|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/02/2004 03:45:20 PM · #1 |
"The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity."
- Alberto Giacometti
Photography seems to be the red-headed stepchild in the art community in a lot of cases. Around here, the issue of 'reality' is tossed about all the time. The people who make photos are greatly divided on what is and isn't 'acceptable' it seems. One camp prefers purely random imagery pulled straight from the camera, as is, unedited, and presented to the public. Another camp prefers enhancing the original image to bring certain elements that exist into the forefront. A third camp enjoys using a photograph (or photographs) to create something entirely beyond what may be considered 'real'.
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance, and this, and not the external manner and detail, is true reality."
- Aristotle
A painter starts with a clean canvas. Each stroke of the brush allows the artist to 'create' anything they like. Are they concerned with making their final production look 'real'? Maybe.. maybe not. Does it matter?
The sculptor chisels away from a stone block. Each tap of the chisel removes a piece of stone that blocks the artists 'vision'. The resulting three-dimensional art may or may not look 'real' when it's completed. Does it matter?
Photographers, on the other hand, are stuck in a world of reality. Each snap of the shutter captures something that is completely based in reality. The photographer may be able to use some creative exposure controls to distort that reality. Is motion blur 'reality'? When I go outside at night, I don't see long streaking light trails along the highway. Painting with light also is a pretty extreme distortion of reality if you look at it in a literal sense. What is real?
Photographic arts go beyond 'reality'. A photographer uses images captured with a camera as a building block for a finished work. Each individual photographer will generally draw his own line as to what is acceptable. Whatever it takes to complete the idea is acceptable.
Why should a photographer be restricted? Other art forms, where the results are completely 'fictitious' are never ridiculed for being unrealistic.
My question to you is:
Why can't photography be considered a form of art where the artist is not bound by some preconceived notion of reality?
Note: Please don't drag photojournalism into this discussion. Reality in photojournalism is a given.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2004 03:55:20 PM · #2 |
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance, and this, and not the external manner and detail, is true reality."
- Aristotle
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried that in a current challenge & was very please with myself. A photo that said something....had meaning. Some praised it, some insulted it, in the few comments I got so far. But the score tells me the majority didn't accept it. Could have done without the insult though. One word can cut like a knife. I wish people could comment more thoughtfully.
Message edited by author 2004-04-02 15:57:19.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2004 04:53:47 PM · #3 |
| I agree with everything you say, and I would like to add one small point. You stated, âIs motion blur 'reality'? When I go outside at night, I don't see long streaking light trails along the highway.â It seems to me that, at least for some people, a photo with a bit of blurring may be closer to ârealityâ than a photo that contains an extremely sharp image of a frozen moment in time. Time does not stand still, and reality is what we perceive it to be. I think you would agree that not all people see things in exactly the same way. I personally have a hereditary eye disease called Retinitis Pigmentosa (or RP for short). It is a retinal degenerative disease that may eventually cause blindness (I hope not because then my photos will suck even more than they do now.) My mother and one of my half brothers are both legally blind. Luckily, my own eyes are still pretty good. I have better than 20/20 vision with my glasses, and I only need them for reading. However, one of the symptoms I do have, at least to some extent, is decreased visual acuity at night. At times I actually do see an effect similar to âtrails along the highway.â |
|
|
|
04/02/2004 10:01:22 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Other art forms, where the results are completely 'fictitious' are never ridiculed for being unrealistic.
|
John,
This is a wonderful observation.
The simple answer to your question is that of course photography can be considered a form of art which is not bound by reality.
However, to explain this would necessitate an investigation into the "who" of the question. "Who" does the consideration? "Who" are qualified to make such deliberations? Unlike in the photographic media industry, where standards such as jpg, tif, colour spaces and so on exist, there are no such rigid and standardised measurements of actual photographic content. Putting it bluntly, if photographer X says that abstract photographs are acceptable and produces some which achieve acclaim, then that is enough.
There is a very confused argument in the photography world about aesthetics. It runs, photo A has no aesthetic merit, therefore it is not a good photo. (Photojournalism aside.) Pretty images do far better and are accepted far more readily than ugly ones. However, this is not an argument for aesthetics.
