No BS

[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=Chriscrawfordphoto;1751336]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

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]

Originally Posted by Juan Valdenebro

...

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.]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

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.]

Originally Posted by willie_901

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/foru...d.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...

[SciAggie]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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]

Originally Posted by gdmcclintock

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ...

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.