No BS

[Bill Pierce]

I think this essay is incredibly important to anybody interested in the “art” of photography. It’s the best I’ve read in a long time - intelligent, courageous in knocking down stereotypes and without BS.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/guest-post-john-camp.html

[Pickett Wilson]

I agree with you. I know a lot of folks will take exception to his opinion, but I think he is right on. I know a lot of photographers who should read this.

[emraphoto]

but what of the photographers who start with an internal, artistic response?

[filmtwit]

Odd, 4 of the 12 examples he uses are stills taken from some sort of motion picture source (film/video).

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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.

[Dave Jenkins]

Bill, I've been reading your stuff since the late '60s and consider you one of the finest photo-writers around. But in the matter of Mr. Camp's article, I only partially agree with you (and with him).

The greatest strength of photography is that it doesn't depend on the imagination of the artist (or photographer). As I wrote in an article some years ago:

Dorothea Lange kept a quotation by the English essayist Francis Bacon on her darkroom door: “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention."

As Fred Picker said in the March 1994 issue of Shutterbug, "This Koudelka (print by Czech photographer Joseph Koudelka) on the wall contains the most amazing combination of things that I know happened, because when he made that photograph there was no electronic imaging. Here are two horses, standing in a certain position, a boy sitting on a bicycle wearing an angel suit with angel wings, here's an old lady scolding him, all in magnificent light and beautifully composed. Today, that picture could be made by some guy sitting in front of a computer. Knowing that would take all the wonder out of it."

In actuality, it isn’t likely “some guy sitting in front of a computer” would make such a picture, nor is it likely a painter would paint it, because they are limited by their imaginations. They can only do what they can conceive. But photography goes beyond human imagination. As novelist Tom Clancy has said, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense.” The magic of photography is that life holds so many amazing and wonderful things that are entirely unanticipated, unexpected, even unimagined in the deepest sense; that is, that no one would ever have thought of such a thing happening. And then, suddenly, right out of the fabric of life, there it is. "I can do a beautiful illustration, but it doesn't have that 'instant of wonder' that a photograph will have." (Art Director Tony Anthony, quoted in "Photo District News," February, 1987.)

Photography shows us things that lie beyond our imagination and compel our amazement because they really happened. It revels in the beauty, the mystery, and the strangeness of life. It is the most powerful purely visual medium ever created.

[Roger Hicks]

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.
Dear Chris,

Well, not so much a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art as a complete disregard for it.

Along with a complete determination to apply the criteria of one art form (such as flower arranging) to another (such as poetry). Yes, 'synaesthetic' criticism (for want of a better word) can be extremely valuable and interesting. But it ain't the be-all and end-all.

Cheers,

R.

[sanmich]

Very interesting point, thanks for sharing.
And you're right, no BS...

[hendriphile]

"It's possible to make fine photographic landscapes, portraits and all the others, but I doubt that they will ever rise to the level of skillful paintings."
-- from the Article

Take Karsh's portrait of Churchill. No painted portrait of Churchill that I've seen captures the man's forceful personality like that photograph.

[sanmich]

I don't see the good old "is photography an art form?" question, here.
Just a question about what is the strength of photography, and what type of photograph may stay meaningful and relevant after several generations.
I'm not sure I agree with the point, but it's definitely interesting.

[Brian Legge]

Doesn't this depend heavily the sort of photography?

Photography like that of Gregory Crewdsons seems like it is striding the boundary between the arguments presented in the article. The staging of the scene and the presentation is building a reality that doesn't exist. If photography is purely defined as the use of a camera independent of the construction of a subject, the argument presented in the article makes more sense. That seems like a limited scope though.

[Bill Pierce]

...in the matter of Mr. Camp's article, I only partially agree with you (and with him).

The greatest strength of photography is that it doesn't depend on the imagination of the artist (or photographer). As I wrote in an article some years ago:

Dorothea Lange kept a quotation by the English essayist Francis Bacon on her darkroom door: “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention."

