Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before

[Al Kaplan]

If any of you are planning on attending please drop me an email and maybe we can get together before or after. preacherpop42@aol.com

 

[hawkeye]

Wow, this discussion has moved into the semi-religious. Do we belive in photography? Does it exist because we believe in it? Do we trust photos?

Philosopher Roland Barthes speaks of the "what" of the photo separate from the viewer. Photos say to us "this was" not ''this is. "

He defines photographs as the seminal core moment that movies expand upon. The photo is a frame of a story and the best photograph make us wonder what frames went before or after the frame we are viewing. We build stories. Frank and others were finally tuned to seeing that frame and capturing them.

Distorting images through software like Photoshop can easily destroy the essence of the image, castrating it.

And by the way, when someone loses the ability to tell reality from unreality that is the definition of insanity. Perhaps you are saying that the world is going mad and that computers are driving people mad, I'll go with that.

Hawkeye

 

[colker]

Wow, this discussion has moved into the semi-religious. Do we belive in photography? Does it exist because we believe in it? Do we trust photos?

Philosopher Roland Barthes speaks of the "what" of the photo separate from the viewer. Photos say to us "this was" not ''this is. "

He defines photographs as the seminal core moment that movies expand upon. The photo is a frame of a story and the best photograph make us wonder what frames went before or after the frame we are viewing. We build stories. Frank and others were finally tuned to seeing that frame and capturing them.

Distorting images through software like Photoshop can easily destroy the essence of the image, castrating it.

And by the way, when someone loses the ability to tell reality from unreality that is the definition of insanity. Perhaps you are saying that the world is going mad and that computers are driving people mad, I'll go with that.

Hawkeye

there are different levels of realities. Foricng one reality over everybody? that's what the catholic missionaroes did to the natives of Americas 500 yrs ago. It wasn't nice.

 

[edodo]

quote "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before"
in our deapest moments when life gets too complicated that our minds don't know if it is real or not, then photography will always translate the direct and crude reality. Any mascara are useless, photography will always remind us what reality is.

 

[dave61]

Freid

Freid

M. Fried is popular with those who would rather talk about art than make art. Correction; he's popular with those who believe talking about art IS making art. He's a tedious retread of that gaseous windbag Clement Greenberg (another PROFITABLE fraud).
His banal taste in images is as tedious as his last overpriced, verbose tome (which makes a good doorstop).
Digital image captures can be art. Computer-generated and/or manipulated images can be art. They can NEVER be photographs. Photography is not digital image capturing. Photography uses FILM. Fried will never appreciate this difference.
True photographs are inherently "STRAIGHT" (unmanipulated). That the photograph is a captured fragment of reality is an act of faith between the photographer and the viewer. We are trusted to present a record of an actual thing, recorded as the eye saw it (if one were able to look closely enough). If we violate this trust, we are nothing but impotent poseurs trying to be painters.

Photography IS art. It always was. We don't need Fried to tell us this.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

M. Fried is popular with those who would rather talk about art than make art. Correction; he's popular with those who believe talking about art IS making art. He's a tedious retread of that gaseous windbag Clement Greenberg (another PROFITABLE fraud).
His banal taste in images is as tedious as his last overpriced, verbose tome (which makes a good doorstop).
Digital image captures can be art. Computer-generated and/or manipulated images can be art. They can NEVER be photographs. Photography is not digital image capturing. Photography uses FILM. Fried will never appreciate this difference.
True photographs are inherently "STRAIGHT" (unmanipulated). That the photograph is a captured fragment of reality is an act of faith between the photographer and the viewer. We are trusted to present a record of an actual thing, recorded as the eye saw it (if one were able to look closely enough). If we violate this trust, we are nothing but impotent poseurs trying to be painters.

Photography IS art. It always was. We don't need Fried to tell us this.

Dave,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but photography has never been about literal truth outside of the world of photojournalism, and the first photographs that were accorded acceptance as art were highly manipulated. This is the late 19th century. Study history before spouting off on something you know little about. Rants like yours just make photographers look like childish fools with no artistic sensibilities. Photography is art precisely because, like all other forms of art, it allows the individual to be creative and to use the medium to convey a message. All forms of art influence each other. Photography included. Photography has been influenced by painting and drawing, and it has influenced them as well as the newer area of computer graphics.

