Photographs of sculpture/other art

[pmun]

I very much like taking photographs of how audiences interact with the art, as I feel it is a perspective unique to photography.

Nice one urban, I agree that interaction is fascinating - and you captured it really well.

The second I find especially fascinating as it is the first evidence of the Renaissance by Giotto - that interaction between subject and audience (and its tacit acknowledgment) is at the very foundation of the revolution...

I see what you did there! lovely.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[250swb]

I very much like taking photographs of how audiences interact with the art, as I feel it is a perspective unique to photography.

The second I find especially fascinating as it is the first evidence of the Renaissance by Giotto - that interaction between subject and audience (and its tacit acknowledgment) is at the very foundation of the revolution...

Except the interaction between the audience and paintings in the Renaissance wouldn't necessarily have been about acknowledging 'art' but an acknowledgment of 'god', and further refined by the miniscule size of the audience? Are you sure that in those days 'art' wasn't just for the artists, and the trickle down hasn't taken intervening centuries to mature? The meaning of the painting on the other hand would have been immediate to whoever the audience was at the time of Giotto. Art is only art when it is declared as such, otherwise it is propaganda that may evolve.

Steve

 

[Florian1234]

Well, it can get good results.

I did this as an hommage to HCB (there's a tiny resemblance with a photo done by him).

Don't pay attention to the dust... sorry for that. 😱

 

[peterm1]

I do like making images from statues:

 

[victoriapio]

As stated above, sometimes people's reaction to art or what happens around art is interesting. Also, sometimes how the art is hung is interesting. By the way, why are images from thumbnails so compressed on RFF? They didn't use to be sized this small and unsharp. Are there instructions somewhere to post the photos in the reply as opposed to attaching them?

 

[Sparrow]

That's alright, thanks for explaining. By the way - is that the Tate, above?

www.urbanpaths.net

No it’s one of those north of England provincial gallery’s that the Victorian great and good set up to educate us plebs, that one is in Bradford I think

 

[flip]

Fair? Absolutely! Time and circumstances are meaningful to art. Sometimes, it adds meaning:

Sometimes, it's the MO for the art's very being:

And only timely capture portrays this.

 

[pmun]

 

[Roger Hicks]

As I was lying awake one night I suddenly thought about this thread. Why is a sculpture any different from a building (thank/acknowledge the architect), a model (thank/acknowledge the parents), a landscape (thank/acknowledge evolution or God, according to taste)?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Vadim]

">

" Ah.. the gods... I know exactly how they feel..."
Jack Palance in Jean Luc Godards Le Mepris

 

[Roger Vadim]

As I was lying awake one night I suddenly thought about this thread. Why is a sculpture any different from a building (thank/acknowledge the architect), a model (thank/acknowledge the parents), a landscape (thank/acknowledge evolution or God, according to taste)?

Cheers,

R.

good question.
maybe because sculpture was/is dealing with power-structures in a very specific way; the greeks searching for perfection (Aristotle: artist are perfecting nature in showing its real appearance)
the romans then depicting the powerful in the shapes of gods?


">

 

[pmun]

Why is a sculpture any different from a building (thank/acknowledge the architect), a model (thank/acknowledge the parents), a landscape (thank/acknowledge evolution or God, according to taste)?

A good question. I would say that a sculpture or artwork is designed purely to be looked at or appreciated in some other way. So in a sense, visually, the work has already been done - the object is already stimulating attention as it is.

A landscape, model and building all have a functional purpose as well - they are designed to do things. It is often their function that gives them their character. This character isn't always immediately obvious - hence there is more potential here for the photographer to reveal it.

It could be argued though that a photographer can interpret an artwork, much as a jazz musician interprets a standard tune, and in doing so reveals or introduces different nuances.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Photon42]

What shall I say 😀

Most things I photograph were created by others 😱. When you take pictures, you do an interpretation of the subject. Always. Not any different with statues. Their patience is eternal, when it comes to trying different lighting, too 😉

 

[Sparrow]

A good question. I would say that a sculpture or artwork is designed purely to be looked at or appreciated in some other way. So in a sense, visually, the work has already been done - the object is already stimulating attention as it is.

A landscape, model and building all have a functional purpose as well - they are designed to do things. It is often their function that gives them their character. This character isn't always immediately obvious - hence there is more potential here for the photographer to reveal it.

It could be argued though that a photographer can interpret an artwork, much as a jazz musician interprets a standard tune, and in doing so reveals or introduces different nuances.

www.urbanpaths.net

so how would you reconcile a picture of a dancer? is a still picture of a dynamic medium also fits he criteria " the work has already been done - the object is already stimulating attention as it is."

i still see nothing compelling in your arguments, sorry

 

[pmun]

so how would you reconcile a picture of a dancer? is a still picture of a dynamic medium also fits he criteria " the work has already been done - the object is already stimulating attention as it is."

I would say that a dancer falls into the category 'artwork' and again, in a sense the work has already been done. In other words the dancer is already doing such a good job - looking good, why try and improve upon it? I answered this question in the same post (No33).

i still see nothing compelling in your arguments, sorry

That's alright - no need to apologise.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Sparrow]

I would say that a dancer falls into the category 'artwork' and again, in a sense the work has already been done. In other words the dancer is already doing such a good job - looking good, why try and improve upon it? I answered this question in the same post (No33).


That's alright - no need to apologise.

www.urbanpaths.net

you are defending a lost cause now, presenting your own predilections as good taste. I'll not continue further, but I'll leave you with a photo of Edgar Degas's sculpture of a young "Little Dancer" to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of your position.

regards

 

[pmun]

you are defending a lost cause now, presenting your own predilections as good taste.

I'm not defending any cause - just responding to Roger's and your questions, that's all. My post (No33) actually gives two arguments for and against taking photos of artworks, so I can't see how I'm presenting my own predilections as good taste. But you're obviously not prepared to explain that.

Degas's sculpture of a young "Little Dancer" to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of your position.

I can't see how this demonstrates the logical inconsistency of anything - a few words would help 😕

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

This does seem to be getting a bit metaphysical. My argument is as follows:

The photographer chooses when to press the button, and what to frame. Assuming any variation in light or framing, the photographer has imposed his/her own vision, or selected his/her own vision, and this is true regardless of subject matter except when making a facsimile of a flat object, indistinguishable from the original.

In other words, except when copying, it's hard to say 'all the work has been done before' or even that 'most of the work has been done before'. The sequence of sculpture > dancer dancing > dancer asleep > dancer's empty bed illustrates this adequately. What you find easiest to photograph will depend on countless other factors, or alternatively, on your appreciation of what has been 'done' before (e.g. dancer's looks, skill, clothing, whether she has made her empty bed or not...)

Cheers,

R.

 

[pmun]

The photographer chooses when to press the button, and what to frame. Assuming any variation in light or framing, the photographer has imposed his/her own vision, or selected his/her own vision, and this is true regardless of subject matter except when making a facsimile of a flat object, indistinguishable from the original.

In other words, except when copying, it's hard to say 'all the work has been done before' or even that 'most of the work has been done before'. .....What you find easiest to photograph will depend on countless other factors, or alternatively, on your appreciation of what has been 'done' before (e.g. dancer's looks, skill, clothing, whether she has made her empty bed or not...)

Agreed

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[johnastovall]

One can in a photo abstract the art work and show it in a different light as this shot inside Serra's Vortex at the Fort Worth, Texas, Museum of Modern Art does.