As Fred Picker said in the March 1994 issue of Shutterbug, "This Koudelka (print by Czech photographer Joseph Koudelka) on the wall contains the most amazing combination of things that I know happened, because when he made that photograph there was no electronic imaging. Here are two horses, standing in a certain position, a boy sitting on a bicycle wearing an angel suit with angel wings, here's an old lady scolding him, all in magnificent light and beautifully composed. Today, that picture could be made by some guy sitting in front of a computer. Knowing that would take all the wonder out of it."

In actuality, it isn’t likely “some guy sitting in front of a computer” would make such a picture, nor is it likely a painter would paint it, because they are limited by their imaginations. They can only do what they can conceive. But photography goes beyond human imagination. As novelist Tom Clancy has said, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense.” The magic of photography is that life holds so many amazing and wonderful things that are entirely unanticipated, unexpected, even unimagined in the deepest sense; that is, that no one would ever have thought of such a thing happening. And then, suddenly, right out of the fabric of life, there it is. "I can do a beautiful illustration, but it doesn't have that 'instant of wonder' that a photograph will have." (Art Director Tony Anthony, quoted in "Photo District News," February, 1987.)

Photography shows us things that lie beyond our imagination and compel our amazement because they really happened. It revels in the beauty, the mystery, and the strangeness of life. It is the most powerful purely visual medium ever created.


Dave -

I agree with both you and Mr. Camp and don’t feel uncomfortable about it.

The current rage in the art galleries that deal with photography is “conceptual photography,” images that do have their start, not with what is in front of the photographer, but a vision in the photographer’s mind. There are a handful of photographers that do this well - - David Hockney, Jerry Uelsman, Francesca Woodman, e.t.c., e.t.c..

And there seems to be a much greater number of conceptual artists filling the galleries with unexceptional conceptual work. Hey, and it’s all the rage; it sells. It doesn’t look like regular photography and it’s big and it’s in a gallery. It must be “art.” And if galleries don’t sell, they disappear.

But, most of us benefit from having something interesting in front of our cameras. At its best, this can be a double whammy - a powerful subject well photographed.

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.”

[doolittle]

"It's possible to make fine photographic landscapes, portraits and all the others, but I doubt that they will ever rise to the level of skillful paintings."
-- from the Article

Take Karsh's portrait of Churchill. No painted portrait of Churchill that I've seen captures the man's forceful personality like that photograph.

I think this is the crux of the issue. A painter fabricates the image, a master painter will recreate something of the essence or create something new. A photographer captures the image, a good photographer (or a lucky one) will also capture something of the essence. In the former case, the painter is solely responsible for the creation of the image, in the latter, it is a symbiosis between the photographer and the subject.

A photograph is not a painting and a painting is not a photograph. Sure they have much in common, but they are distinct.

I suppose all that you can really say is that in someways a painter has more 'ownership' of the creation of their work. A photographer has more of a share in the final image.

The example of the portrait of Churchill is a great example, juxtaposed with the Albrect Dürer piece in the article. Photographs can show us something more than any painting can. Conversely paintings can show us something more than any photograph can.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Dave -

I agree with both you and Mr. Camp and don’t feel uncomfortable about it.

The current rage in the art galleries that deal with photography is “conceptual photography,” images that do have their start, not with what is in front of the photographer, but a vision in the photographer’s mind. There are a handful of photographers that do this well - - David Hockney, Jerry Uelsman, Francesca Woodman, e.t.c., e.t.c..

And there seems to be a much greater number of conceptual artists filling the galleries with unexceptional conceptual work. Hey, and it’s all the rage; it sells. It doesn’t look like regular photography and it’s big and it’s in a gallery. It must be “art.” And if galleries don’t sell, they disappear.

But, most of us benefit from having something interesting in front of our cameras. At its best, this can be a double whammy - a powerful subject well photographed.

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.”

Wonderful post, Bill!

