| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2014 01:04:14 AM · #1 |
Do we make photographs so that we can later look at them in ways that we cannot experience reality as it happens?
Speaking as a photographer, what would it take to get you to walk into a gallery and buy someone else's photograph with your own money?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:15:44 AM · #2 |
I'd never buy a photograph, as I enjoy creating my own.
Frankly, I almost always view photographs solely for the reason that I am looking for ideas.
And yes, I do create them largely so I can go back and look at them in ways I can never experience reality. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 02:02:00 AM · #3 |
| For the awareness you need to take a good one and seeing things that i wouldn't normaly see, for taking that separate edge of life. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 03:03:15 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Do we make photographs so that we can later look at them in ways that we cannot experience reality as it happens?
Speaking as a photographer, what would it take to get you to walk into a gallery and buy someone else's photograph with your own money?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
In mentioning a gallery you beg the question of whether a wall-art print is the preferred way to look at a photograph. I submit it's not, and nor is online display. The best way, the most rewarding way, the most durable way, is printed in a book. Looking at photographs in a book seems to enable a deeper connection, and open a more lasting communication between photograph and viewer. It also encourages repeat viewing, and thus an accumulating appreciation. Spend $200 on a print for your wall, and it'll provide a single note with a fast diminishing return. Spend $200 on a few good books of photographs instead and get a lifetime of stimulation; and every photograph is multiplied by every other.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2014 09:26:13 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Do we make photographs so that we can later look at them in ways that we cannot experience reality as it happens?
Speaking as a photographer, what would it take to get you to walk into a gallery and buy someone else's photograph with your own money?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
In mentioning a gallery you beg the question of whether a wall-art print is the preferred way to look at a photograph. I submit it's not, and nor is online display. The best way, the most rewarding way, the most durable way, is printed in a book. Looking at photographs in a book seems to enable a deeper connection, and open a more lasting communication between photograph and viewer. It also encourages repeat viewing, and thus an accumulating appreciation. Spend $200 on a print for your wall, and it'll provide a single note with a fast diminishing return. Spend $200 on a few good books of photographs instead and get a lifetime of stimulation; and every photograph is multiplied by every other. |
Interesting, I think you have a point.
I don't even like going into photo galleries. Probably because the ones I have ventured into presented rather small (8x10, 11x14) prints by one photographer. Everything is in focus, nothing there for my imagination. I don't even hang my own photographs on my walls. And yet I own several books of photographs & many more are illustrated with photographs. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 12:33:35 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Do we make photographs so that we can later look at them in ways that we cannot experience reality as it happens?
Speaking as a photographer, what would it take to get you to walk into a gallery and buy someone else's photograph with your own money?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
In mentioning a gallery you beg the question of whether a wall-art print is the preferred way to look at a photograph. I submit it's not, and nor is online display. The best way, the most rewarding way, the most durable way, is printed in a book. Looking at photographs in a book seems to enable a deeper connection, and open a more lasting communication between photograph and viewer. It also encourages repeat viewing, and thus an accumulating appreciation. Spend $200 on a print for your wall, and it'll provide a single note with a fast diminishing return. Spend $200 on a few good books of photographs instead and get a lifetime of stimulation; and every photograph is multiplied by every other. |
Interesting, I think you have a point.
I don't even like going into photo galleries. Probably because the ones I have ventured into presented rather small (8x10, 11x14) prints by one photographer. Everything is in focus, nothing there for my imagination. I don't even hang my own photographs on my walls. And yet I own several books of photographs & many more are illustrated with photographs. |
I disagree 100% about the book thing. The photos in books are just a pale reminder of what the actual photo is. There's a quality present in an actual photograph that no printing in a book can capture. It's like saying, "I don't need to see a painting/sculpture/other artwork, there's a picture of it in my Art History book." By disregarding actual artwork and relying on low quality reproductions from books, you're missing out. And despite the great printers out there, no matter how good the printing of the book, it's not going to be as good as a print made by the artist themselves.
A book IS better than an online display which is better than not looking at all, but only just.
There is a lot of crap (not just photographs) being hung out there in gallery/display spaces, but that's no reason to stop looking. As to the size, I don't think many photographers consider what size is appropriate to their work and simply print their images one size because it's easier since they already have the paper, or they have frames/mats in that size or it's "too expensive" to print big.
Some images work better in smaller formats like 2"x3", others demand half of a wall with all sizes in between. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 12:38:42 PM · #7 |
I kindasorta compromise by doing calendars each year for friends, family and clients. I usually keep one for myself too up on the fridge door. One year my parents had a hard time finding a horse calendar for me, and sent me an SPCA one instead. I don't mind supporting a charity, but some of the pics were not exactly that great in the first place, and it was cheaply printed, so it made for some really ucky images. So I began doing my own.
When I do see a photo I do like in a gallery somewhere, I usually look at the pricetag first. Then I take a good look to see how it was lit, composed, pp'd etc. Then I stash that image away as a mental reference point which may influence further shots. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 12:45:22 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Do we make photographs so that we can later look at them in ways that we cannot experience reality as it happens?
Speaking as a photographer, what would it take to get you to walk into a gallery and buy someone else's photograph with your own money?
Inquiring minds want to know! |
In mentioning a gallery you beg the question of whether a wall-art print is the preferred way to look at a photograph. I submit it's not, and nor is online display. The best way, the most rewarding way, the most durable way, is printed in a book. Looking at photographs in a book seems to enable a deeper connection, and open a more lasting communication between photograph and viewer. It also encourages repeat viewing, and thus an accumulating appreciation. Spend $200 on a print for your wall, and it'll provide a single note with a fast diminishing return. Spend $200 on a few good books of photographs instead and get a lifetime of stimulation; and every photograph is multiplied by every other. |
Interesting, I think you have a point.
I don't even like going into photo galleries. Probably because the ones I have ventured into presented rather small (8x10, 11x14) prints by one photographer. Everything is in focus, nothing there for my imagination. I don't even hang my own photographs on my walls. And yet I own several books of photographs & many more are illustrated with photographs. |
I disagree 100% about the book thing. The photos in books are just a pale reminder of what the actual photo is. There's a quality present in an actual photograph that no printing in a book can capture. It's like saying, "I don't need to see a painting/sculpture/other artwork, there's a picture of it in my Art History book." By disregarding actual artwork and relying on low quality reproductions from books, you're missing out. And despite the great printers out there, no matter how good the printing of the book, it's not going to be as good as a print made by the artist themselves.
A book IS better than an online display which is better than not looking at all, but only just.
There is a lot of crap (not just photographs) being hung out there in gallery/display spaces, but that's no reason to stop looking. As to the size, I don't think many photographers consider what size is appropriate to their work and simply print their images one size because it's easier since they already have the paper, or they have frames/mats in that size or it's "too expensive" to print big.
Some images work better in smaller formats like 2"x3", others demand half of a wall with all sizes in between. |
Well then do you have photographs by other photographers on your walls? and what made you reach for your wallet? Inquiring minds are asking! |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:04:07 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ubique:
... the preferred way to look at a photograph ... The best way, the most rewarding way, the most durable way, is printed in a book. Looking at photographs in a book seems to enable a deeper connection, and open a more lasting communication between photograph and viewer. |
How much of this effect can be attributed to the fact that almost all books of photographs contain accompanying text (beyond title, date, location)?
I have 30 years experience in offset printing, and there is no way any halftone reproduction can equal the quality of a well-made photographic print (though with money and effort it's possible to come close). In order to "accurately" reproduce an Ansel Adams image they have to use four different colors of gray ink and a very fine screen ...
However, this only represents a limmitation on the technical quality of a photo -- arguably the least important component of its overall quality or importance -- and a photo book typically does offer the opportunity for more prolonged or repeated contemplation. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:35:43 PM · #10 |
If the quality of reproduction is your criterion for appreciating photography, you need a new hobby. Needlepoint or quilting, possibly.
Photography is not about fidelity, or if it is it's only a minor consideration. I still cheer for the books. Appreciating photography by having 3 or 4 particular favourite prints on your walls would be like trying to appreciate music by repeatedly listening to just 3 or 4 cherished CDs. You'd never see (hear) the big picture, and almost certainly never learn much about photographs or music.
Photography isn't sculpture, nor is it painting. A 6 inch print in a book is just as valid as a 60 inch wall print. What counts in appreciating and understanding photographs is volume. And variety. You need to look at hundreds of photographs, and preferably thousands ... not just a few wall prints about which you are already biased anyway.. Wall prints are just souvenirs. Or public onanism. Books filled with photographs are where the thrills are.
ETA: Sorry General, I was actually replying to Spork but neglected the quote part.
