PKR
Veteran
I must agree. Photography is just another media. I think some of the confusion may be based on the reality (and more now than ever with digital) anyone can take a picture that will be recognizable to others. Drawing, Painting take a bit of talent and some time to learn. Many of our best photographers are/were, former/current painters. who also use a camera .. HCB, Jay Maisel.. the list is long.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Art Carney died a few years ago. I guess that settles it then.
PKR
Veteran
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i have the feeling your friend or whoever invented that two-choice rubbish, just took Picasso's famous statement about him discovering photography literally, and projected it on the rest of the world.
He would be laughing his a$s off reading such nonsense.
He would be laughing his a$s off reading such nonsense.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The appearance of cubism you can not attribute to one single factor like photography. This is a logical fallacy. Things changed radically in art styles all the time, way before photography appeared, due to all kind of developments or decays in the human society. The ONLY way to test the validity of such a strong causality would be to copmpare with (at least one) another world that is the same like ours except has no photography. Any other way to do it is just phantasy.
The fact that counterexamples exist make it even weaker.
But the way you put the question - two options, bot extreme influence - is typical to you as we know you from rff so i am not surprised at all
I had a Photo-Cube. Was great for type 88 Polaroid pictures, was also good for Instamatic 126 prints.
Photo-Cubes went out with the demise of amateur square-format film. I do not think many 120 and 220 users display their images in photo-cubes.
Photo-Cubes went out with the demise of amateur square-format film. I do not think many 120 and 220 users display their images in photo-cubes.
PKR
Veteran
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
@ Pherdinand:
The final selection of works is by Picasso. The collection showcases Boy With a Pipe, 1905, from the artist’s "Blue Period". Study of the artist’s collection of photographs indicates that his Blue and Rose periods may have been inspired by blue-tinted cyanotype prints of the time. Picasso also took a great many documentary and ethnic photographs which he later used in developing his cubist style. In looking at his work and the earlier work of Gaugin, you can easily see that the foreign influences on European art would never have been as strong had it not been for access to photography.
Rarely does an exhibition convey as clear a vision of artists' thought processes as this one. Not only does the exhibit juxtapose source materials, studies and completed works, it also compares different artists from this dynamic period and effectively shows how each used photography to a different end. What becomes immediately apparent is that the camera has profoundly influenced the very concept of "modern art." The use of the camera forever changed the way artists perceive the world and their role as artists.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...phy&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
This quote:
The use of the camera forever changed the way artists perceive the world and their role as artists.
Is the key to the argument. Prior to the invention of photography, the artists role was to do the camera's job. The degree of accuracy between subject and object painting was the measure of the artist. This was not "art" per se, but "skill".
This photography caused these technicians that we incorrectly call "astists" - they were "painters", to react to new technology by moving toward abstraction, modern art, which is art. Prior to this, if we were moved emotionally at a painting, we were moved by the scene itself (Christians weeping at scenes of the crucifixion... etc.) and/or the skill at which whatever object was represented (though this is more admiration than it is an emotional response).
The painters weren't using the medium to try to communicate anything. Therefore, prior to the advent of modern art - a reaction to the emergence of photography which ate their lunch (literally), there were no "artists" only "painters". They were documentarians, not artists, skilled as though they may be.
For this reason, photography is not art. Photographers are not artists, they are photographers. Painters are painters, not artists in the same way "illustrators" are not artists - a distinction no one ever questions. No artist existed prior to the advent of Modern Art, which is art, and which was a reaction to the introduction of new (at the time) technology. Picasso and his contemporaries were the first artists, and had it not been for he and his contemporaries, "painters" might well have been rendered obsolete by photography. They went from "painters" to "artists". Today, no one wants to be a "painter", they my take jobs as "illustrators" but show their "art" in art galleries, which is certain to be abstract, which would not have been the case had it not been for Picasso and other abstract paintings, who made art in reaction to the advent of the camera that rendered their skills at painting - not making art, obsolete.
The final selection of works is by Picasso. The collection showcases Boy With a Pipe, 1905, from the artist’s "Blue Period". Study of the artist’s collection of photographs indicates that his Blue and Rose periods may have been inspired by blue-tinted cyanotype prints of the time. Picasso also took a great many documentary and ethnic photographs which he later used in developing his cubist style. In looking at his work and the earlier work of Gaugin, you can easily see that the foreign influences on European art would never have been as strong had it not been for access to photography.
Rarely does an exhibition convey as clear a vision of artists' thought processes as this one. Not only does the exhibit juxtapose source materials, studies and completed works, it also compares different artists from this dynamic period and effectively shows how each used photography to a different end. What becomes immediately apparent is that the camera has profoundly influenced the very concept of "modern art." The use of the camera forever changed the way artists perceive the world and their role as artists.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...phy&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
This quote:
The use of the camera forever changed the way artists perceive the world and their role as artists.
Is the key to the argument. Prior to the invention of photography, the artists role was to do the camera's job. The degree of accuracy between subject and object painting was the measure of the artist. This was not "art" per se, but "skill".