Cheers,

Juan

[paulfish4570]

"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.
Painting starts with an internal, artistic response, from which it can't escape, but which is considered the nexus of all real art."

this simply is not true of either medium. how many magnificent portrait paintings hang in museums that were commissioned by the subject(s)? tons, and not one of them started from an internal, artistic response. most likely they started with the sound of a pen scratching out a check. take HCB's photo of the man leaping across the puddle. hcb was in position because of an internal, artistic response to the lighting, framing, etc. then the man leaped, completing the photo. it would not have been made without that original internal, artistic response to the scene ...

[MCTuomey]

I don't see why photographs like Avedon's "Dovima and the Elephants" or Sander's "Three Farmers on Their Walk," would not have that power Mr Camp references, just to recall a couple that are for me quite unforgettable. There's something brittle about his categorical exclusions that I can't appreciate.

I think Bill is getting at the heart of the thing with his "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.

Bill, I hope I can quote you. Oops, I see I just did ...

[FrankS]

My feeling is that the ideas expressed in his artical are too prescriptive, and that he is trying to "nail down" that which is too ethereal and in flux to allow itself to be pigeon-holed thusly.

Man attempts to make sense of, and define everything. Art resists/defies that effort, IMO. That is the beauty/mystery of art. I'm an art agnostic, I guess.

[stratcat]

paulfish4570: I completely agree with your arguments.

I think the article is simply his own personal opinion. 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. :)

Carrying his line of reasoning to an extreme, one could argue that music is a 'higher art form' than painting or sculpture simply because it has ALWAY dealt with the intangible representation of feelings as sounds.

Or that architecture is a lower form of art because it has to comply with function, not only with form.

[FrankS]

paulfish4570: I completely agree with your arguments.

I think the article is simply his own personal opinion. 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. :)

Carrying his line of reasoning to an extreme, one could argue that music is a 'higher art form' than painting or sculpture simply because it has ALWAY dealt with the intangible representation of feelings as sounds.

Or that architecture is a lower form of art because it has to comply with function, not only with form.


I agree with both of you. Just an opinion, certainly not an immutable truth that has been uncovered/revealed.

It's a valiant attempt, and useful in furthering debate and the understanding of art/painting/photography as much as can be understood.

[back alley]

“I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”

what a wonderful line...i hope you don't mind if i quote you!!
this sums up (so very well) what much of photography is for me.

as to art...thank god i have no opinion...

[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]

[QUOTE=Chriscrawfordphoto;1751123]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.

[Pablito]

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.

yeah, the piece is rhetorically flawed.

[Pablito]

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.

But the article was not about whether photography is art. That is not the debate that is presented...

[doolittle]

But I do enjoy it when an occasional “art” argument replaces the more popular discussions on the machinery that we use.

'Tis true. I always wonder if there are painter forums where they discuss different easels and brushes.

I was in Paris recently on vacation. I didn't get to take too many photos, but I did manage to bring the family along to a Diane Arbus exhibition in the Jeu de Paume. They had a huge body of her work on display and it was sublime.

I also managed to get a good look at two Albrecht Dürer engravings at the Petit Palais, it was inspirational too.

I feel lucky to have been able to see both these wonders.

[Brian Sweeney]

If this forum was about painting, and I was a painter, I'd be mixing my own paints.

http://larrybatesstudio.blogspot.com/2010/11/mixing-your-own-pure-pigment-oil-paint.html

And Planar vs Sonnar would get replaced by egg tempura vs oil vs Tessars -I mean Water Color.

http://www.renaissanceconnection.org/lesson_art_oil.html

TOP posts a lot of articles. While he was writing "Why I hate Infrared" in the early 90s, I had Kodak make a Digital IR camera. The article is what it is: opinion, and does not hold true for everyone.

On the article about Art Photography, the bottom line seems to be based on the observation that people pay more for paintings than for photographs.

[Pablito]

If this forum was about painting, and I was a painter, I'd be mixing my own paints.

http://larrybatesstudio.blogspot.com/2010/11/mixing-your-own-pure-pigment-oil-paint.html

And Planar vs Sonnar would get replaced by egg tempura vs oil vs Tessars -I mean Water Color.

http://www.renaissanceconnection.org/lesson_art_oil.html

TOP posts a lot of articles. While he was writing "Why I hate Infrared" in the early 90s, I had Kodak make a Digital IR camera. The article is what it is: opinion, and does not hold true for everyone.

On the article about Art Photography, the bottom line seems to be based on the observation that people pay more for paintings than for photographs.

.....great to mix your own paints, grind your own pigments, but you have to be super careful as some pigments (cadmiums, lead...) very toxic.

....the difference between Planar and Sonnar cannot really be compared to the difference between egg tempera and oil. The difference between the two painting mediums is FAR greater than the difference between the two optics.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Bill, I appreciate your point of view, and glad that you post here.

I didn't like this article. He says, "If a photo is going to be art, then it must of of a unique moment..." He seems to be saying that it can only be art if a work is unique and no similar piece could be produced in the future. Sorry, but I just don't buy that, and I don't think it applies to most of what we respect as art. I studied with people who were really serious about their photographic art, and they have my respect.

As for photos we'll remember in 100 years, I can think of many that might qualify.

(Chris, you speak in a different voice, also much appreciated. About this article, I agree with you.)

This is surprising to me; MJ has certainly published a lot of great material, and I usually appreciate his site.

[Brian Sweeney]

.........the difference between Planar and Sonnar cannot really be compared to the difference between egg tempera and oil. The difference between the two painting mediums is FAR greater than the difference between the two optics.



Tell that to the optical engineer that designed the two different optics, and they would disagree with you. Completely different design philosophy, and very different results in the image. So once again, opinions that do not apply to everyone. Certainly not to me.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

[QUOTE=Chriscrawfordphoto;1751123]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.

Thanks Bill. I didn't mean what I wrote as a put-down on you, but a response to the head bartender's assertion that a famous/important person cannot be questioned.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

'Tis true. I always wonder if there are painter forums where they discuss different easels and brushes.

Yes, there are, and yes painters talk about stuff like this. I laugh everytime some photographer trots out that tired old argument.

I spent my years in art school listening to professors, several of them with national reputations, talking about the differences between different brush types (eg. sable, nylon, hog bristle), different brands, etc. Many watercolorists won't touch anything but a Windsor-Newton Series 7 brush, and those brushes are EXPENSIVE. I remember we were only allowed to use certain paint brands because some are made for professionals, while others are 'student grade'. We were not allowed to use student grade paint. The professors made it clear that we were learning to be professionals and needed to use professional paint, brushes, canvas, etc. I still have my set of Windsor-Newton professional watercolor paints, which cost me about $300 back then!

[Steve M.]

At some point (pretty quickly) all the intellectual time wasting and ego shoving doesn't go anywhere. There are people that create, and people that critique. An image works, or it doesn't. Really, it's a visual thing, not a verbal thing. There's nothing to figure out, and has nothing to do w/ the medium. Trust me, people that actually care about the creating of "art", and there is no definition of that, aren't sitting around talking about it. They're busy doing it, and if someone likes it or dismisses it, it's of no concern.

[Carlsen Highway]

The great strength of a painting is that is it not tied to reality. It begins with an internal visualisation. It is also its great weakness.
(for example, the artists that were sent to the front in World War One came back and made paintings that do not capture the experience nearly as well as the simplest of amateur photographs have done.)

Photography is tied to reality, and starts with what is in front of the camera; in attempts to create an internal visualization such as in painting, reality must be circumvented in a studio, but is still tied to what light is reflected off real objects. At every stage you are stuck with the real world.

This is the weakness of it. Many people cannot express much of anything with photography. The real world sits in front of them and is not malleable, like a pyrimid in the desert, and they can't get any poetry out of it. It is truly a difficult form.
But reality is its great strength: the whole point when it is successful; the art is built on actuality. (Hence the disappointment when people discover that Doisneau's Kiss outside the Hotel was staged by friends, or Capa's Spanish soldier is a fake. The pictures are still exactly the same.) This is what he means when he says that the photographic art that will last is based on documentary photography - documentary pictures that transcend thier immediate subject or purpose. Photographic art is art because the viewer knows that it was composed or taken from the real world and it is an essential component of its success, not in spite of it.
Whereas an essential component of painting appreciation is the knowledge that there is nothing there but coloured liquids the artist smeared and pushed across a canvas. The entire thing is a creation.
Both forms are quite different in the way they succeed as art.

