Boring photos!

[Retro-Grouch]

I said all photos, and as I say all photos, I mean all photos.

Seriously, I disagree. There are some photos that I could live with on my wall, and never tire of. They possess layers of mystery and beauty that seem to go on forever. Likewise with some paintings, of course.
I will concede that there are elements of facture in a painting that are pretty much not available in a photograph, and those are further pathways to engagement. But I wonder whether your sentiments (which I know are commonly shared) might reflect long standing cultural biases that value paintings more than photos? Ultimately, as objects on the wall, regarded with as few preconceptions as possible, I think both are equally interesting (or boring, as the case may be!) over the long haul.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'm often amazed at the number of men who own cameras, but don't actually like photography. If painting is superior, then what are you doing here? There are some nice painting forums out there you can join.

I've never said I didn't like photography. I like it a lot. But painting is art on a much higher level. Paintings cannot be digitized without a huge loss of important visual information. This is much less true for photographs.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Paintings cannot be digitized without a huge loss of visual information. This is much less true for photographs.

This is very true; digitization is the great leveler, unfortunately, and the pervasive use of it makes us forget how important it is to see the originals of either. But I don't see how a medium's vulnerability to degradation via digitalization is an intrinsic measure of it's worth or interest. Painting and photos are two-dimensional visual media that have little in common in their physical nature beyond that. They certainly can and do influence each other, but I think each is best appreciated on its own terms. Apples and oranges.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've never said I didn't like photography. I like it a lot. But painting is art on a much higher level. Paintings cannot be digitized without a huge loss of visual information. This is much less true for photographs.

You think very poorly of it, so why are you doing it?

I have no idea why you think that digitization has anything to do with the worthiness of any form of art. Sculpture cannot be digitized at all, aside from photographing it, and a photo can only show part of a three dimensional work; is sculpture a lesser art, too? Computer graphics are purely digital; is that the highest form of art?

 

[Erik van Straten]

You think very poorly of it, so why are you doing it?

I have no idea why you think that digitization has anything to do with the worthiness of any form of art. Sculpture cannot be digitized at all, aside from photographing it, and a photo can only show part of a three dimensional work; is sculpture a lesser art, too? Computer graphics are purely digital; is that the highest form of art?

I do not think poorly of it, but by its nature is photography reproducible, painting is not. A photograph that is well reproduced in a book is still a photograph, but a painting reproduced in a book is not a painting, but a reproduction.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Ya got your Elvis on Black Velvet, and then ya got your Weston pepper. I know which one I'd want on my wall!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I do not think poorly of it, but by its nature is photography reproducible, painting is not.

And that no relevance at all. None. You should tell all those art museums around the world that photography is inferior so they can stop wasting wall space displaying it and money collecting it. You're so much more clever than they are.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I do not think poorly of it, but by its nature is photography reproducible, painting is not.

Reproducibility is not a measure of value, or lack of it. This idea is a residue from a pre-mechanical age that ascribed value based on the degree of hand labor used to produce an object. As well, some of the greatest performances of music are saved on recordings and reproduced each time we listen to the recording. The same piece of music can be played live by a bumbling amateur. To which do you give more value?

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Passionate discussion is good, but we're edging toward incivility here...

 

[Erik van Straten]

Passionate discussion is good, but we're edging toward incivility here...

The difference between the copy and the original is in this discussion essential. Yes, digital copies are the same as the original. But digital reproductions of hand made paintings are not the same as the original.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

This issue, and its cultural ramifications, were explored in depth almost a century ago by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, an essential and valuable read for anyone in the arts, and perhaps more relevant in our digital age than ever. His premise (and I do not do it justice) is that the new technologies that enable us to reproduce an image (preeminently but not exclusively photography) have irreversibly altered our relationship with art, and not just new art produced since their invention, but all art, including that of the past.
We can mourn the fact that there are now millions of reproductions, in every form, of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, used to sell everything from bath soap to porn. We can mourn the trivialization of the world's great artworks through their endless reproduction. Benjamin mourns that fact, and oh, how do I as well! But he makes the point that this is the new reality, and our art will have to reflect that. Perhaps that's the reason that photography became the hot medium of the late twentieth century.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

The difference between the copy and the original is in this discussion essential. Yes, digital copies (....) are the same as the original. But digital reproductions of hand made paintings are not the same as the original.

