DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Why? Why do we look at photographs?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 48 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/30/2014 01:22:06 PM · #26
Here's a thought, fresh from the frying pan.

Photographs are an instance of the greater reality. In a way, each photograph is about all of us. That explains why we look at photographs, because it's about us, about individually whoever is looking at it. Information. Which is why I don't hang photographs on my walls. Also why I enjoy them very well in book format. Other things I can hang on my walls are more about their abstract qualities of texture, color, emotion, imagination, the way they respond to changing light in the room.

To get a photograph that goes beyond an instance of the greater reality requires a moment of genius combined with luck. And great skill in post-processing.
 09/30/2014 05:38:00 PM · #27
Originally posted by Spork99:
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?


those are all photographs.

John Berger talks about the reproducability of art, how reproduction allows everyone to see masterpieces and therefore museums are more about fetishizing a piece of art than looking at it.

He wrote that before the Internet.

09/30/2014 10:26:17 PM · #28
I have a photo of my family hanging on my wall. I took it with my point and shoot and had it printed on canvas. It's the first thing I see when I walk in the door.

I also have this photo hanging on my wall, and it is not mine:



I'd have paid him for it but he wouldn't let me. I don't tire of it. I really quite enjoy having it there.

That said, I also have made a bunch of books - usually to commemorate and event or trip or activity of some kind, and mostly to give to others. I like those, too.

I also like seeing pictures float by on my desktop background. And seeing with people post on Facebook. I guess I just like looking at pictures in general, and quite like them in any form!
 10/01/2014 04:56:29 PM · #29
Originally posted by ubique:
A 6 inch print in a book is just as valid as a 60 inch wall print.

I really can't fathom this at all. As someone whose work lends itself much more appreciable in large formats, it simply isn't true. There are so many images that just don't work 'til you go big.
 10/01/2014 05:01:37 PM · #30
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ubique:
A 6 inch print in a book is just as valid as a 60 inch wall print.

I really can't fathom this at all. As someone whose work lends itself much more appreciable in large formats, it simply isn't true. There are so many images that just don't work 'til you go big.


Size matters? :P
 10/02/2014 10:39:29 AM · #31
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spork99:
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?


those are all photographs.

John Berger talks about the reproducability of art, how reproduction allows everyone to see masterpieces and therefore museums are more about fetishizing a piece of art than looking at it.

He wrote that before the Internet.


He's wrong about that.

When photographs of far away and exotic places like the Pyramids started being published, there were some that claimed there was no longer any need to travel to see and visit those sites anymore, they could instead be visited through photographs.
 10/02/2014 11:20:21 AM · #32
Originally posted by Spork99:


He's wrong about that.

When photographs of far away and exotic places like the Pyramids started being published, there were some that claimed there was no longer any need to travel to see and visit those sites anymore, they could instead be visited through photographs.


Ah, yes, so tourists are going to travel 3,000 miles to a museum to see a big, juicy high-resolution print of a photograph that they see in a book. Your analogy mocks your own point.
 10/02/2014 11:23:42 AM · #33
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ubique:
A 6 inch print in a book is just as valid as a 60 inch wall print.

I really can't fathom this at all. As someone whose work lends itself much more appreciable in large formats, it simply isn't true. There are so many images that just don't work 'til you go big.


I think the answer to your absence of fathom is that we are looking for quite different things from a photograph, Jeb. I don't need anything larger than the page of a book to appreciate the things that thrill me. In fact for me many photographs are diminished by extravagant size and excessive presence; the things that are most flattered by physical size are qualities that I prefer to be absent in a photograph.

10/02/2014 11:49:20 AM · #34
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spork99:


He's wrong about that.

When photographs of far away and exotic places like the Pyramids started being published, there were some that claimed there was no longer any need to travel to see and visit those sites anymore, they could instead be visited through photographs.


Ah, yes, so tourists are going to travel 3,000 miles to a museum to see a big, juicy high-resolution print of a photograph that they see in a book. Your analogy mocks your own point.


It's not just 3000 miles, why should anyone travel anywhere? NYC? It's just a few hundred miles, but there are bazillions of photographs, so why go? Same with Chicago? Or how about the National Parks? aren't picture books good enough? Why would you actually go see Yellowstone or Yosemite, the Grand Canyon or anyplace when instead of spending all that gas money, you can buy the book? Or better yet, just search Google Images for free...no need to even leave the couch...ever. Well, maybe for Twinkies and a beer.

Maybe people wouldn't go 3000 miles to see one print, but plenty of people will drive hours to see a whole show of an artist's work. Or drive across the state to see a concert instead of sitting at home listening to their CDs.
 10/02/2014 12:24:49 PM · #35
Originally posted by Spork99:

Maybe people wouldn't go 3000 miles to see one print, but plenty of people will drive hours to see a whole show of an artist's work. Or drive across the state to see a concert instead of sitting at home listening to their CDs.


I'm not doing John Berger justice. Everyone should read his book "Ways of Seeing"

CDs is a great example. For a hundred years, we've been able to listen to the best performances of our favorite songs. This necessarily changes the meaning of a live concert.

What happened to storytellers? TV.

What happened to going out with your friends? smartphone.

What happened to photo books? Kindle.

Will there be libraries in twenty years? I don't know.

Mostly I'm interested in redefinition. I'm interested in why we do things that we don't have to do.
 10/02/2014 04:53:45 PM · #36
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spork99:

Maybe people wouldn't go 3000 miles to see one print, but plenty of people will drive hours to see a whole show of an artist's work. Or drive across the state to see a concert instead of sitting at home listening to their CDs.


I'm not doing John Berger justice. Everyone should read his book "Ways of Seeing"

CDs is a great example. For a hundred years, we've been able to listen to the best performances of our favorite songs. This necessarily changes the meaning of a live concert.

What happened to storytellers? TV.

What happened to going out with your friends? smartphone.

What happened to photo books? Kindle.

Will there be libraries in twenty years? I don't know.

Mostly I'm interested in redefinition. I'm interested in why we do things that we don't have to do.


A CD is much less interesting than a live performance. It gets music out to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it, but it's sterile and dead compared to an actual live performance. Unless the performer is just lip-syncing to an auto tuned recording.
 10/02/2014 07:40:15 PM · #37
Originally posted by ubique:


I think the answer to your absence of fathom is that we are looking for quite different things from a photograph, Jeb. I don't need anything larger than the page of a book to appreciate the things that thrill me. In fact for me many photographs are diminished by extravagant size and excessive presence; the things that are most flattered by physical size are qualities that I prefer to be absent in a photograph.


I tend to agree. Yet it is interesting to think about the role of size/scale in our apprehending a work of art. Would I be as happy with a postcard of large Rothko painting as standing in a room with one? Not strictly analogous, I know but interesting to think about. Interesting to look at differently sized printings of the same photograph. Perhaps not all that healthy to display and examine all our photographs in the dpc format...
 10/02/2014 07:50:11 PM · #38
Originally posted by Spork99:


A CD is much less interesting than a live performance. It gets music out to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it, but it's sterile and dead compared to an actual live performance. Unless the performer is just lip-syncing to an auto tuned recording.


Perhaps overstated. A live performance includes the response of the audience - not the applause but the reverberations which informs the performers. And listening to canned music can be intensely inspirited depending on the listener. It is a little like the tree falling in the forest: so long as there is someone to receive, there is a work of art.
 10/03/2014 03:06:20 AM · #39
maybe we consume photographs in books, but absorb photographs on walls?
 10/03/2014 09:07:05 AM · #40
I think that looking at this in a wide-spread/everybody-in-the-same-basket way is entirely limiting and as such will never produce an answer that people can agree on.
I think the reasons for looking at a photograph are as varied as the reason to do anything else - ultimately it is a personal choice with a desired effect:
do i want to look at pictures of far away places to plan for a vacation that isn't going to be boring?
do i want to look at pictures of my family who have passed away to remember time spent with them and life lessons taught to me?
do i want to look at erotic images to be stimulated?
do i want to look at serene land/seascapes to be calmed?

To think this can be summarized down to a single cohesive thought is like truly believing that there is No Other Form of Life, anywhere, except for what we have on our little ball of dirt and water, hurtling through space. And they've already said they found fossilized remnants of bacteria on Mars....
 10/03/2014 06:30:11 PM · #41
Originally posted by pixelpig:
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?


Bringing this thread around to a question asked in the original post, I actually have purchased photograph by another photographer from a gallery using my own money, even though I do enjoy making images myself and even though I have a number of my own photographs framed and displayed at home.

Why? The topic goes beyond photography to the questions of why purchase any kind of art. Years ago, I attended an artist presentation at a community gathering about the importance of art in everyday life, how acquiring and enjoying artwork can be life enhancing, how doing this can be very affordable, and why supporting artists by purchasing art is important in sustain the art community and enhancing community life as well as our own individual lives. That talk shook up my thinking. Art does not have to be left for only the super wealthy to own. Really, we often have the opportunity to buy a genuine piece of art when our usual instinct might be to buy some mass-manufactured item. This goes for decorative art on the wall (original photos, paintings, weavings, and the like instead of poster reproductions, for example) and for objects in daily use (artist-made mugs, plates, placemats instead of mass merchandise items, for example). Often, hand-made art can be obtained at a price similar to well-made commercial items (and sometimes at lower cost). And yes, accomplished artists often acquire artwork by other artists. Wall space has limits, but there are many options for art in daily life about the house.

