Did the Photographic Era Cause the Beginning or the End of Art??

Did the Photographic Era Cause the Beginning or the End of Art??

  • Enabled Art

    Votes: 45 32.1%

  • Destroyed Art

    Votes: 8 5.7%

  • Yawn

    Votes: 87 62.1%
  • Total voters
    140
Photography changed the "conventiional" value of realism. It stands to reason that something easily attained is less precious than something difficult to acquire.

A painting demonstrating "photographic" realism is still extraordinary but more as an oddity or a measure of craftsmanship since "photographic" images in general are now ubiquitous.

Along the same line, I understand Napolean owned some aluminum utencils which in his day was extraordinary, but today, these items are only extraordinary because of their age and connection with Napolean.
 
It's been about 3 years ago since I read Alfred Stieglitz biography. At the beginning of his career as a photographer he was a staunch advocate for photography as being an art form. Painters from Europe, primarily from Paris failed to see photography as an art form even arguing vehemently against it. Toward the end of his life & career He became quite bitter & I find this quote by Stieglitz pretty much sums it this way.

"Photography is not an art. Neither is painting, nor sculpture, literature or music. They are only different media for the individual to express his aesthetic feelings… You do not have to be a painter or a sculptor to be an artist. You may be a shoemaker. You may be creative as such. And, if so, you are a greater artist than the majority of the painters whose work is shown in the art galleries of today."
 
I do think art was enhanced by photography, but I must say your friend in premise #1 is wrong, there were many much greater artists before Picasso. He was just another joker that happened to be in the right place at the right time. Turner, Caravaggio, Gentileschi are all before photography and were definitely not playing to the choir (like Picasso).
 
gb hill said:
That...& an on going affair with a 20 something woman named Dorthy Norman is enough to wreck havoc on any man's mind. He loved Georgia, but became so infatuated of the youthfulness in Dorthy's body....well let's not get off the subject which is art!:D
Click to expand...
Oh, do keep going, Greg: this is part of the whole piece, for better or worse!


- Barrett
 
amateriat said:
Oh, do keep going, Greg: this is part of the whole piece, for better or worse!


- Barrett
Click to expand...
Barrett I would start another thread discussing this very subject but for the life of me I wouldn't know where to post it! Members only I suppose!:D
 
Far fetched...

Far fetched...

I think that both the points suggested in the original post are somewhat far fetched.

There has been a subtle interplay and influencing of each by the other, but certainly not to the extremes suggested.

Ernst
 
Before photography the vast majority of people didn't know what their great grandparents looked like. So it's got that going for it.
 
Absolutely missing an answer.

The two positions are both based on straw-man arguments. Please repoll with a "yawn" answer. (or don't bother... ).
 
William Turner and Thomas Girtin changed art the art of painting by 1800, John Constable by 1820.
Photography wasn't invented until 1840.
Photography became a part of art, as a discipline, painting's equal, influencing it and being influenced by it.
 
These arguments presuppose that art is already dead. And that is not true. They're also extremely simplistic, as OhTwo and Juan already proved. They're also based on a weird idea of art (seen here as vehicle of representation only).

In truth, and as Roger hinted at, art is fundamentally expressive and individualistic, which allows the styles of El Greco, Italian Mannieristas, Goya and his blurry outlines (especially in his late work), not to mention the work of Dutch painters like Rembrandt, VanDyck and even Van Gogh. If anything, photography came to integrate itself into the inventory of means of representation and posed a challenge to academic, established art, but in no way did it come to "end" with it. In fact, considering this line of argumentation would be akin to say that film killed literature, and that sound recordings killed music.

Nick, you're a lot smarter than your friend. Examine the ideas offered here and you'll see what most of us above have noticed.
 
Last edited:
Photography freed art from convention, representation, and allowed it to soar on its own.

Two readings I highly recommend are Balzac's "The Unknown Masterpiece", and Dore Ashton's book, "A Fable Of Modern Art". Srart with Balzac first.

As well, have a look at the later paintings of JMW Turner.
 
Last edited:
My honest vote was for "yawn".
This is a very old discussion topic.
Good for you, though. Keep it alive.
 
Matus said:
I think it did not. I think that the rise of photography and modern art was just a coincidence :p
Click to expand...

Wow... where did this old thread come from?
As for Matus, this is untrue. Photography influenced fine art (painting, sculpture), this is clearly the case as the invention of photography which could recreate reality perfectly in 2-D gave rise to more abstract forms of painting.

@Jan - Yes... Buy a camera, point it at something, snap off a frame. Simple art that even I can do... which is why I chose it as my "art" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom