No BS

[jsrockit]

Fine by me if he's not as moved by fine art photography as he is by painting.

In my case, however, fine art photography moves me in the same way as a sculpture or a symphony or... a painting. 🙂

Seems like the author is just another person who doesn't think photography has significant value compared to other art forms. Sometimes people's perception is that clicking a shutter doesn't have the same amount of craftsmanship as painting something (though we all know that is only sometimes true)... as in it takes more work to make a painting (which is not always true) than a photograph so it is superior. The layman has trouble understanding the conceptual aspects of art so, therefore, can only find value in the technical or the perceived "hard work" aspects of art.

What is the more relivant medium today? Is it painting or photography? Which one is in use more? I believe photography... great photography will be remembered for a very long time...it's one of the most widely used mediums ever.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Photography "vs." painting: causing the same debates as cats "vs." dogs. Sure they're both mammals, have four legs, a tail, a coat, and sometimes the exception that proves the rule. Yet, after all the words spent, most begin to fail to see that one is a cat, and the other is a dog.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Photography is a really wide term...

I think it has as much value as any art form, and I see no need to call it art when it reflects reality without the need of creation.

But it can be art when it offers the viewer a new world, as any other art.

And it can be just craft. And when it's craft and it isn't art, it isn't inferior to those cases it's art.

As years pass, I appreciate more and more when photography doesn't create in any way, but just reflect. When I was younger, I used to like a more creative photography... Now I feel it's a bit weak for that as medium... If I ever want to create and do art, I will paint. Now I'm sure about the place photography has: it isn't creating new realities its strength...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Peter Klein]

This and similar discussions remind of the old Jewish joke about the two men who go to a rabbi to settle a dispute. The first one argues his case, and the rabbi says, "You are right." The second has his say, and again, the rabbi says, "You are right." The two men are amazed and frustrated. "How can we both be right? That can't be!" And the rabbi says, "You are also right!"

 

[Pablito]

not sure the comparative thing is useful; debates on "greatness," etc...

 

[DougFord]

I agree with the poster that said music is the best.
But I gotta believe that painting, well real good paint'n anyway, is really, really hard. How intimidating is a blank canvas?
Come on now, photography is just photography.

 

[willie_901]

Bill,

Thanks for bring this essay to our attention.

I quit visiting TOP because some of the non-MJ posts make me physically ill. So I would have missed this excellent essay.

Thanks again

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Bill,

Thanks for bring this essay to our attention.

I quit visiting TOP because some of the non-MJ posts make me physically ill. So I would have missed this excellent essay.

Thanks again

What Non-MJ posts made you 'physically ill'?

 

[Teuthida]

Interesting, but he conflates two different criterion - public acceptance e.g. paintings sell for more and the mechanical/handmade argument - to make his point.

The first is specious, and actually argues against his premise: if ART is simply what sells for more, then the only criterion will be popular taste. Ergo, if the public accepts Salgodo's documentary work as ART, then it is, according to his unstated criteria.

 

[willie_901]

What Non-MJ posts made you 'physically ill'?

The pretentious, pompous posts.

 

[gdmcclintock]

"Photographic ort"? Seems as contrived as the conceptual art photography derided by the author.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

The pretentious, pompous posts.

Okay, but which/whose posts do you identify as pretentious and and pompous?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The pretentious, pompous posts.

That didn't actually answer the question.

 

[jan normandale]

Bill, that essay was full of the same old tired arguments that were settled nearly a century ago, and the arguments showed a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art. Stieglitz will be forgotten. Sure. He only pioneered the idea of photography as art and the fact that he introduced Picasso, Marin, and many other painters to America means nothing too. He'll be forgotten.

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you to promote it, is beyond comprehension. There are a lot of people on RFF who absolutely hate the idea that photography can be art. In most cases, this is simply sour grapes from those who either have no talent, or who have failed to get any notice for their work. That's not the case for you, and Johnston has been a big promoter of fine art photography. The only explanation that I can think is that he often lets people write things he disagrees with to stimulate conversation, or to show a respect for other viewpoints. Some simply don't need rehashed.

