| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2009 05:13:48 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by JEason:
Exactly, photography is an art and as with any art, there are no boundaries. |
Photography is a craft. It can be done using artistic elements or as an art but not always.
Doh! BIG Can O Worms. LOL
Question: Could The Rule of Thirds be considered a boundry? |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 05:49:02 PM · #27 |
Seems close to the photographic equivalent to John Cage's 4'33 to me.
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 17:51:31. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 05:52:42 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Not everone considers photography to be an art form.
Some photographers are dominated by the camera & lens. For them, photography has a boundary created by the traditional use of the equipment.
Some photographers are dominated by the subject of the photograph. These are the categories we use to sort photographs--Street, Landscape, Animal, Still Life, & Portrait photography. For them, photography has a set of boundaries created by their chosen subject.
These are 2 boundaries of photography I can think of right now. |
Well, to me those boundaries seem like they are put on by the photographer not the photography itself. Those photographers dominated by equipment can always change and see it as an art, and street photographers can always shoot landscapes. It's not put on by the act of photography but the person IMHO. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 05:54:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by JEason:
Exactly, photography is an art and as with any art, there are no boundaries. |
Photography is a craft. It can be done using artistic elements or as an art but not always.
Doh! BIG Can O Worms. LOL
Question: Could The Rule of Thirds be considered a boundry? |
This does make sense to me because one can use photography to document but again that is a boundary placed by the photographer. The wedding photographer can and most of the time does shoot fine art photography. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:01:07 PM · #30 |
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. The artist's title for the work, 'Mind Field', was well chosen.
The image itself, at the time I first saw it in person, was surprisingly beautiful. The softly graduated tones and the remarkably biological blush of color somehow stilled the viewer for a moment. A long moment, in my case. And the small size was important to that effect; you had to get in very close to view it, pretty much forcing a one-on-one experience.
Interesting that the adjudicator is regarded as a particular authority on the subject of the 'conservation of images'. I initially though that ironic, but of course it's actually not. And that turns out to be another notable thing about this work; that most of your first impressions about it have to be re-thought.
I was deeply impressed by the adjudicator's elegantly economical description of it; 'a transient image that questions our understanding of what a photograph is and what it is for; the work is about seeing and not seeing, about touch and not touching'.
The issue for the gallery now is how to treat the print for posterity. Display it and accelerate its 'deterioration'? Store it as normal and merely prolong its agony? Never show it at all, store it in total darkness and thus 'protect' it? Or would that be to betray it?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:06:33 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ubique:
The issue for the gallery now is how to treat the print for posterity. Display it and accelerate its 'deterioration'? Store it as normal and merely prolong its agony? Never show it at all, store it in total darkness and thus 'protect' it? Or would that be to betray it? |
I'd say display it. In my view (photography as a craft/art) it is not completed until someone views it; as with music, theater, poetry, literature, or paintings. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:19:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by JEason:
Originally posted by ubique:
The issue for the gallery now is how to treat the print for posterity. Display it and accelerate its 'deterioration'? Store it as normal and merely prolong its agony? Never show it at all, store it in total darkness and thus 'protect' it? Or would that be to betray it? |
I'd say display it. In my view (photography as a craft/art) it is not completed until someone views it; as with music, theater, poetry, literature, or paintings. |
If I was in charge, I would display it & encourage photography of it. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:20:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JEason:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Not everone considers photography to be an art form.
Some photographers are dominated by the camera & lens. For them, photography has a boundary created by the traditional use of the equipment.
Some photographers are dominated by the subject of the photograph. These are the categories we use to sort photographs--Street, Landscape, Animal, Still Life, & Portrait photography. For them, photography has a set of boundaries created by their chosen subject.
These are 2 boundaries of photography I can think of right now. |
Well, to me those boundaries seem like they are put on by the photographer not the photography itself. Those photographers dominated by equipment can always change and see it as an art, and street photographers can always shoot landscapes. It's not put on by the act of photography but the person IMHO. |
Yes. Boundaries exist in the mind, & change is an ever-present possibility. |
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:21:26 PM · #34 |
Art gallery debates whether or not to display art.
Good example of the sort of mental masturbation that consumes the minds of most self-proclaimed fine art critics.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 06:23:02 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ubique:
The issue for the gallery now is how to treat the print for posterity. Display it and accelerate its 'deterioration'? Store it as normal and merely prolong its agony? Never show it at all, store it in total darkness and thus 'protect' it? Or would that be to betray it? |
In my view the displaying of the image is the essence of the piece with the deterioration the key. The image is just a fleeting moment in time.
As the adjudicator stated âitâs about seeing and not seeingâ exactly what will happen to this image if displayed.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2009 07:05:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
Art gallery debates whether or not to display art.
Good example of the sort of mental masturbation that consumes the minds of most self-proclaimed fine art critics. |
I wonder if anyone's bothered to actually read the Braille -- maybe it's a list of instructions as to what to do ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-03-09 19:05:52. |
|
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: 09/06/2025 02:03:45 AM EDT.