Regarding the article and as to a matter of value, I think he is right, paintings will always go for more money as art objects. A peice of art created from nothing - just paint on canvas - can create a form of awe in the veiwer. I am thinking of DaVinci's Virgin of the Rocks, for example or Gericault's Raft of the Medusa. A great photograph engages the mind and emotion, but the artistic achievement is still perceived to be lessor. And the reproducablity of a negative dilutes it further.

Photography I think of as a humble and even fleeting art form. I doubt much of it will be hanging in art galleries 200 years from now.
These are my own opinions on the matter.

[ndnik]

"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.
Painting starts with an internal, artistic response, from which it can't escape, but which is considered the nexus of all real art."

This seems to me to be the central premise of the article. This is factually wrong and in my mind irrelevant to the quality of art.

It is wrong because photography starts with an internal vision just as often as painting does, and painting starts with an external vision just as often as a photograph does. The case in point is the Mapplethorpe flower arrangement: he must have seen it in his mind before arranging the flowers for this photograph. He did not walk the streets and suddenly saw the flower arrangement in a shop window and took a snap ...

The reason I think the above is utterly irrelevant is because it is artist-centric. An essentially romantic view of art. But what the artist thought when creating the work of art is totally irrelevant. What matters (and matters only) is what the work of (visual in our case) art invokes in the viewer. The artist's state of mind is long removed from the scene. If you are with me on this latter point, the distinction between painting and photography comes down to a choice of medium, not more. Only the final image matters, not how it got to be.

- N.

[uhoh7]

I don't presume to know what is art and what is not.

However one thing that strikes me in the article concerned:

The guy claims Capa will outlive Mapplethorpe-- I wonder. Mapplethorpe's images--some of them anyway are fully self-contained. You don't need to know about Nazis.

A thousand years from now the salient event of the 20th century is more likely to be carbon pollution than WW2. Capa's shots will blend into millions of war photos. Mapplethorpe might however have at least created some images that will make a future human wonder: what the hell is that about?

The photos from members here which inspire me are those that challange my visual perception in some way. I'm a lowly landscape shooter, but maybe some day I'll shoot some that that do the same to others.

Its a very old argument, F64 and all that, and the essay is a simple get off my lawn reaction to 'Ort'. He may have done alot of thinking, but it seems mostly that was thinking of how to put his pre-concieved notions into words.

Just my take on a first skim.

[mackigator]

I liked the article, but all it makes me think of is "time to get back to work." By that I mean that the analysis doesn't seem to bear any fruit for the person trying to make either a painting or a photo.

[CameraQuest]

[QUOTE=Bill Pierce;1751140]

Thanks Bill. I didn't mean what I wrote as a put-down on you, but a response to the head bartender's assertion that a famous/important person cannot be questioned.

no Chris,
that was not my assertion at all.
go back and read it.

to put it another way,
you have a tendency to rant about and lambast others
while you are seemingly totally oblivious
to how much you could learn from them.
it is especially obvious when you lambast someone like Bill Pierce.

Stephen

[gdmcclintock]

So one is not supposed to challenge one's teachers?

[paulfish4570]

i thought the title of this thread was "no bs." :)

[Juan Valdenebro]

Photography is different from art 99.99% of the times, including 99.99% of the times the words "fine art photography" are used, no matter if galleries say it's art, and no matter if public says it's art, and no matter if photographers are called artists by others or by themselves... Yes, a lot of people think close to nothing... Bill Pierce referred to that situation when he talked (I don't remember the precise words) about big photographs, galleries, then it's art...