Aesthetics deals with beauty and taste. "Whose" beauty? by what standards? by which definitions? "Whose" taste? Photography which doesn't address questions of beauty or taste can't be assessed aesthetically. Some photos stand outside the realm of aesthetics.
Aristotle's dogma is also questionable. How do artists represent their inward significance without first addressing their own concept of the art object's significance? And how can an inward significance be represented without some reference to the outward form? Tentative answers to these questions suggest that any representation of a real object must necessarily reflect some concept of the artist, and that there is no clear split between external manner and detail.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 03:13:55 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My question to you is:
Why can't photography be considered a form of art where the artist is not bound by some preconceived notion of reality? |
Who says it can't ? The questions suggests it cannot, but is that statement true in general ?
(p.s. let's not go into a discussion about the rules and behaviour on this site, or what kind of rules people put upon themselves, that is something different IMHO).
|
|
|
|
04/03/2004 09:21:44 AM · #6 |
Photography IS art.
It is its own particular brand of reality based art very much like painting is. Creating images with paint and brush has been around a lot longer and has evolved more but photography has found its place. Photography is evolving too.
The photo artist creates using perspective, the rule of thirds, composition and a host of other tools to present reality in a new way to make something beautiful or to make a statement.
A digital image is the photographer's paint. Photoshop is the photographer's canvas.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2004 07:19:52 PM · #7 |
hey john,
this is exactly what i have been trying to explain in the last month or two... i guess when it is coming from you it is taken more as a professional observation than when it was coming from me as i tend to be little harsh when i try to explain things my own way.. thanks for posting such a great idea...at least people will consider it twice before disregarding it since it is coming from you...kudos...
here are other discussion related to this idea:
photographic integrity??
photos that looks photoshopped but they arent...
analysis of creativity...and eveything else...
Message edited by author 2004-04-05 19:25:38. |
|
|
|
04/05/2004 09:17:59 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by willem:
(p.s. let's not go into a discussion about the rules and behaviour on this site, or what kind of rules people put upon themselves, that is something different IMHO). |
Unfortunately, when you are outside the context of DPC, nothing really matters. You can do whatever you want :)
|
|
|
|
04/05/2004 10:10:13 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
"The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity."
- Alberto Giacometti
...Why should a photographer be restricted? Other art forms, where the results are completely 'fictitious' are never ridiculed for being unrealistic.
My question to you is:
Why can't photography be considered a form of art where the artist is not bound by some preconceived notion of reality? |
I prefer Giacometti's quote. It's less analytical and useful to those with an interest. What's interesting also is the acceptance of more than one reality at the base of his observation. To Giacometti, there is no split.
What you, John, call 'ficticious' (although you rightly qualified the term by inserting quot. marks), may, on closer examination, turn out to be representative of -or even a manifestation of- hard facts after all. I'm thinking of articulations of perceptions, the play of the mind, natural metaphors etc. Since these occur, not rarely but frequently in nature and human nature alongside chairs, rocks and tables, why not see them as part of the grand fabric?
No matter what we do though, it will be ridiculed, diminished, imitated, discredited and what have you. Every time, someone creates something extraordinary and admirable, there will be ten to pull it down - which is a good thing too. Let the many put their fist through the works of the few - it'll only prove what's what. If a work is sound, it'll withstand such negligible impact. If it's rotten, let it fall.
Nature (hell, what other measure of anything is left us?) is one (big) reality, and you and I (I swear!) are part of it, including those things we cannot always wrap, label or sell.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2004 11:36:11 PM · #10 |
I think an image needs to be somewhat cohesive, create an interest, stir emotion, display beauty or make a statement with something ugly, communicate to, challenge the viewer to see or be more than before they first viewed it to be 'successful' if it can do this with an image that is realistic that's wonderful. If they can do it in an abstract manner bravo for enhanced creativity!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/11/2025 01:47:37 AM  |
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: 06/11/2025 01:47:37 AM EDT.
|