I was going to write something about the piece by Camp but I think Chris has nailed it. I will add that a dismissive piece of less than 1500 words is a clear lack of discipline and shows little homework other than what is needed to reinforce the authors circumscribed opinion. This piece falls dramatically short by any standard.

 

[pggunn]

A very interesting article and one I'll have to spend more time thinking about, but here are a few quick impressions (author's quotes italicized)


The problem, from an artistic point of view, is that photography starts with an external point—a subject—and a mechanical capture, from which it can't escape.


Yes, usually photography starts with an external subject, but the best photography is subjective as well, and more about the photographer's internal response to an external subject, to the objective reality in front of him.


if you want to go looking for a true, lasting art in photography, you should look at things that can only be captured in an instant: an action, an event, a happening.


I think the author is much closer to the mark here. While I can appreciate good landscape and still life photography, it doesn't move me like good street photography or event photography, genres that capture fleeting juxtapositions, subtle expressions, the briefest of moments when the eternal flux is exquisitely balanced on the razor's edge (okay, enough florid prose. I guess the No BS title of this thread doesn't apply to me!) - in other words Cartier-Bresson's decisive moment, which he describes much better in his famous essay than I ever could.


In this type of photo I find a curious and wonderful mixture of art and serendipity and luck - as Bill put it so well, "We deal in a moment. A painter takes a little longer. In a sense, we are the sketch artists; they are the sculptors. It gets complicated. But I think much of the best of photography is somebody saying, “I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”


On the other hand, I think photos will be regarded as the most important documents of our time, and that it’s in documentation that the true Ort of Photography lies.


I agree with this up to a point. When documentary photography is done well it becomes transcendent, but just as I'm not so sure there is a distinct line between fine art and commercial art, as the author asserts, neither is the line so easily drawn between documentary photography and art.

 

[CameraQuest]

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you (Bill Pierce) to promote it, is beyond comprehension.

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

I don't care who he is, even the accomplished can do dumb or incomprehensible things, and it being still a free country, I have the same right to say so that Camp had to write his essay and that Bill had to promote it.

I did the painting I use as an avatar. Let me repeat. I DID THE PAINTING I USE AS AN AVATAR. I'm a classily trained artist. I can paint, draw, sculpt, and do graphic printmaking. I CHOOSE to do photography as my main form of art. I like photography. No, I LOVE photography.

I am constantly amazed by the number of photographers who seem to have little respect for the medium, who don't seem to even like it. There seem to be a LOT who really wanted to be painters, but lacked talent, so they do photography. Their bias toward painting holds even as they've taken up another medium, which they have to constantly run-down as 'inferior' to painting. Instead of running down photography, they need to look in the mirror.

Like I said, this debate was settled a nearly a century ago. You want to talk about prestige? The Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, and countless other art museum around the world have been displaying photography as ART for decades now. THEY know better than you, or Bill Pierce, or John Camp.

 

[Teuthida]

When all is said and done, it's pretty simple. It's ART if people think its ART irrespective of what you think about it.

Did Atget consider himself an ARTIST? No. Do we? Yes.

I've sold both My paintings and my photographs in ART galleries. That means it's ART and apparently I'm an ARTIST.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I don't care who he is, even the accomplished can do dumb or incomprehensible things, and it being still a free country, I have the same right to say so that Camp had to write his essay and that Bill had to promote it.

Chris -

I don’t take offense at what you said. I think the whole thread has been interesting, and it wouldn’t be if we all agreed. Our opinions are probably considerably more complex than we can express in short text messages. And all of us have a lot more to do in a day than sum up the world of art in 200 words or less. But I do enjoy it when an occasional “art” argument replaces the more popular discussions on the machinery that we use.

 

[Teuthida]

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

The presumptions in that statement are off the chart. With all due respect, given as much as I know about you, I could just as well dismiss your opinion as that of a hack gearhead who simply parrots "recognized authority's" opinions.