 

[larmarv916]

Dave61..you have defined the "issue" and "problems"

Dave61..you have defined the "issue" and "problems"

M. Fried is popular with those who would rather talk about art than make art. Correction; he's popular with those who believe talking about art IS making art. He's a tedious retread of that gaseous windbag Clement Greenberg (another PROFITABLE fraud).
His banal taste in images is as tedious as his last overpriced, verbose tome (which makes a good doorstop).
Digital image captures can be art. Computer-generated and/or manipulated images can be art. They can NEVER be photographs. Photography is not digital image capturing. Photography uses FILM. Fried will never appreciate this difference.
True photographs are inherently "STRAIGHT" (unmanipulated). That the photograph is a captured fragment of reality is an act of faith between the photographer and the viewer. We are trusted to present a record of an actual thing, recorded as the eye saw it (if one were able to look closely enough). If we violate this trust, we are nothing but impotent poseurs trying to be painters.

Photography IS art. It always was. We don't need Fried to tell us this.

Thankyou Dave61 for hitting the "ball out of the park" Photography is trapped by people like Fried, Sontag, Greenberg and several of the intellectuals of the art world. This problem has been a plague to the art world and photography as far back was recorded history exists. The major reasons galleries are failing is that they are not "hosting" work the photo buying public even faintly is willing to buy ! Even as far back as the mid 1920's photographers were fighting to get "straight" photography the respect it desereved. So movements like "Film und Foto" as well as Neue Sachlichkeit ( new vision ) and birthed the concept of "Straight Photography"

However after WW2 photography was again hijacked by the "gallery" and "art intellectuals"...again self appointed themselves to "tell us" what were are doing and "what the meaning" of our photography is. This is so WRONG and ethically autocratic !

A sort of "Big Brother" mentality...only we know what is good and we the art intellectuals will decide what is art...Uh "profitable" and what is not !! Yes Dave 61 you have put the spotlight on the terrible two headed monster that promotes the lie and infects the photography community with a ego drive thirst that only greed can quench.

Straight photograpy...can only be art if the gallery greed whores are sucking the blood of some photographer who they see as a source of the next "art rock star" ! Sad but true.

So all of these self styled art critics should be shunned both in the art world and the photography world. Also these people force photography in the direction of what is "hot" ! So other photographers mimick this crap in an effort to gain acceptance.

Well I think I covered all the bases...on why these people are physic vampires..now we just need enough wooden stakes !

Thanks Dave 61......all the best, Laurance

 

[visiondr]

Dave,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but photography has never been about literal truth outside of the world of photojournalism, and the first photographs that were accorded acceptance as art were highly manipulated. This is the late 19th century. Study history before spouting off on something you know little about. Rants like yours just make photographers look like childish fools with no artistic sensibilities. Photography is art precisely because, like all other forms of art, it allows the individual to be creative and to use the medium to convey a message. All forms of art influence each other. Photography included. Photography has been influenced by painting and drawing, and it has influenced them as well as the newer area of computer graphics.

Ah Chris, if only the "photography is art" argument were so simple.

You and others completely forget the role of the audience. The vast majority of the consumers of photography consider it a legitimate depiction of reality. That may not be what you intend - oh artist - but it is what the great unwashed believe - or used to believe. And that is the concern many of us have about what photography is losing - as "sleepyhead" has already so cleverly put it: "THE IMPLICIT TRUST IN PHOTOGRAPHY as REPRESENTING REALITY IS ALREADY BEING LOST."

Of course you're correct that photography has always been (outside of photojournalism) subject to the creativity of the artist. But, again, there is a continuum from pure photojournalism (and there we can also argue that what is omitted from an image is a form of editorialization in itself) to pure art photography. And we the "auteurs" have always known that. It is so very obvious to us. But your audience (unless you invite only fellow artists and intellectuals to view your work) does not see it thus.

