What they capture in their photos is a perversely distorted world...

to clarify it once more... this quote is out of a novel from t. bernhard.

so it hasnt to be 100% his opinion. as far as i remember he liked august sander and man ray.

sorry, should had put some more informations about the background in the first post.



the question is: does photography turns nature into a grotesque?
and what is the difference to other kind of arts?

i think there are 2: a painting e. g. can show different aspects of a subject. so a more complete picture of it. while a photograph is so limited to such a restricted moment and view.

and a painting obvisiosly shows that the picture is a product of the artist. so it not only shows the subject, but also includes the artist itself in the picture too and so gets relativised and set in relation to the artist.

there is a difference, if you look ugly in a painting, or you look ugly in a photograph.

with a painting you says: this is my view of the world.
and with a photograph: this is the world. but as this is untrue, it turns into a grotesque...
 
Peter_wrote: said:
of course painting or sculpture may be distortions too. but i think there the artist obviously shows, that this is his point of view. it is much easier to hide yourself behind a photograph and to claim, that this is the reality and THIS is the world.
Click to expand...

this is a very clever thought Peter. I think when people ask if photography can be art (or "fine art") they have it in their mind that a photograph is wholly representative of reality and the world. Understanding that a photograph is not something you can hide behind, but is the manifestation of the photographers p.o.v. like any other art form is how to explain it as art—not just glimpses of the world.
 
I think this is the absolute best description of photography I've ever seen, and I 100% agree with it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention OP!
 
Mr_Toad said:
Not that I'm trying to stir the pot, but I have similar feelings as Mr. Bernhard when I see some of the images taken by Bruce Gilden.
Click to expand...

maybe gilden is something like the t. bernhard of photography 😉
first u think " what a ****".
but by overdoing an effect he relativises it, and makes in this way a statement about photography itself.
 
BobYIL said:
bernhard.jpg


Nice to meet you Mr. Bernhard 😛
Click to expand...

Great portrait!
 
Peter_wrote: said:
to clarify it once more... this quote is out of a novel from t. bernhard.

so it hasnt to be 100% his opinion. as far as i remember he liked august sander and man ray.

sorry, should had put some more informations about the background in the first post.



the question is: does photography turns nature into a grotesque?
and what is the difference to other kind of arts?

i think there are 2: a painting e. g. can show different aspects of a subject. so a more complete picture of it. while a photograph is so limited to such a restricted moment and view.

and a painting obvisiosly shows that the picture is a product of the artist. so it not only shows the subject, but also includes the artist itself in the picture too and so gets relativised and set in relation to the artist.

there is a difference, if you look ugly in a painting, or you look ugly in a photograph.

with a painting you says: this is my view of the world.
and with a photograph: this is the world. but as this is untrue, it turns into a grotesque...
Click to expand...


If this is photography, and I fear in common view this is photography today, then yes if does turn nature and everything else into a grotesque - a caricature for our amusement.

We can do a lot of that when we trip the shutter too and I've huge empathy for the notion of photographers looking for subjects as compared to enthusiasts looking to share their enthusasm.

Best

Mike
 
Peter_wrote: said:
the question is: does photography turns nature into a grotesque?

with a painting you says: this is my view of the world.
and with a photograph: this is the world. but as this is untrue, it turns into a grotesque...
Click to expand...

Nicely said.

Though perhaps it isn't the photograph that's grotesque, but the assumption that the photograph represents the world.
 
Practitioners of photography are guilty of one of the worst crimes it is possible to commit--of turning nature into a grotesque. ~Thomas Bernhard


Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. It is a major force in explaining man to man. ~Edward Steichen
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
What he's saying about photographs being portrayals of the photographer and distortions of the real world is correct, but not unique to photography. I'd argue that to be true of painting and sculpture too.
Click to expand...

Or, for that matter, of life itself in a philosophical sense.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in fact everything is in the eye of the beholder. The number of truths is infinite because every observation is an interpretation of something we perceive.

Can't see why I should not depict my observations, like others relay them in speech, sound, behavior, etc.

Mr. Bernhard is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine: much ado about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom