Here's the problem for me: The author compares the National History Museum wildlife photo winners with a work by Caravaggio. He points to another comparison of a puppy dog photo to a work by Caravaggio. He compares Taylor Wessing's portraits to Rembrandt's.
These are goofy comparisons.
However, his overall point is valid. Large photographs--very large photographs--don't seem to have the *presence* of paintings of the same size. There's some sort of imbalance there, there some sort of failure to gain increased *weight* with the increased weight.
Then again, the paintings the article refers to are not all that large. About as big as a Karsh Churchill photo (which *does*) have that presence, by the way). It's a puzzle.
--Darin
I don't think it is a good article-I think it is the typical pap taht passes in the popular web press for an "informed" POV. It is hyperbolic from the beginning title and is aimed at stimulating click throughs-not real dialogue.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Many publications have contributors who's purpose seems to be the generating of letters to the editor. The Guardian is no exception.
It is opinion after all, so it is neither right nor wrong. I agree that his comparisons are far fetched and perhaps he is not well "informed" but this makes his point no less valid. In fact, sometimes the less informed or even out right uninformed have more sincere and honest opinions.
My wife, who loves art and even appreciates photography, would not be a well informed commentator on the subject of photography despite having seen many exhibits, sat through lectures, gotten to know well regarded photographers and listened to my boring rants for years. However, I highly value her opinion for the simple reason that she knows what she likes and what she doesn't and she is honest in her opinions. She sees images not as a photographer but as an observer and there is a great deal of value in that.
My point with this is don't shun this just because we feel his viewpoint is uninformed. While I disagree with much that he wrote, his opinion is still valid and worth consideration. The problem is that he may just be stating an opinion that is shared by a larger percentage of the public then we might care to admit. This doesn't lessen my love of what we do and in many ways, only serves to inspire me to try and make images that, if shown to a person like this writer, may make them change their opinion.
It's his approach, his style, that raises hackles. The topic will always be there and nothing is wrong with that.
The problem has nothing to do with who shares his opinion; it's that his opinion is poorly argued. It isn't really argued at all. It's a pile of assertions based on premises that go unquestioned (and that themselves were often widely dismissed after feuds from decades ago).
There are standards of good journalism even for opinion pieces. It's not enough to say, well, it's an opinion and all opinions are valid and worth consideration. It's up to the journalist to make the argument worth consideration.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the opinion. The opposite argument made this poorly would be just as bad. I enjoy reading opinion pieces that push against what I already believe. But they have to be smart. They have to push somewhere interesting. The Guardian should be ashamed for giving this guy a voice.
Someone should tell that guy how many of his classic paintings were really done with camera obscura.
We do have a choice and I have chosen to hang a cheap ansel print over any painter. Frankly I find photograhers far more interesting than paintings. I am not a snob to other art forms, but the reason I choose do do photography is I get more enjoyment from looking at photographs than I do paintings.
Last edited by Jeff Dexheimer; 16-Nov-2014 at 18:25. Reason: Fix a typo
Bookmarks