I think you meant "digital copies (of photographs) are the same as the original" Not quite, of course. And to add fuel to the fire, and further complicate that thought, there was an article in LensWork a few years ago wherein the publisher discussed the ability of current publishing technology to reproduce photographs with a longer tonal scale and richer blacks than are feasible in any silver-based print, with resolution that equals that of the print even under high magnification. His question (perhaps unanswerable) was whether analog photographers should now see an ink-based reproduction, created by direct scan of their negatives, as the ultimate print, one that can only be created by working with printers using extremely expensive reproduction means only available in the publishing industry? Who is the creator, and what is the medium, at that point?
Another can of worms to ponder... In the end, I try to put it all out of my mind and make the photographs that bring me joy. Maybe even boring ones.

 

[Rikard]

This issue, and its cultural ramifications, were explored in depth almost a century ago by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, an essential and valuable read for anyone in the arts, and perhaps more relevant in our digital age than ever. His premise (and I do not do it justice) is that the new technologies that enable us to reproduce an image (preeminently but not exclusively photography) have irreversibly altered our relationship with art, and not just new art produced since their invention, but all art, including that of the past.
We can mourn the fact that there are now millions of reproductions, in every form, of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, used to sell everything from bath soap to porn. We can mourn the trivialization of the world's great artworks through their endless reproduction. Benjamin mourns that fact, and oh, how do I as well! But he makes the point that this is the new reality, and our art will have to reflect that. Perhaps that's the reason that photography became the hot medium of the late twentieth century.

This very point was brought forward by John Berger in the BBC series ways of seeing. It's a rather good series.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The difference between the copy and the original is in this discussion essential. Yes, digital copies are the same as the original. But digital reproductions of hand made paintings are not the same as the original.

A digitized silver gelatin print, polaroid print, bromoil print, tintype, cyanotype, etc. is absolutely NOT the same as an original. Not even close. In fact, only digital photography produces an original digitized photograph, and even then its appearance depends upon the characteristics of the monitor it is view on; and if you print it, there are so many options for inksets and papers.

 

[Rikard]

They say that to create great art you need the hand, the eye and the heart. I think this is true both for photography and painting. And there are quite a few photographs I wouldn't mind on my walls. Pictures I love and admire. But there are paintings out there that speaks directly to my soul. Paintings that squeeze my heart or slaps me in the face. Or with a whisper nudges my perception on reality in a new direction. I have not found quite the same with photography, but I'm searching, constantly. And I do enjoy making pictures, both with the camera and the brush.

 

[qqphotos]

I'm beginning to have flashbacks to the course I took on Walter Benjamin, which is a funny thing to run across on a photography forum, along with authoritative-sounding pronouncements about the relative value of art forms.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I'm beginning to have flashbacks to the course I took on Walter Benjamin, which is a funny thing to run across on a photography forum, along with authoritative-sounding pronouncements about the relative value of art forms.

Academics make a career out of sounding authoritative. Students are enamored of it, and it doesn't even matter whether the pronouncements are BS.
But really, you took a course on Benjamin, and photography wasn't mentioned? Maybe that proves the authoritative pronouncement I just made.

 

[qqphotos]

Academics make a career out of sounding authoritative. Students are enamored of it, and it doesn't even matter whether the pronouncements are BS.
But really, you took a course on Benjamin, and photography wasn't mentioned? Maybe that proves the authoritative pronouncement I just made.

No, of course it was, it's just funny to see "photography is inferior to painting because it is reproducible" pop up here of all places. But more than that it was just the abruptness and confidence of the declaration! Anyway, I have no horse in this race, I am happy to go on with my ultimately pointless personal photography of the things I see and leave it to others to decide if it's "worth" anything.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

No, of course it was, it's just funny to see "photography is inferior to painting because it is reproducible" pop up here of all places. But more than that it was just the abruptness and confidence of the declaration! Anyway, I have no horse in this race, I am happy to go on with my ultimately pointless personal photography of the things I see and leave it to others to decide if it's "worth" anything.

I have seen a lot of amateur photographers state such drivel on online photo forums. A lot more on Photrio than on RFF, which is ironic because Photrio has amongst its regular posters a large number of very well known fine art photographers. I think honestly the attitude comes from jealousy.

 

[Bill Clark]

Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

It’s true. When a client looks at the photographs they see them differently than you and/or me. It’s because they have an emotional attachment to the people in the pictures.

As long as they are happy, then I’m happy.