My purchase (direct from the artist's own gallery) was an interesting composition of water running through a crack in red rock with yellow leaves strewn about the moist surface. I probably could replicate it, if I had the time to hike many miles to the location at just the right time of year and wait for just the right light and weather. But that was not going to happen, and realistically would have cost me more than the price of the purchase (in gas, hotels, lost work time, etc.), and wouldn’t have been my own original idea. I liked the image for artistic value, and still enjoy noticing various nuances even after having it on display multiple years. I appreciated the originality compared to typical documentary images, but I also liked the image as a reminder of visiting that part of the southwest. And, yes, part of the decision was facilitated by a motivation to help support in some small way an artist and “the arts” with a purchase that I could afford (admittedly, price did affect which item and size I purchased). Lots more enjoyable and longer lasting than a comparably priced major engine tune-up, for example.
10/04/2014 07:37:11 AM · #42
Might be an interesting exercise to count up how many pieces of art hang on the walls of our homes (photographs and other forms, yours and by others), and how many other kinds of art are displayed in other ways or are objects for daily use. Beautifully crafted musical instruments can be included. Do your own acquisitions (gallery or not) point to answers for the broader "what would it take" question?
 10/04/2014 12:37:17 PM · #43
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Spork99:


A CD is much less interesting than a live performance. It gets music out to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it, but it's sterile and dead compared to an actual live performance. Unless the performer is just lip-syncing to an auto tuned recording.


Perhaps overstated. A live performance includes the response of the audience - not the applause but the reverberations which informs the performers. And listening to canned music can be intensely inspirited depending on the listener. It is a little like the tree falling in the forest: so long as there is someone to receive, there is a work of art.


Or, to put it another way, the CD is missing the interaction between the artist and the audience. The two interact dynamically and make the performance unique from any other while the CD is missing that.
 10/04/2014 01:21:24 PM · #44
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Spork99:


A CD is much less interesting than a live performance. It gets music out to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it, but it's sterile and dead compared to an actual live performance. Unless the performer is just lip-syncing to an auto tuned recording.


Perhaps overstated. A live performance includes the response of the audience - not the applause but the reverberations which informs the performers. And listening to canned music can be intensely inspirited depending on the listener. It is a little like the tree falling in the forest: so long as there is someone to receive, there is a work of art.


Or, to put it another way, the CD is missing the interaction between the artist and the audience. The two interact dynamically and make the performance unique from any other while the CD is missing that.


CD's of live performances?
 10/04/2014 02:42:44 PM · #45
So is listening to the FM radio the equivalent to looking at photos from 30 year old film badly stored, developed and digitally printed, then scanned and displayed on a tube TV?
 10/04/2014 06:31:51 PM · #46
A photograph that only just documents reality is like a video made by a cellphone from the movie screen, replayed on a standard definition TV. If I'm going to buy a photograph, then it has to create its own reality. Or in other words it has to offer more than just its subject. Like this:

10/04/2014 08:09:32 PM · #47
if a picture ( photograph ) really is worth a 1000 words. it's the viewer that thinks of those words. and the presentation will be different to each viewer. the medium that picture is presented in really doesn't matter if the viewer is able to take something away from the picture.

whether it's on your wall, in a book, or in a gallery ( i'll exclude online - as that isn't a really a valid representation of any visual art ). it's really the viewer that dictates whether it's worth money, a second view, etc.

so the photograph ( picture ) need only speak for itself. and the viewer will or will not attest to its point of view.

Message edited by author 2014-10-04 20:11:46.
 10/04/2014 08:37:06 PM · #48
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Spork99:


A CD is much less interesting than a live performance. It gets music out to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it, but it's sterile and dead compared to an actual live performance. Unless the performer is just lip-syncing to an auto tuned recording.


Perhaps overstated. A live performance includes the response of the audience - not the applause but the reverberations which informs the performers. And listening to canned music can be intensely inspirited depending on the listener. It is a little like the tree falling in the forest: so long as there is someone to receive, there is a work of art.


Or, to put it another way, the CD is missing the interaction between the artist and the audience. The two interact dynamically and make the performance unique from any other while the CD is missing that.


CD's of live performances?


Those are often more interesting than studio albums, but still the same.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 10:02:09 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 10:02:09 PM EDT.