The linked article is deeply clever... We photographers (no matter if we can be artists in other fields, or convert photography in a "white canvas" media that's close to painting's freedom) indeed play a game that's not present in any other art: it's not us who -in a certain way- produce the work, but a machine, and it's not inside us where the work is born, but outside... We don't create, but select, reflect... We deal with reality, not with fantasy... Our vision or perception of a fragment of reality can be close to that of a viewer seeing our photograph in the future, but that's just because of the viewer, not because we placed our emotions inside our photograph... We were indeed "the viewer"...

This peculiar craft has puzzled most sensitive spirits and minds since it was born (Baudelaire comes to mind) until this thread... But even if it's as respectable and moving as any art, it doesn't move in the waters art moves.

Cheers,

Juan

[SciAggie]

"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.

Painting starts with an internal, artistic response, from which it can't escape, but which is considered the nexus of all real art."

I don't consider myself an expert in these matters but I do have an opinion. I these two points at least I believe the author is mistaken. I think good paintings or good fine art photographs reveal some internal, artistic response - they reveal something that the artist brings forth.

I'm probably going to say this badly, so please bare with me. There are many horrid paintings I'm sure, but I think it is fair to suggest that some painters with good technical skills get praised for their "art". People praise them because they recognize the "talent" needed to complete the work - the hand/ eye coordination and dexterity that one needs to possess to draw well. The work itself may not really reveal any "internal" response to the world.

Photography is different. It is much easier to produce work that displays competent technical skills. That is part of the reason it is valued less by many - they think anyone can be a photographer while not just anyone can "paint/draw". As far as that reasoning goes they may be correct but in my opinion the logic is flawed.

The paintings that I enjoy, as well as the photographs, reveal something - some internal, artistic message that the artist saw in their mind and expressed in their work. It may not be profound, but it is more than just a recording.

I told my wife this weekend that photography was much like teaching. A reasonably intelligent human can buy a camera, learn some technical skills and create an image. Similarly, many reasonably intelligent humans can attend the necessary classes and pass the necessary tests to be certified as a teacher. These folks can stand in front of students and dispense information. It is an completely different thing to have the ability to help students construct knowledge that will inform their lives.

Here on RFF some once wrote that when we look at a photo we must ask "What is the subject, and what does the photo say about?" Since I read that, I have at least found that all the photos I like have something that they say in some way. For me, that is enough to make it art - or at least interesting. I judge paintings the same way.

[Tompas]

A bad painting is just a bad painting. It's worthless, in all regards, except probably to the painter.
A bad photograph can still have some documentary value, to me, to some, or to mankind.

Does this mean anything?

[paulfish4570]

the lens is the brush, the film/sensor is the pallete. go make some art.

[gdmcclintock]

...

The linked article is deeply clever... We photographers (no matter if we can be artists in other fields, or convert photography in a "white canvas" media that's close to painting's freedom) indeed play a game that's not present in any other art: it's not us who -in a certain way- produce the work, but a machine, and it's not inside us where the work is born, but outside... We don't create, but select, reflect... We deal with reality, not with fantasy... Our vision or perception of a fragment of reality can be close to that of a viewer seeing our photograph in the future, but that's just because of the viewer, not because we placed our emotions inside our photograph... We were indeed "the viewer"...

This peculiar craft has puzzled most sensitive spirits and minds since it was born (Baudelaire comes to mind) until this thread... But even if it's as respectable and moving as any art, it doesn't move in the waters art moves.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

In what waters exactly does photography move? Is photography to be only, as Baudelaire put it in 1859, the "humble servant" of art?

[Brian Sweeney]

Art is in the eye of the beholder?

There are lots of articles that I cannot comprehend, that does not make the Author of the article and people that promote it "dumb". I would probably be smarter to read the article, understand the author's points, and then formulate my own opinions using this knowledge to either agree or disagree with the author's position.

In this example, I would compare a photographer with an architect and not a painter. The photographer observes reality and uses the mechanisms at hand to project it to their conceived representation, their "mental image". Sometimes that means just pushing the button, sometimes it means making a new device such as a lens or filter. An image architect, not a painter. No one questions that an architect is an artist, and their work is among the man-made wonders of the world.

And most people pay more money for their houses than the art hanging in it. Which seems to be the primary metric used in the article.

