Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I posted this in response to another thread but thought it might generate a bit of discussion as a separate topic.
I had a sense of epiphany a couple of days ago. I've long been a film user, and mostly black & white at that. I've happily joined in the criticism about the amount of modification, substitution and other "messing with" that goes on with post processing of digital images and seen that practice as an erosion of photographic art. "Not really a photograph, but something else" is how I often hear it expressed.
On Friday I visited an exhibition at the Australian National Gallery in Canberra. It features many of the treasures from the Musee d'Orsay in Paris which is undergoing renovation and they've allowed a large selection of their art works to travel to Australia for the first time. The exhibition features Seurat, Monet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec and several others.
The introductory notes for visitors to the exhibition make reference to the ultra-conservative and stifling effect of the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris (the "Salon") in the mid-1800's and the shock and outrage that erupted when the Impressionists started to paint in a non-classical and more spontaneous style using bright colours and open air painting. "Realism" was being undermined. Those notes, and the experience of walking around viewing the paintings suddenly made me realise that there is a parallel with the argument about film vs digital and manipulation or not.
What struck me is that for many of these revered artists, the subjects they chose were often very similar to each other. It was the treatment they gave to the medium that opened up new forms of artistic expression and awareness. Many other artists of the period, and their work, disappeared from view but the famous names obviously survived. Their styles are quite different from each other, yet all are now regarded as true and innovative artists of their day. Some of them I don't much care for, but others have appeal.
I'm starting to feel that we're at a similar threshold in photography and that insistence on a "true" image is akin to the attitude of the "Salon" in Paris - stifling conservatism. The experimentation we're seeing in post production is really no different to an artist reworking or overpainting to achieve a more pleasing outcome. Whatever the medium and treatment it is still an original painting. And it's still art.
The problem seems to be what we call it. A painting can be in almost any style and be considered as "art" but we still have "rules" about what constitutes a "photograph".
So are we at a point where "photographic art" is becoming the medium and that all expressions of that art are valid - from an untouched print or image to one that has been extensively worked over? And is one style "better" than another - how do we compare Van Gogh with Monet, for example? What are the implications for galleries, for collectors, for competitions, for camera club judges, for photographer reputations and fame or fortune?
I sense that the old rules are crumbling and that the 'new wave' of photographic art is breaking over us but we have not yet worked out our response to it or how we will deal with it. We're working inside an old paradigm and haven't yet found the new one we need.
Try this for a future scenario - Maybe where we're heading for a large part of photography will result in projected 3D colour images that have been extensively worked on but which had as their origin a photographic image. Thus the only criteria to be applied might be - does it make a pleasing or impactful image or not? And only the individual viewer can decide that. Some form of validation might be involved, like a small print of the original image available as well, but the final output could be quite different in treatment.
Now I'm aware this is close to blasphemy for many RFF members and so I expect a bit of flame, but before you dash off a rebuttal think about it a bit and see if you can put forward a different/better scenario that might succeed.
I had a sense of epiphany a couple of days ago. I've long been a film user, and mostly black & white at that. I've happily joined in the criticism about the amount of modification, substitution and other "messing with" that goes on with post processing of digital images and seen that practice as an erosion of photographic art. "Not really a photograph, but something else" is how I often hear it expressed.
On Friday I visited an exhibition at the Australian National Gallery in Canberra. It features many of the treasures from the Musee d'Orsay in Paris which is undergoing renovation and they've allowed a large selection of their art works to travel to Australia for the first time. The exhibition features Seurat, Monet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec and several others.
The introductory notes for visitors to the exhibition make reference to the ultra-conservative and stifling effect of the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris (the "Salon") in the mid-1800's and the shock and outrage that erupted when the Impressionists started to paint in a non-classical and more spontaneous style using bright colours and open air painting. "Realism" was being undermined. Those notes, and the experience of walking around viewing the paintings suddenly made me realise that there is a parallel with the argument about film vs digital and manipulation or not.
What struck me is that for many of these revered artists, the subjects they chose were often very similar to each other. It was the treatment they gave to the medium that opened up new forms of artistic expression and awareness. Many other artists of the period, and their work, disappeared from view but the famous names obviously survived. Their styles are quite different from each other, yet all are now regarded as true and innovative artists of their day. Some of them I don't much care for, but others have appeal.
I'm starting to feel that we're at a similar threshold in photography and that insistence on a "true" image is akin to the attitude of the "Salon" in Paris - stifling conservatism. The experimentation we're seeing in post production is really no different to an artist reworking or overpainting to achieve a more pleasing outcome. Whatever the medium and treatment it is still an original painting. And it's still art.
The problem seems to be what we call it. A painting can be in almost any style and be considered as "art" but we still have "rules" about what constitutes a "photograph".
So are we at a point where "photographic art" is becoming the medium and that all expressions of that art are valid - from an untouched print or image to one that has been extensively worked over? And is one style "better" than another - how do we compare Van Gogh with Monet, for example? What are the implications for galleries, for collectors, for competitions, for camera club judges, for photographer reputations and fame or fortune?
I sense that the old rules are crumbling and that the 'new wave' of photographic art is breaking over us but we have not yet worked out our response to it or how we will deal with it. We're working inside an old paradigm and haven't yet found the new one we need.
Try this for a future scenario - Maybe where we're heading for a large part of photography will result in projected 3D colour images that have been extensively worked on but which had as their origin a photographic image. Thus the only criteria to be applied might be - does it make a pleasing or impactful image or not? And only the individual viewer can decide that. Some form of validation might be involved, like a small print of the original image available as well, but the final output could be quite different in treatment.
Now I'm aware this is close to blasphemy for many RFF members and so I expect a bit of flame, but before you dash off a rebuttal think about it a bit and see if you can put forward a different/better scenario that might succeed.
