| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2014 03:50:45 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 04:08:20 PM · #2 |
| oh. I thought this was about the macro challenge. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 04:36:41 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by tnun:
oh. I thought this was about the macro challenge. |
Me. too! |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 04:36:44 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by tnun:
oh. I thought this was about the macro challenge. |
You made me spit up my coffee |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 05:10:59 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by tnun:
oh. I thought this was about the macro challenge. |
Me. too! |
Macro challenge is about not having bugs. The guy who wrote that definitely has a bug somewhere, and it's not well lit. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 05:16:56 PM · #6 |
| Read the article, and totally disagree with the author. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 05:45:47 PM · #7 |
| ... is no way to go through life. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 05:52:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
...The guy who wrote that definitely has a bug somewhere, and it's not well lit. |
Truer words were never spoken! |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 05:54:43 PM · #9 |
| You have to admit he makes an indisputable point at the end: "A photograph is not a Rembrandt!" (snicker) |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 07:30:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You have to admit he makes an indisputable point at the end: "A photograph is not a Rembrandt!" (snicker) |
but a toothpaste is |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 08:27:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You have to admit he makes an indisputable point at the end: "A photograph is not a Rembrandt!" (snicker) |
We certainly have a bias against modern post-art, however it isn't fair to compare arguably the best portrait painter ever to other paintings, let alone photographs. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 08:28:01 PM · #12 |
Double post. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2014-11-13 20:28:38. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 08:33:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You have to admit he makes an indisputable point at the end: "A photograph is not a Rembrandt!" (snicker) |
We certainly have a bias against modern post-art, however it isn't fair to compare arguably the best portrait painter ever to other paintings, let alone photographs. |
Are you trying to tell me that Yousuf Karsh and Richard Avedon aren't up to Rembrandtian standards? (more snickering) |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 08:39:15 PM · #14 |
| someone give the bear a decent chocolate bar. |
|
|
|
11/13/2014 11:49:23 PM · #15 |
I agree with the author.
A few years ago I attended a Picasso exhibition and just days later an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson photographs. Two masters, two of my heroes ... what a week!
But after Picasso the HCB photographs were indeed flat and soulless, and my decision to see them in the same context so soon after Picasso was indeed stupid.
The photographs remained as interesting in the gallery as they had been when I'd first seen them in books or on a screen. But they had no presence as objects, they were simply large versions of interesting photographs, most of which I'd already seen ... and so already experienced all they had to offer.
I'd also seen many of the Picasso works before, reproduced in books and on screens. But that was no preparation for the mesmerising, even staggering (I felt like I was falling, several times) effect of seeing them as original objects. So at the second exhibition I felt embarrassed for HCB, and embarrassed to be looking as his work in the same context as the Picasso works.
Flat and soulless, as a characterisation of the comparison, was inescapably fair.
Picasso didn't capture his paintings, he created them. And when they're seen as originals, you understand that difference.
As much as I do love photographs (and in general I love them more than I do paintings, though for different reasons), they're not the same as paintings in a gallery context. It's delusional to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2014 12:08:36 AM · #16 |
I'll leave the snickering behind (thanks for the chocolate bar, Tnun), and say I'm in complete agreement with Ubique here. Not so much the original author. Why? Because the author of the article is being snide and dismissive, his attitude rankles me. But Paul, on the other hand, expresses the distinction beautifully, and even compassionately. I've had the same experience, many times. When you're in the presence of a real masterwork by a great painter there's a visceral *wholeness* to the thing that no photograph I've ever seen can begin to approach, and woe betide any photographic exhibition that happens to fall on the heels of that.
But they are, of course, different things. I don't suppose, if it comes to that, that any painting has ever been made that can equal for sheer, jaw-dropping, enthralling *immediacy* a master sculpture like, say, Michelangelo's "David".
Everything has its place and its time. Nobody sings like the castrati used to either, or not for long :-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 03:25:54 AM · #17 |
Yes agree Bear. I meant that I agreed with the author regarding the lesser presence and significance of a photograph in comparison with an original painting, because the soul and visceral depth of a painting resides only in the original, and is accessible in no other way.
I don't agree with him that it is necessarily 'stupid' to exhibit a photograph in a gallery. But it's just another reproduction, and not an object in itself.
Photographs live best in a book or magazine, or on the side of a bus. Their appreciation is not expanded by gallery display of large prints, unless you have very poor eyesight. |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 06:51:17 AM · #18 |
| i dont know, i think a peter lik gallery is pretty impressive. |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 07:04:53 AM · #19 |
I think the biggest problem with the idea of photography as art is the noise from things like Instagram and Facebook, where a "great picture viewed by millions" has nothing to do with the art of photography.
What truly bothers me is the authors decision to compare Rembrandt to an exhibition of a year's worth of contest winning photographs hung in a gallery, and then using that to prove his argument. Even I would agree with the premise. It would be like spending a year surrounded by the landscape paintings sold in those "Starving Artist" shows and then walking into a show by Ansel Adams - the impact on the soul would be the same.
I'm sure that for every great masterwork that hung in gallery in its day (not that they did that) there were thousands that faded away quickly after initial acclaim, and so it is here. But does the fact that technology has allowed the number of hacks per master to increase exponentially, or the number of absolutely ignorable photos number beyond anything we can witness in a lifetime, invalidate the art form or its value in "gallery wall space"?
Perhaps the problem is that there are so few who would choose to spend time meditating ANYTHING of beauty any more, so when they do they put a special emphasis on the things they value above all others? |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 09:16:23 AM · #20 |
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs
Not all paintings. Not all photographs. There is a spectrum. YMMV
I only clicked on this forum because of the forum title. I thought Tanguera was offering another critique of my work. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 04:25:39 PM · #21 |
| a gallery of photos is a photo essay. I saw an exhibit on Lewis Hine in Rochester, and it was the cumulative effect of the photos that got me. Very very very rare is a "painting essay" |
|
|
|
11/14/2014 05:15:40 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
... is no way to go through life. |
The Dean is in the house! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 06:29:11 AM EDT.