I've also been in meetings where PhD physicists call each other "Stupid". I have no respect when the only argument raised against an opinion is to label the person as "stupid".

[SciAggie]

Image architect - I like that. I may start using that. I have something I can really use from this thread now.

[willie_901]

An interesting aspect of the photography is or isn't art and what sort of artistic expression is best suited to photography is the resurgence of Pictorialism.

While I believe phtography's artistic strength is capturing the moment, digital manipulation has become an inexpensive and popular means of artistic expression. The Pictorialists were the first photographers ( c.a. 1885 - 1914) to challenge the assertion that photography is not art. The first Pictorialists had to invest a great deal of time and effort to manipulate and synthesize images. Today anyone with an iPhone and a couple of Apps can practice Pictorialism. Then there's the genre of hand-painted photographs.

As long as people create... that's good.

[Gabriel M.A.]

There are lots of articles that I cannot comprehend, that does not make the Author of the article and people that promote it "dumb".

(...)

I've also been in meetings where PhD physicists call each other "Stupid". I have no respect when the only argument raised against an opinion is to label the person as "stupid".

There is much existential irony in the dumbing-down of the word "dumb" and "stupid". Too mentally-lazy to say "it is unintelligible to me" and "I don't agree with you".


People just don't have the time to think, of course. It's far easier to raise voices, yell, and engage in pseudo-religious wars.

Today's industrialized societies are extremely specialized, and too pressed for precious time. When that specialization seems threatened, of course people are going to have violent reactions. Dismissive, at best. It's a time-saver.

[Gabriel M.A.]

As long as people create... that's good.


That is the key. People argue against photography "being art" because much of it isn't nowadays, and much of what is passed as "art" is really contaminated by lots of pretentiousness out there. It's as short-sighted as saying that writing isn't an art because much of what is written isn't literature (i.e. shopping lists, class notes).

The worst thing is that their deep-held convictions leave no room for discussion. The lowest form of this is seen in politics. The highest, in many self-help seminars. The quiet (by comparison) voices of reason have much to get through.

[paulfish4570]

well said, sir, well said.

[SciAggie]

Some of the best responses that could be made to this thread are, in my opinion, being made in the Gursky thread. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112779

There is a strong temptation to claim "I could have done that", when of course, they didn't. To me, that's the essense of the argument in this thread. When we look at the Gursky image, we do see something that we may in fact have had the technical skill to produce; we dismiss the fact that we didn't have the original vision to produce the image. When we look at a fine painting most of us never say to ourselves "I could have done that" because we lack the technical skill to produce the work. It never occurs to us that a great painting is special because of something more than its technical merits.

My two cents worth. Reading both threads has caused a good discussion.

Now I have to go find the "Things I never worried about" thread and admit I didn't really know who Gursky was before today...:bang:

[SciAggie]

I said that, but I seriously doubt it is my original thought.

That's part of why I didn't quote you directly; there was another post that had a similar meaning. Either way, I hope you didn't mind. Your comment was very helpful to me.

[ian]

In the "world of art" people cannot even agree on what IS or ISN'T art so how can we expect anything different in regards to photography and "art"? If it isn't, will we all stop photographing out of creative despair? I hope that what we do we do out of love (at least non commercially) and for ourselves, not to prove we are artists or creative. Proving is really just asking others to agree with us and looking outside ourselves for acceptance or validation. These pronouncements and views are subjective and often change with the times. In the final analysis it does not really matter and is just an intellectual exercise - fun but not relevant as to who we are or what we do.

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan,

In what waters exactly does photography move? Is photography to be only, as Baudelaire put it in 1859, the "humble servant" of art?

Photography moves NATURALLY in the waters of reality reflection.

When its nature is someway crushed, as when someone creates a new reality (theater) to photograph it, or as when the captured image is varied physically or digitally, photography's real nature is BY FORCE made closer to painting nature, where it's a creator's fantasy (inspired on reality or not) what will become the work.

When artists (and other people) started to see those very strange things called photographs on the 19th century, they never considered them art: it's obvious, as they were reality, not creation or fantasy.

