect.

We do not see the way cameras do, so assuming what a camera sees is what we see is a false starting point. Platonic forms don't have a whole lot to do with it, unless you are trying hard to capture the essential nature of the subject and distill it away from the particular instance you are snapping away at.

Message edited by author 2003-12-11 10:46:57.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2003 10:28:11 AM · #6

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I dunno. I just like takin pitchers. I like it a lot.

I agree

wkmen

Olympus SP-570 UZ

12/11/2003 10:49:59 AM · #7

Originally posted by blindjustice:

...My point is that we assume that a photograph of something is as real a representation of something that we can find. But is that so?
It is said that a viewer of an impressionist painting must stand for at least 2 minutes an try to get the overall feel of the picture. If you do that- a seemingly blurry or mostly white painting becomes much more "real" or vivid than even the most clear and sharp photographic representation. or does it?...

We ought not assume that a photo is "as real" as it gets - after all, as digital photographers, haven't we all taken a dozen shots or 2 dozen - or 8 dozen, for that matter - of one scene with different angles and/or camera settings to try to achieve varied aesthetics? Which result is real? The left side of my brain says none, the right side says all. There's no absolute answer, except for us to recognize that the chemicals (or electrons) that align a certain way because of our applied technique IS highly interpretive.

I'm glad you used the example of impressionist paintings. I agree that when I spend a couple of minutes looking closely at a Renoir (my favorite), especially "Luncheon of the Boating Party" or "Ball at the Moulin de la Gallette", I feel somewhat transported there. To me, that is the beauty of Renoir. A few other artists "involve" me, too - Dore, Dali, Raphael, El Greco - and yet Picasso leaves me cold, as do some impressionists.

The reason I mention that is to illustrate why I disagree with the assertion that a painting becomes more real than a photo - if you give a photo its due consideration, it will sometimes make a connection with you. That doesn't mean that the photo shows an exact replica of the scene, in fact, often quite the contrary. And besides, none of us can reasonably compare ourselves to Renoir or El Greco (but maybe Picasso - just kidding).

Not that I think you're all wet in starting this discussion. Or that I'm anything like an authority or totally right-minded. Personally, I like the way you carry your philosophy into your challenge photos, and your portfolio shots.

so "What do you think?"

Message edited by author 2003-12-11 10:52:32.

dsidwell

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/11/2003 11:21:58 AM · #8

Perceptions of the appearance of truth (versimilitude) have changed over time. We live in an era of postmodernism now, where all phenomenological perceptions are, supposedly, treated as equally "true." But a hundred years ago, the "realists" felt that truth was best shown by what was scientifically observed and the Romanticists felt that truth was best shown by what was felt. Take a look at any of the "ists" and you'll find a different perception of the best way to communicate truth.

I tend to go along with Plato's thought myself, and I like to get as close to the "ideal" as possible in my photos. I noticed after the fact that my photos of New York City had few people in them (you can still see a few of my NYC shots in my portfolio, but I'm weeding them out slowly). In a way, I was showing the ideal of NYC--a city that would be so lovely if only there weren't any people there to mess things up! Ironic to be sure. I take a lot of nature shots, where I avoid people in photos, too.

GoodEnd

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/11/2003 12:31:17 PM · #9

I know that philosophers would to explain the world to us in the past. But they fail to do it. As a consequence we had a new philosophy, called as science.
In the same way I thing that people of diferent ages or cultures tends and are free to do it, to see the things as they want. On each challenge here, we can see people murmuring about your shotÂ´s understanding. They swear that had meeting the challenge theme... but others donÂ´t think it. Least that obvious pics may scape from the "EyeÂ´s Will" phenomenom, I thought. But all in vain! Great obvious shots, the winners, have so that 1 or 2, from people that donÂ´t see the things as we do. They are wrong to think diferently? No, of course! Culture is part of this sense of view. A russian feels freedon diferently from an americam. A brasilian saws soccer as a "essential" thing to live, a budist may disagree.
When I shot, compose music, sing or made speeachs I think, they can undestand it as I can? Had any cultural point that I need to adopt?
When we shot are the same. We shot to a group of people that may or may not undestand our work.

I disagree to PlatoÂ´s, cause he donÂ´t live my live, know my point of view, and he fail to explain the world to us. Definitively perception is not reality!

Message edited by author 2003-12-11 12:33:26.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

12/11/2003 06:52:32 PM · #10

Everyone has such great ideas. Thats the truth of posting something- the replys are great dialogue.

I wasn't "slagging" photography in my post- In fact- I might have been backing digital photography. The "altering" of photos, although not traditional "photography," is essentially still art or at least as valid a form or art. I think I was really comparing it to the other visual arts. WKMEN used the term "transported" A good photograph to me, just like the good impressionist painting transports me more than most photos do. But some photos really let you into what the photographer was thinking- and thats what makes photography difficult.

I am not so good as a photographer and I realize that. I think I am limited by trying to create and compose shots that I do not "see" sometimes. Sometimes I get lucky or put a funny title on a blurry shot. I do know a little about music and composition and I think there is a magic that occurs with music, photography, poetry etc. that is special- it is just that you can get a lot luckier with photography than the others. All arts have masterpieces, and I guess all visual and other arts strive for consistency- but shouldn't we always shoot for the at magic rather than consistency- its seems photographers forget that more than other artists. Thats why I like this site- people have not forgotten and become "robot shutter releasers" walking around and saying- "I must take pretty hotel art picture"

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

12/11/2003 09:00:08 PM · #11

I would have to disagree that all arts strive for consistency. Quite the contrary I think.

Yes, there are schools of thought and style, but even within those seemingly rigid structures, there is a mandate for individualism.

Since the first photographer captured that image of a flower it has continued to be shot. Every person with a camera (or nearly all) have at some time or another taken a picture of a flower.

If they were consistent, or the same, or seen the same etcetcetc, some where along the timeline people would stop taking pictures of flowers. Because we'd be bloody sick of the same damn one over and over.

But we continue to photograph flowers. The eye of every photographer is different, how we feel about the shot, how we want to have our image seen and felt, is different.

The only consistency I see is that of wanting to further the art of photography, to advance it along it's natural course.

Any art form mutates as it is explored.

That is why it is important to support those that do not "see" as you do. Just because it is not a shot you would have taken, or not as you would have it lit, or composed or what ever. Support the fact that it was taken. That is a triumph and an accomplishment in and of itself.

Reality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Message edited by author 2003-12-11 21:02:10.

12/11/2003 10:52:58 PM · #12

[quote=JC_Homola]I would have to disagree that all arts strive for consistency. Quite the contrary I think.

I agree- but I meant each individual paint artist, for instance, or at least many, try somewhat to have "masterpieces" where although photographers try to get thesee masterpieces, it seems more of a pattern in photography to photograph more and more "consistent" in the "portfolio"

If you sent 10 artists and 10 photographers out to take the picture of the exact same thing, or paint it, say, a flower, I still believe the flower looks more like all the rest, and expresses not as much , when the photographers take the shot rather than painters. Thats not to say photography is not as "artsy" or important"- but photography has a different place than painting- more representational- and therefore more difficult to convey the feeling/color and other qualities of painting. Also- The color differences in th eoils will be much more varied and personal than in the camera, and the difference in color among the photos would be more random than a meticulously mixed orange color , for instance, verses the inate camera brand prejudice towards a certain color.

Digital photography will loosen this up- at least in the way of raw, natural looking after shot filters.perhaps

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/11/2003 11:46:45 PM · #13

I've actually had the experience of 10 different photographers shooting the same subject matter (actually 20, but the principle remains)

The end results span the whole range of expression and reflect a wide variety of artistic and scientific styles. This was all shooting the same set of flowers.

Some are documentary, serious, realistic depictions of the flowers.

Others, blur the image, turning it into a soft, rendition of the original.

Still others use slow shutter speeds to give the impression of the wind.

One more shoots straight down, architecturally capturing the structure of the plant.

Another rolls on the ground underneath, giving you a worm's eye view of the giant.

Someone wanders off to the horizon, placing the flower in its environment, dwarfed by the landscape. Another picks it out from a distance using a telephoto lens. One more shoots film, creating an inner halo around the bloom with a multiple exposure. Someone more enterprising gives us a bee's eye view, through an ultraviolet rendition, exposing us to patterns that only insects see normally.

Someone loads infra red film, converting the green trees to white ghosts around the plant. B&W tri-x is used, giving a grainy, film noir view to this sole bloom, highlighting the texture in the petals.

Anyone who tells you flowers are boring subject matter has no imagination.

Anyone who says photography has no place in art has no idea of how to express themselves through the medium.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

12/12/2003 07:22:01 AM · #14

I didn't mean to offend or affront photography as a art form. I guess I am just struggling because I was to SEE more than my aesthetic or talent level allows me to see. I love photography as a creative outlet and as artistic expression-
Gordon- you are very passionate about photography and your talent and appreciation for photography is obvious. Your points are well taken and I can see it from a new perspective. thanks.

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

12/12/2003 10:32:03 AM · #15

Very well said Gordon.
Thank you.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/12/2003 10:32:37 AM · #16

I don't think anyone is offended - you just got some alternative viewpoints.

I would agree that in any medium, if the artist doesn't understand how to use the materials, you'll get boring, unoriginal and similar results. I'm sure after a week or so of lessons in watercolours, or acrylics I could produce workmanlike, average, uninspired pictures of flowers that would look similar to a lot of others from the same people in the class. Sure there would be some differentiation but not much.

The same if you give 10 photographers who've never shot flowers before the same charge.

It takes time, careful study, thought, technical skill and some significant amount of creativity to create interesting pictures of anything. It doesn't happen in a few minutes or in the first couple of frames.

12/13/2003 10:05:32 PM · #17

I did have one thought though and I may be beating a dead horse but... I just realized that when you break it all down- photographers really FIND art more than they Create it. I am by no meaans taking the side of painters- but all the list of different ways to take a picture of the flower above seem to smack of photographic tricks and gimmicks- more so than an artist would use- or at least very rarely does an artist jump around from say pointilism to abstract cubism- but the beauty of photography is that you can without it feeling fake- and a photographer is more often defined by the subject than the genre. I understand the medium- I'm not bored with it - but a photographers greatest tool is creativity in SEEING. All else can be learned technically- this is not really the case in painting. You can see all you want but can't fake a stroke. If you have an eye in photography- you can master the rest or download/go to the one hour photo. In music, if you have no talent- you become a radio staple.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/13/2003 10:21:44 PM · #18

a painting, a sculpture, a quilt, a meal... all forms of art all take time to produce the end result.

a photograph is a snapshot of a split second of time ( in most cases )
you have to see the shot before you take it, you have to have a vision of the end result before you take it, you have to use tools to produce that end result, and in most cases don't have the freedom of time to work with.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/13/2003 10:22:17 PM · #19

Originally posted by blindjustice:

... a photographers greatest tool is creativity in SEEING. All else can be learned technically- this is not really the case in painting. You can see all you want but can't fake a stroke. . .

I think the seeing (and visualizing the transformation into the final form) is the key to all the arts. Sculptors have described the process as seeing the image in the stone, and removing the excess. A composer or improvisational musician has to "hear" the sequence of notes before singing or playing them or writing them down for others to interpret.

"The Stroke" may not be mastered by all, but adapting old technologies or inventing new ones has generally allowed artists to express their vision, if they had sufficient compulsion to express it, rather than repress it as we are most often taught to do (in favor of more "pragmatic" pursuits like banking or insurance); see the film My Left Foot for what I believe is a pertinent example. (Synopsis at the bottom of the page.)

12/19/2003 07:33:21 AM · #20

can't photography be less "representational" - without being gimmicky?

kreybar

Nikon D70

12/19/2003 08:12:42 AM · #21

Less Representative ? Are you suggesting abstraction ?

12/19/2003 01:49:18 PM · #22

maybe sometimes. Abstract photos don't do so well in challenges is all I mean. I guess I understand b/c truly abstract would be tough to place into a challenge- but... maybe

soup

Canon EOS-30D