Message edited by author 2014-09-29 13:38:58. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:51:31 PM · #11 |
Paul, I assume you make the same argument about painting, then? Actual paintings vs books of paintings? Wall paintings are just souvenirs, or public onanism? Certainly the key to "understanding" paintings must lie in variety? And quantity?
It's actually the same with needlepoint and quilting, I have to assume. Far better to have lots of books about classic quilts than a couple quilts on the walls, eh?
I'll meet you halfway, mate: you concede that a few favorite prints, paintings, and textiles on our walls aren't an example of public masturbation, and I'll happily agree that the more books, the merrier. But quantity isn't everything; the first-hand experience counts for something too, no?
Message edited by author 2014-09-29 13:51:58. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:54:38 PM · #12 |
No I expressly excluded painting. And sculpture.
As for needlepoint, I assumed (no doubt incorrectly) that fidelity was king there.
As for the onanism, I was just grasping. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:58:51 PM · #13 |
Apropos "Why?", I'm reminded of a 1962 Life Magazine article on America's Cup. The author went around asking all these men and young men racing the boats (this was when they all were amateurs giving up a summer to the cause) "Why? Why do men race sailboats?" And he mostly got self-serving answers that didn't seem worth much to him. Until he talked to a grinder on Ted Hood's "Nefertiti", who gave him the following wonderful answer:
"Well, you see, I'm from Marblehead, and there's the whole ocean in front of you, and you might as well do something with it..."
Yup, that's it. That's why I look at pictures, and why I take them too. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:59:07 PM · #14 |
I need to go back and read everything, so right now I'm only responding to the initial question:
I photograph so I can remember. At least that's why I used to photograph. My memory has never worked well. Sometimes when we go on a trip, and my husband and I discuss it a year or two later, I wonder if we even went on the same trip. He remembers things that have completely left my mind, and they don't even sound familiar. I often wonder, when looking at old photos, if I remember the photos more than the original memory -- but at least it's a link.
So other people's photos never really interested me. It was their memories, and their thoughts. But then again, I didn't have knowledge of the more interesting, artistic photos. Just people's everyday photos.
I still wouldn't buy someone else's photo (most likely), but then again, I've only bought 1 or 2 pieces of art -- ever. I'd just try to recreate the photo with my own twist. when I see something that fascinates me, I don't think "i want it!" I think "I want to do that!".
Since joining DPC, now I'm trying more to create art instead of photography. I lack imagination, and I'm trying to develop it through this site. I'm also trying everything else: experimenting with things I've never done before, learning lighting, learning how to "see things" ahead of time, instead of just noticing a good shot. Perhaps that's why many people find my work too main stream and not funky enough -- I'm trying to do everything at once. But at least I'm having a good time doing it. :)
Now that I typed this up, I realized I answered something more like: why do we photograph. But that's why I look at the things I photograph. :D |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 01:59:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ubique:
As for the onanism, I was just grasping. |
Pun intended? ROFL! I love you, mate :-) |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 02:31:53 PM · #16 |
| I might be useful to remember that a photograph is a pale 2-dimensional copy of the original. Walking through a Frank Lloyd Wright building is not the same as a photograph of some part of it. Hiking through the wilderness is one thing, a photograph of a mountain is not the same. etc. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 02:32:07 PM · #17 |
Robert said "masterbation".
|
|
|
|
09/29/2014 03:29:56 PM · #18 |
The questions:
Why do we look at photographs?
and
Why do we buy photographs?
are two completely different questions.
Why does anyone buy art? Buying a Picasso painting doesn't make it yours. It's still a Picasso painting. The fellow who came up with the term "conspicuous consumption" says we buy art to show off that we are members of the leisure class.
I almost never buy a photograph that's not my own. I would sooner buy a painting because that is at least one of a kind. Trying to create a beautiful one-of-a-kind print of a photograph is good for selling photographs, which I commend, but works against the nature of photography (some artists do make wonderful creations with photographs, but then the photograph becomes the tool of the artist, and we're no longer talking about photography).
On ubique's recommendation, I bought a book called 100 Photographs. My life would be poorer if I skipped that purchase due to concerns about the printed quality of the photos. Part of the job of the publisher is to create worthy reproductions of photos (all photos are reproductions). If the reproduction is not good, it's the publisher's fault. Don't buy that book.