This photography caused these technicians that we incorrectly call "astists" - they were "painters", to react to new technology by moving toward abstraction, modern art, which is art. Prior to this, if we were moved emotionally at a painting, we were moved by the scene itself (Christians weeping at scenes of the crucifixion... etc.) and/or the skill at which whatever object was represented (though this is more admiration than it is an emotional response).
The painters weren't using the medium to try to communicate anything. Therefore, prior to the advent of modern art - a reaction to the emergence of photography which ate their lunch (literally), there were no "artists" only "painters". They were documentarians, not artists, skilled as though they may be.
For this reason, photography is not art. Photographers are not artists, they are photographers. Painters are painters, not artists in the same way "illustrators" are not artists - a distinction no one ever questions. No artist existed prior to the advent of Modern Art, which is art, and which was a reaction to the introduction of new (at the time) technology. Picasso and his contemporaries were the first artists, and had it not been for he and his contemporaries, "painters" might well have been rendered obsolete by photography. They went from "painters" to "artists". Today, no one wants to be a "painter", they my take jobs as "illustrators" but show their "art" in art galleries, which is certain to be abstract, which would not have been the case had it not been for Picasso and other abstract paintings, who made art in reaction to the advent of the camera that rendered their skills at painting - not making art, obsolete.
PKR
Veteran
"but show their "art" in art galleries, which is certain to be abstract, which would not have been the case had it not been for Picasso and other abstract paintings, who made art in reaction to the advent of the camera that rendered their skills at painting - not making art, obsolete."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
historicist
Well-known
That sounds like an interesting exhibition, but it's too simplistic to attribute all this just to the camera - the link you provide explicitly states that there were other influences. Plus the philosophical basis of non-representational art (Kant etc., you mention them above) significantly predates the introduction of photography. Nor does it explain why a similar trend away from representative forms occurred at the same time in the applied arts, which cannot have been affected by photography in the same way.
The exhibition definitely has a point, but it's overly reductionist to explain modern art as the result of the invention of the camera.
The exhibition definitely has a point, but it's overly reductionist to explain modern art as the result of the invention of the camera.
Sparrow
Veteran
Oh I don't know, all them renaissance chaps started using perspective as soon as Galliano invented the telescope
PKR
Veteran
Oh I don't know, all them renaissance chaps started using perspective as soon as Galliano invented the telescope
Camera Obscura. Like a pin-hole camera, that projects into a room. A canvas was placed on the wall and a tracing was made. The traced information would be a "map" for painting. A very popular device for accurate perspective among painters in the old days. Now they take photos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
Sparrow
Veteran
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Nick,i disagree with that. Take the works of Vermeer, or Rembrandt. The light that they knew to paint so well (and that makes their works masterpieces, works of ART, or craftmanship, call it whatever you like,) does NOT have to represent real light in the scene at all.
They did not jus ttry to copy reality as good as they could - they did MUCH MUCH more than that.
These painters know what is an efficient way to get reaction out of a viewer, which is often combining different scenes from real life (which is done even in many abstract artworks of the current century),and often exaggerating or creating lighting scenes and color combinations that are NOT real but do influence our feelings when it is put in front of us in the right way.
Or take, as an example, the colors artists like van Gogh used, pink sky and such are not exactly copies of the reality.
So -with some exceptions of course- the idea that earlier "artists" were not artists bu just good copiers of our environment (or us) is simply not true.
Art style is, on the other hand, public driven (or at least strongly influenced by the public). Any artist that does not admit this, the fact that he works to please the public, up to some level, is either lying or naive.
They did not jus ttry to copy reality as good as they could - they did MUCH MUCH more than that.
These painters know what is an efficient way to get reaction out of a viewer, which is often combining different scenes from real life (which is done even in many abstract artworks of the current century),and often exaggerating or creating lighting scenes and color combinations that are NOT real but do influence our feelings when it is put in front of us in the right way.
Or take, as an example, the colors artists like van Gogh used, pink sky and such are not exactly copies of the reality.
So -with some exceptions of course- the idea that earlier "artists" were not artists bu just good copiers of our environment (or us) is simply not true.
Art style is, on the other hand, public driven (or at least strongly influenced by the public). Any artist that does not admit this, the fact that he works to please the public, up to some level, is either lying or naive.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
simply wrong.
PKR
Veteran
No need to be sorry Stewart.. I think i know the liquid .. kind of yellow-green in color, packaged in a tall glass vase-like container?
This thread is peppered with humor..
p.
NickTrop
Veteran
Nope. Simply right - I'm 100% correct, as always. That stuff in those "Adult Comics" is not art. They're illustrations. - not art. Photography, not art for the reasons outlined and for the same reason illustration is not art.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
that belongs maybe to the art of seducing. I dont know what you are tlaking about.
But of course you are always right. Now i just ahve to convince you to say what I say and the world will not end in a singularity then (that would rise due to you being wrong
But of course you are always right. Now i just ahve to convince you to say what I say and the world will not end in a singularity then (that would rise due to you being wrong
PKR
Veteran
Maybe this will help .. maybe not PDF link from MOMA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...xLycCg&usg=AFQjCNFflVikIfNciQA_1j9RgOiHqp2cEg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...xLycCg&usg=AFQjCNFflVikIfNciQA_1j9RgOiHqp2cEg