Some of those artists considered photography (reality) -with reason- a servant of art... Servant in the same visual sense a model posing (still) can be a servant of art...

When one of the greatest photographers of all time, Eugene Atget, did his photographs, he felt he was able to -first in front of reality, and then in front of his images- dream of lyric and metaphors, as in front of paintings, so he started to call his "suspicious" photographs "documents for artists" and that's exactly how he offered them to artists in Paris: wonderful photographs he considered humble servants of art... They're no doubt superb, but they're different from art... They're completely based in reality, but tell other things...

So, if someone wants to be a true artist in photography, a good idea is having a visual style or a limited range of themes: a recognizable finger print, and to create scenes to communicate feelings, to induce emotions... Joel Peter-Witkin is a photographer I don't enjoy, but I consider him an artist.

And the photographers I like the most are those who reflect reality in ways that strangely mix too different words like humble, intelligent, clear, sensitive, lyric, realistic, surprising, metaphoric, surreal, but based -always- on plain reality, and that's very hard to do in my opinion: a lot harder than creating a new scene and being an artist by photographing it...

Those (art/painting, and photography) are two very different waters. All of us are free to like each of them as much as we decide to, but they're clearly different...

The act of the photographer is a lot closer to the act of the viewer: both enjoy, suffer or dream in front of reality... The photographer was the viewer already... In the case of the artist/painter, there's a much bigger gap between the viewer and the creator.

When photography tries to swim in painting (creation) waters, I wonder, "why not paint then?" I see it close to a painter writing words or poems on canvas, instead of being a writer... If the idea is writing, a canvas mixing painting and words is a weaker medium for writing than books... In the same sense, for real art, visual creation and metaphors, photography is a weaker medium than painting...

When a painting swims or used to swim in "reality reproduction" waters (without extra lyric adding by the painter) it was never as respected as paintings that were able to communicate more than pure reality...

Should photography be judged the same way painting has been judged for centuries? Should photography be considered better if it reproduces a new, just staged -or varied- reality instead of reproducing plain reality? Do photographers need to be called artists? Do painting/art, and photography, move in the same waters? I don't think so...

Cheers,

Juan

[Benjamin Marks]

Risking a cross-post, here is my comment from TOP:

"I think that the photograph of the Earth hanging like a delicate spherical island alone in space probably altered more perceptions, and more quickly, more radically, than the Mona Lisa ever did. But that photograph isn't really Art -- I mean, it wasn't created with artistic intent, any more than the photographs on the documentary list above were. I recognize the urge to compare photography and painting, because they both result in two-dimensional images. But the comparison really ends there, doesn't it? No one compares photography to dance."

In a sense, the posts above this one are trying to answer the question: "what is photography for?" Well, sometimes it is for documenting things that were happening in the blink of an eye, sometimes it is for "showing something wonderful" (which is great shorthand for the example I picked in my TOP comment, and many others) and sometimes it is for creating "hints and allegations" or a new reality (Unselman, Meatyard). I think discussing who will be remembered in 100 years or 500 years is fun beer-talk, but I am compelled by pure practicality to observe that the resolution of that issue is comfortably out of our hands.

Ben

[pluton]

"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.
Painting starts with an internal, artistic response, from which it can't escape, but which is considered the nexus of all real art."

this simply is not true of either medium. how many magnificent portrait paintings hang in museums that were commissioned by the subject(s)? tons, and not one of them started from an internal, artistic response. most likely they started with the sound of a pen scratching out a check. take HCB's photo of the man leaping across the puddle. hcb was in position because of an internal, artistic response to the lighting, framing, etc. then the man leaped, completing the photo. it would not have been made without that original internal, artistic response to the scene ...

Right, Paulfish...this is the most important point to make: Absolute, fully generalized statements about the artist's "conception" or "intention" or lack thereof are as worthless as all the endless articles in [U]Free Inquiry[U] magazine where the atheist authors debate which of various religious authors are Deists or Theists. I gotta go vacuum the house now.