My life would also be poorer if I never went to galleries to see photos. But the argument that a book cannot give a proper reproduction is much weaker for photos than it is for paintings, and even the argument for paintings is not perfect. |
|
|
|
09/29/2014 10:48:01 PM · #19 |
When in high school I worked at the school library, putting books back in the shelves I discovered photography books and I got hooked ... Sometimes in college i would also go into the library and browse a few books, at home we had a summary of greatest images from Life magazine, I loved seeing that book over and over.
Why ????
I do not know I just like it. |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 08:54:01 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by ubique:
If the quality of reproduction is your criterion for appreciating photography, you need a new hobby. Needlepoint or quilting, possibly.
Photography is not about fidelity, or if it is it's only a minor consideration. I still cheer for the books. Appreciating photography by having 3 or 4 particular favourite prints on your walls would be like trying to appreciate music by repeatedly listening to just 3 or 4 cherished CDs. You'd never see (hear) the big picture, and almost certainly never learn much about photographs or music.
Photography isn't sculpture, nor is it painting. A 6 inch print in a book is just as valid as a 60 inch wall print. What counts in appreciating and understanding photographs is volume. And variety. You need to look at hundreds of photographs, and preferably thousands ... not just a few wall prints about which you are already biased anyway.. Wall prints are just souvenirs. Or public onanism. Books filled with photographs are where the thrills are.
ETA: Sorry General, I was actually replying to Spork but neglected the quote part. |
Your analogy of a print made by the photographer to a recording of a CD is horribly flawed. If you must compare photography to music, such a print is akin to a live performance.
Since you insist on music as an analogy, sitting at home thumbing through your CD collection is more like sitting at home thumbing through your photo books, listening for a hint of brilliance through the distortion. Listening to a CD, generally pales in comparison to a live performance.
And, yes, size is important, it's part of the expression on the part of the artist. You can thumb through Avedon's "In the American West", but the images in the book pale in comparison when you are actually confronted by the enormous prints on a wall.
As I said before, photobooks are worth looking at. However to exclude prints, the end expression by the artist, in favor of books is like sitting at home listening to the radio and claiming that's as good as going to the concert. Or, if you prefer another analogy, it's like looking at a tourbook and then not going on the trip because you've seen it all already.
Message edited by author 2014-09-30 08:56:20. |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 08:59:43 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The questions:
Why do we look at photographs?
and
Why do we buy photographs?
are two completely different questions.
Why does anyone buy art? Buying a Picasso painting doesn't make it yours. It's still a Picasso painting. The fellow who came up with the term "conspicuous consumption" says we buy art to show off that we are members of the leisure class.
I almost never buy a photograph that's not my own. I would sooner buy a painting because that is at least one of a kind. Trying to create a beautiful one-of-a-kind print of a photograph is good for selling photographs, which I commend, but works against the nature of photography (some artists do make wonderful creations with photographs, but then the photograph becomes the tool of the artist, and we're no longer talking about photography).
On ubique's recommendation, I bought a book called 100 Photographs. My life would be poorer if I skipped that purchase due to concerns about the printed quality of the photos. Part of the job of the publisher is to create worthy reproductions of photos (all photos are reproductions). If the reproduction is not good, it's the publisher's fault. Don't buy that book.
My life would also be poorer if I never went to galleries to see photos. But the argument that a book cannot give a proper reproduction is much weaker for photos than it is for paintings, and even the argument for paintings is not perfect. |
Is the photograph not the print made by the photographer? |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 10:30:09 AM · #22 |
| do we need a reason or can we just enjoy it? |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 10:38:36 AM · #23 |
| About 4 million people visit Rocky Mountain National Park each year. They ALL have cameras. Because of the difficult light conditions at high elevation, typical tourist image captures are extremely disappointing to them. (blown highlights and detail lost in shadows). Mostly, it's because most visitors capture their images between 10am to 4pm. I sell a lot of wall art in my gallery because people want to take home a memory of their visit to RMNP. They are willing to spend money on something for their walls that reminds them of what they saw with their eyes, but were unable to capture a great photo of same. |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 10:45:26 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Is the photograph not the print made by the photographer? |
No. Especially not a digital photograph. I go online to get prints made. Does that make me not a photographer? |
|
|
|
09/30/2014 01:04:08 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Is the photograph not the print made by the photographer? |
No. Especially not a digital photograph. I go online to get prints made. Does that make me not a photographer? |
The question wasn't, "Are you a photographer?".
If I make a print, on my printer or in the darkroom it's not a photograph, but if it gets printed in a book, it is? |
|
