Hmmm, I can't help wondering what we'd say and where we would end if we treated all postings on RFF like we have treated this article.
Why do our basic principles of politeness fly out of the window? I could tear a lot of post to shreds if I wanted to but usually don't but this poor guy gets it in the neck just for saying what he thinks and feels; just like the rest of us do.
Regards, David
PS I might make an exception for smart phones and their so called cameras...
You get the vision of a mob and torches, rope and a tree.
Jones certainly knew what the reaction to his piece would be, so it might even be considered performance art in itself. Or "Troll Art" LOL He's pushing buttons provocatively, to considerable effect. Yet, as you say, it's a not uncommon view:
"Photography is a miracle of the modern world. It gives us instant visual information from all over the planet and far beyond. It is a unique documentary record of our own lives, a simple source of creative pleasure and fun. I just wish people wouldn’t put it in art galleries."
They very fact people "go off" to this degree when directly confronted by the view proves the debate is far from dead, but in fact a sensitive subject.
I won't be surprised if he is physically attacked at some point over the issue.
Who paints any more, and how long has it been since a painter was taken seriously as an important figure? Or novelist, or poet?
This week the most celebrated cultural news in the U.S. concerned a celebrity who displayed her large, oiled behind. There was heated debate about whether her behind, or the behind of another celebrity, was more attractive.
The top selling cameras are phones, used to transmit experiences immediately. The Fuji Instax line is also doing very well. My children and their friends, 20s to 30s, appreciate the kind of photos we take as artifacts, sometimes cool ones. I don't know that any of them has an opinion about paintings. At least they've never expressed one to me.
I used to paint, draw, and write poetry. One the surface photography is certainly 'easier' than those, but producing an excellent print of a worthwhile composition/capture/view is about equally difficult to producing an excellent work in another medium. As to the viewing experience in a gallery or museum? I prefer something that opens to a world that's not quite familiar. More often than not that's a photo or three-dimensional work; sometimes it's a painting.
I suspect there are more painters than ever, but as you note, their relevancy is eclipsed by a world inundated with "mechanical reproductions of reflected light", as George put it LOL
It's like Custer's Last Stand for "painting" and obviously the indians are not amused by the tall blonde with the pointy beard.
I was wondering why he is comparing a 17th century painter to 21st century photographers? These are different time periods and he should've compared it with a contemporary painter.
I was wondering the same thing, but what's he saying is that some very famous shooters are directly emulating Caravaggio, and he finds the exercise quite flat.
While I don't agree with all that Jonathan Jones says in his article he does go some way towards making a good point.
They way photography is presented nowadays goes all out to be superficial. Take for example the number of 'how big can I print' questions that camera forums get. It seems size is everything and has taken over from any sort of consideration of the viewer.
Look closely at detail in a 30x40 print and you cant see the whole picture, stand back and your peripheral vision picks up the adjoining pictures and people walking between you and the picture. So the eye skims the picture, tries to get an impression before moving on to the next.
But you are left with a superficial impression, was the picture about something other than detail? Was it just about the overall composition? What was the cultural or political message (that's where the catalogue comes in useful)?
So what has changed? Well it is so easy now for photographers to have very large prints made, and it seems like a knee jerk reaction to do it. But there are some photographers such as Michael Kenna who still care about the 'human scale' and intimacy, and still print small (by modern standards) pictures. And it is this intimacy that is lacking and what I think Jonathan Jones is getting at. It's not about size, because one large picture on a wall and nobody else in the room would give you intimacy with it, allow you to study it, to think about it.
But a wall full of large pictures and others you can see from the corner of the eye, plus people, are a distraction and nothing feels 'special'. Compare that with coming close to look at a smaller Kenna print, Blakemore, Adams, and it is a one-to-one relationship. You can only take it in from head on to start with, it is too small to absorb in a sideways glance while walking past. And then there is the exclusion of people and other pictures, which forms a closer bond to the viewer and the picture.
So yes, large prints are generally speaking the 'Emperor's New Clothes' of modern photography, and while clearly there are good reasons for them some of the time, the size of a print and how it is presented should be thought about far more than 'how big can I print'.
V
I find this an interesting post, and it brings to mind an incredible piece of kit I recently acquired which may be a landmark in digital photography.
L1024536 by
unoh7, 5K
So far digital photography is a promise only half fulfilled, that is, you can capture a very detailed image digitally but you really need to go analog for detailed display past a certain size.
Our hero JJ, says we should just be given iPads to look at interesting shots: not really so silly if you have seen a retina iPad.
But the iMac above can display a M9 shot very close to full rez at a pretty good size, 27". In person it's simply stunning. True, the color gamut is not at the level of a fine print, but it's pretty dang rich.
Around here analog is King, which I think is fine, but JJ's thoughts on how photography is displayed along with V12's post above bring these developments to mind.
The article resonated with me. Perhaps because I don't want to consume art in photography the same way as I would do other expressions. Perhaps also because too many photographers consider themselves as artists or producing art. I don't really give a da*n whether or not photography is an art form; it can be used to produce art. I just don't want to use the same reference points as I would for a painting. I will say one thing though - most of what I see on this forums or others is not art. Or if it approaches it, the photographer hardly approaches the (nebulous) status of an artist. It's often beautiful, shows craftsmanship and care, but it is first and foremost (and possibly only that) photography.
I can't disagree, but I'd ask what are the factors which push a photograph into the realm of art, for you, or anyone here?
Photographers are very often brutal critics, perhaps jaded by seeing too many images, too the point where they are hard to impress LOL
Once they find something though, they will raise it like a banner and march to the gates of hell proclaiming it's greatness.
For others....Meh Consider recent threads on Vivian Maier
In the end I keep getting drawn to a mindset of the 20's "the masses". Another critic might declare: photography is art creation for the masses, who toil and have no time or opportunity for the genuine cultivation of eye and skill required to paint. The masses need their heros: and so celebrate the "great" photographers.