 

[dave61]

Sacred Cows

Sacred Cows

Photography was invented by painters and draftsmen who saught a better way to capture reality, to create pictures of greater accuracy. It was believed that photography would FREE painting and sculpture from slavish attempts at replication. I believe photography has been soiled and diluted by pictorialists and "art theorists". The bond of trust between the viewer and the photographer is broken. It's up to us to mend it.
In addition to photography, I paint, construct sculpture, and make wood-block and silkscreen prints (when I have time). I'm highly opinionated and frequently offensive. If you don't agree with me, that's a good thing. But don't think I'm ignorant or uneducated just because I don't like cultural dictators telling me what my art means. I hold BFA and MFA degrees in Fine & Studio Art from NYU. I've read Barthes, Benjamin, Foucault, Sontag, Fried, etc.; attended symposia by Jean Bauldriard; studied literature with Clement Greenberg's brother. As a reaction to my education, I'm anti-elitist. I don't believe art critics should tell artists and viewers what to think or look at.
I believe in the artist-as-worker. We must contribute to the society in which we live. In the last 35 years I've worked in many fields, including professional photography and art education, but mostly in construction and electrical technology.
At present I enjoy the challenge of producing photos without using any manipulation, i.e. "Straight" abstract photography. Like all art, it's a personal journey.
Semiotics and deconstruction make for interesting dinner conversation, but it comes down to making art. My dad used to ask, "Is it PLASTIC (organized)? Does it communicate my FEELINGS? Is it MY WAY?"
IMHO, the most incisive writing on photography has come from photographers.

 

[M4cr0s]

The only thing I see as a problem of art, in any form or shape, is the pretentious overblown arrogance of its creators which also tend to reflect into the art itself. Nothing ruins a good message such as the absent ability of the artist to convey the message in a way that makes the viewer understand it. By the viewer I mean the Joe Sixpack and not some bloody art critic lost in the intoxication of his/her perceived power. IMHO arts primary goal is to communicate with people, not just university educated snobs and other equally pompus artists. Art needs a _real_ audience to be in fact what it wants to be, art. Without someone with their feets planted on the ground to communicate to, there could be no art.

As for photography, it will be along as a form of art, as long as it's able to communcate and invoke understanding, feelings and emotions in its viewers. I highly doubt images will stop doing that anytime soon. As a craft and as an art it will expand and contract, evolve and learn, change, perhaps brutaly, yet in the end it'll still be here.

/Mac

 

[benlees]

Art critics don't tell people what to think they tell 'em what to buy! 🙂

 

[mfunnell]

Digital image captures can be art. Computer-generated and/or manipulated images can be art. They can NEVER be photographs. Photography is not digital image capturing. Photography uses FILM. Fried will never appreciate this difference.

Actually I don't understand the difference either. Why is digital not photography? Because you say so?

Photography uses FILM.

Hmm. So the old family "photographs" I'll be scanning for a friend were not produced by photography because they were not made with FILM. They were made with sensitised glass plates. So they're doubly wrong - not FILM plus I'll be scanning the glass plates (nasty icky digital). I guess they'll never be photographs - and never were.

Do you not see a degree of absurdity here?

...Mike

 

[edodo]

For those who know Rothko, he said that art is firstly about the "feeling" of reality, not to be confused with the illusion of reality. The child doesn't know yet when looking at the mirror that the reflected world he sees through is not real, he first has to touch (feel) the mirror to understand it is not reality.
So photography that is only used as describing the pure reality is useless and is not ART.
One should try to shoot a picture that is going to make the viewers "feel" some kind of reality, that is ART.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Interesting how it's folks with university degrees, who have read all the books, etc., that feel the need to protect the masses from nasty art critics.

I don't think I ever met someone who said they need the help.

 

[sleepyhead]

Wow - this thread got revived.

For me, photography is the depiction of something that EXISTED using a LENS (or pinhole with optical properties) and a light-sensitive SENSOR/FILM.

You can do a lot of creative and artistic things within that definition. For example, Harry Callahan did a series of multiple exposures of tree branches in which he moved the camera slightly between each exposure to create a PHOTOGRAPH of a tree unlike any you would see with your eyes. But still, it's a tree that existed in reality, and is a fragment of reality in my opinion.

Combining multiple images of DISCONNECTED THINGS, like in the old days when people would use a sky/clouds negative printed with a separate landscape with a blank sky, or in more modern times, "Jerry Uelsmann-style" images, are, in my opinion, VISUAL ART made USING PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESSES, but not photography. This is because these images depict things that never existed.

