| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2002 08:23:39 AM · #1 |
"In photography there is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality." - Alfred Steiglitz
Click Here to learn more about Alfred Steiglitz...
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 08:32:14 AM · #2 |
Frankly, to me, this sounds like one of those quotes that make "art" look silly and self-important.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 09:04:40 AM · #3 |
I don't think I understand what you mean...
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 11:05:37 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I don't think I understand what you mean...
Out of context, using a phrase like "more real than reality" is illogical and meaningless, with the implication that only the enlightened priesthood can understand or see the "truth." It is a way of mystifying art rather than explaining it, and it sounds pretentious because it suggests that the speaker "knows" some mystical truth, and the listener, presented with something on its face non-sensical, is made to feel stupid and ignorant.
It's similar to the technique used in medicine: it sounds more impressive to say "the rubor and pruritis; the vescicles and bullae with marked edema suggest a cell-mediated delayed hypersensitivity reaction" than to say "you have poison ivy."
In context, with additional definition given to words used in uncommon ways, the quotation might make perfect sense and be very educational, but isolated as it is it comes across as hifalutin... |
|
|
|
10/29/2002 11:21:12 AM · #5 |
I didn't take it that way... hmmm... my take on it was that Steiglitz was possibly implicatintg that the camera sees things that we don't. When we are strolling about in day to day life, we see things. When we photograph those things, the photo image causes us to stop and look with some higher level of attention that just a casual passing. When viewing a photo, we are forced to see detail, or lack of, that we would normally overlook.
During my short existence in the photography hobby, I am learning to look at things with more than just a casual glance. I believe that I am noticing things... this hidden reality... that I have not seen before...
I believe that Steiglitz's 'reality' represents the casual view... the 'more real than reality' is the further study of an image...
just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 11:25:21 AM · #6 |
To me this quote underlines the ability of a photograph to amplify something that would most probably be missed by the vast majority of people, were it seen in reality; hence giving it more meaning and symbolism than otherwise would be perceived.
A small note, I think that elit, in any field or profession, always is more enlitened; that what makes elit elit.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/29/2002 11:26:14 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/29/2002 11:28:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 11:57:29 AM · #7 |
| I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, just the way it's presented, and why some people take it as pretentiousness. Most "pithy" quotations come across that way, and they do invite further thought and exploration of the meaning behind the words. But I think most people just want you to tell them what's up and consider such quotes as hifalutin... |
|
|
|
10/29/2002 01:44:30 PM · #8 |
As the General has expressed so eloquently, the issue I have with this is as a standalone quotation.
By itself, the quotation is clearly nonsense. Anyone with a shred of commonsense understands that nothing can be more real than reality. The "reality" expressed by a photograph may become something OTHER than reality (possibly even something "better", more sublime than reality), but it can NEVER under any circumstances become more real than real. My youngest graddaughter understands that, and for any artist to claim it as so simply brings that artist and the art itself into disrepute because the claim is both silly and appears self-important.
I have enormous respect for Steiglitz as a photographer, and I can only assume that he went on to define more precisely what he meant. THAT would be more interesting that the preposterous claim suggested by this single sentence.
I hope I have clarified my previous post. Those who are not so materialistic in their philosophy may find their mileage varies.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/29/2002 1:42:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 01:58:32 PM · #9 |
I usually look for underlying meanings in quotes.. that's why I chose this particular quote today. I like to read between the lines sometimes... I'm not a literalist :)
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 01:59:56 PM · #10 |
| Well, guys, If I read right, Steiglitz was something a bit 'hifalutin'. He came here from Europe to teach us that Photography can be High Art. If you look at his early work it is clearly mimicing 19th c. Romantic & Impressionist paintings. Latter he is part of the group of painters and photographers who were introducing Abstrationism and cubism. As photographers they were looking for pure form underlying reality. Hence the 'more real that real'. |
|
|
|
10/29/2002 06:17:55 PM · #11 |
It was that whole group of abstractionist and cubists (whom I admire greatly as artists) who "elited" themselves away from the general populace with their pompous theories and manifestos.
If they had chosen to express themselves in more generally understood language, instead of trying to abuse the language that already existed by saying such things as "more real than real" (by which most of the people are far too sensible to be taken in), I suspect they would be more popular than they are today.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 06:45:39 PM · #12 |
When I first read the quote I just sort of sat here, eyes blinking, confused. As I read the comments it started to make sense. We don't always see reality in all it's entirety or clarity and a photograph can pause a segment of time and allow more scrutiny enabling us to see the reality clearer. that's the part I agree with, the flip side of that is since we have the ability, through photography to alter the image with filters, color enhancements, weird perspectives, and so on, to alter reality and create something entirely different. This is often preferable but it still isn't reality. I think I understand the quote but I agree it sounds kind of prententious or elitist.
T
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 07:06:24 PM · #13 |
This is a really funny thread. Every time someone puts a quote, there are no doubt people who are offended and used the word "elitist" :)
I don't personally believe in reality :) Reality is perceived. What is real? How do you define it? Is reality what you "see"? After all, the human eyes play tricks on the mind all the time, so defining reality based on what the eyes sees is just a bad definition of reality.
First of all, a camera can never capture what the eyes sees. Why? The eyes see things in conjunction with the brain and more importantly, MEMORY. The eyes can sense and detect details in the darkest and the brightest of the scene, the camera can only capture +/- 2 F stops from the exposure point, all other details are washed out.
Maybe what he meant by it was that a photograph captures what a photographer's vision is, which makes it seem more "real" than what otherwise might be seen by a normal person. But I contend that whatever image you make, it will be LESS real, though it may strike a good note in the person that views it. A good image is typically quite simple, reality is not. If one tries to capture reality in a photograph and crams a ton of scenery or details into a photograph rather than just simple elements, it's typically less effective.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 07:28:27 PM · #14 |
Huh? I used the word elitist but I am in no way offended. I have my opinions and I also have the choice of being offended or not. This is kind of like the statements people make where if they know that you do not agree with the gay lifestyle then you must be afraid of that lifestyle. Fear has nothing to do with it. What's funny is how so many people make these kinds of connections. It's just a matter of having different opinions and preferences.
Of course we have different perceptions of reality but I think much of that has to do with the meanings we apply to things based on our learning experiences. But if we are strictly talking about how a scene looks to our naked eyes and seeing that same scene in a photograph, the photo can come real close because they both are being viewed from the same pair of eyes. We saw it live first so it is easy to fill in the blanks when we view a photograph of it later. With the photo you have the added benefit of seeing things that you didn't notice before which can make it seem better then reality. All things are relative and that's how we have a general understanding of reality.
T
|
|
|
|
10/29/2002 11:37:55 PM · #15 |
| I read this quote and thought it was both eloquent and inspiring. Steiglitz was a true master and in his work he was capable of capturing images which essentially became metaphors, and an eloquent metaphor is capable of conveying a deeper (an perhaps even "more real") understanding of reality than can be conveyed by the literal. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 07:11:09 AM EDT.