I realize that these two examples illustrate the thin lines we are discussing, but my definition of photography works for me.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Wow! This thread is still going. Yup, it depicts reality, but so did those 10,000 year old cave drawings with that then brand new hi-tech medium of animal fat mixed with red ochre and powdered charcoal.

Was that art in the modern sense of the word? Was there a divergence into two groups of practitioners back then? One claiming that the paintings should be as realistic as possible while the other talked about the mood and feelings of the drawing, did it "stir the soul"?

But we're photographers, not art critics, not philosophers. Our genetic make-up can be traced back to a bunch of guys sitting around the fire having endless arguments about whether it's best to mix the charcoal with bear fat or wolf fat, does hickory really give better charcoal than oak, and then there's Harry over in the next valley. He recently confided to me that he gets those beautiful smooth luminous mid tones by mixing a bit of the light grey ashes from willow twigs with the intense black powder from elm tree charcoal. He then complained about his complete lack of artistic ability. "My paintings always look like crap!"

 

[sleepyhead]

Good one as usual, Al!

...but we're talking about images made using photographic processess here.

 

[Chris101]

Good one as usual, Al!

...but we're talking about images made using photographic processess here.

When the cave man blew the paint mixture onto the wall, over his hand, showing the outline of his hand, mechanically, he was technicaly doing airbrush painting. But as for intent, wasn't that act more like a photograph because he was recording an image of something which existed?

 

[dave61]

Won't give up Tri-X 'till it's pried from my dead, hypo-stained fingers.

Won't give up Tri-X 'till it's pried from my dead, hypo-stained fingers.

This thread has legs...
Of course a glass plate negative is photographic. Do I have to say "a photo-sensitive emulsion that has been deposited on a supporting substrate"?
IMHO, anything can BE art (depending on intent and perception), anyone can MAKE art (my favorite art is outsider art), not all photos ARE art. Photography is an alchemical, mechanical process, aided by electronics (i.e. light meters).
Using machines and chemicals, we create prints by projecting LIGHT onto photo-sensitive materials, which we then chemically fix for permanence. If you electronically copy a photo and print it by spraying ink onto paper, the copy's no longer a photo, it's a digital copy.
Digital imaging is entirely electronic-no physical manifestation unique to just that image- until you hit print-otherwise it's a bunch of electronic flux in a computer. Still, I never said it wasn't art.
Drawing isn't digital imaging, photography isn't either. It's a distinction only important to troglodytes like me who grew up in a darkroom. Won't give up film 'till they pry the Tri-X from my dead, hypo-stained fingers...
I like to bad-mouth art-elites because I dislike/distrust the upper crust. I went to over-priced colleges (took me 20 years to pay off those debts! Should've gone to State University). I appreciate the education I got there; I'm wiser for having absorbed semiotics. I just don't take it as seriously as I used to.
You grow up, go to work to put food on the table, and art crit becomes less relevant. You start to see through the flash and realize it's 95% marketing. When I was kid in art school, you couldn't have made me believe this.
Bottom line, we all know what art is to us as individuals. It's more important (as VISUAL artists) to express it through work than with words.


photos c.2008/2009 dhfactor

 

[wlewisiii]

I appreciate the education I got there, and I am wiser for having absorbed semiotics. I just don't take it seriously anymore. You work to put food on the table, and art crit becomes less relevant..

Grin. Semiotics is interesting to a college student the way Camus is to a bright high school student... which is not to say that both have nothing to teach, just not as much as we sometimes think when up close and personal before life bitch slaps us... 😉

I suppose I should say something positive, but the reality is that art is what the artist calls it. I like certain of the shots I've made over the years and consider them art. On rare occasion, I've been startled when someone I know also considers one of them art. (I tend to give them prints of the shot in question in my attempt to keep the ego-boo coming 🙄 )

I do what I do. I consider it & my equally bad poetry art. I usually only have an audience of one & as long as I keep that audience happy (ie me!) why am I supposed to care about anyone else? If I needed to eat based on what I shot, things would be a world of hurt different but I'm not a pro & probably never will be. Thank you, Lord, I like it like that...

William