Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

[Jim Jones]

To some outsiders, anything that appears as easy as photography done with contemporary equipment and material can not possibly be great art. However, photographic artists can work as hard as painters and almost as hard as musicians in perfecting their art, and the result will be obvious only to a perceptive person willing to expend a lot of time and energy in learning to appreciate it.

Photography also has the advantage of implied veracity. Joe Rosenthal's iconic Iwo Jima flag raising might be considered a fortunate shapshot or well-timed photojournalism, but it touched the hearts of Americans in a way that no painting of that time could. That is a major function of art in any medium.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't agree that the best photographs are flat and soulless but I never considered what I did as art. I considered it a technical medium with the need for artistic vision. I don't think it's quite the same thing. As another poster pointed out, painting requires more interpretation/translation of one visual language to another visual language. I don't want to step on any toes but, IMHO, it really isn't the same.

[Peter Lewin]

And now for something slightly different! Here is an article from today's NY Times about two shows, one of photography, and one of Old Master's Paintings, running concurrently in Paris. Unlike the article that started this thread, it comments about the two mediums without placing a value judgment on one versus the other: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/ar...yt-region&_r=0

If you click on the links in the 3rd paragraph of the article (to the two exhibitions) both have fascinating websites. The one on photography not only allows a virtual tour (which I found kind of amazing) but also a gallery of exhibitors, showing one work by each. The Old Master's site doesn't have the 2014 catalog posted yet,but you can page through last year's to get a sense of what they are showing.

[Bill Burk]

There seem to be about as many great photographers as there are great painters (or great singers or great violinists): very few. Because being a great artist, is, apparently, hard.

Good point paulr.

[Tin Can]

Now that the today's NY Times is mentioned, the business section mentioned the largest LED video and photographic display in the world opens tomorrow in Times Square. One block long, 8 stories tall, 24 million 3 color LEDs if my memory is correct.

It will display tests for a couple more days and then Google has bought it until year end.

It may take imaging to new heights? (pun intended)

Obviously flat and soulless, but stupid, I doubt. I hope they show Google Earth for us all to wonder at.

[Zndrson]

"It just looks stupid when a photograph is framed or backlit and displayed vertically in an exhibition..."

This unprofessionally dismissive tone is enough to tell me that this article isn't worth much. Really, any properly written article meant as a critique shouldn't contain the words "It just looks stupid...".

Yes, its 1000x easier to start taking photographs vs painting a picture. Joe Schmoe that just picked up a Sony at BestBuy and isn't blind will have a much easier time convincing himself that the nude photos he took of his girlfriend are "art" than if he attempted to paint a picture of his nude girlfriend for the first time. One will resemble her, regardless of angle, light, and general composition, and one would better fit into the abstract expressionist genre. I'd say its easier to pick out a crappy painter than a crappy photographer, all things being equal.

However, its total asinine to say that all photographs look stupid in a gallery. Blanket statements like that are made by amateurs.

Paintings were made nearly photo-realistic far before the first photograph was taken. It took quite a bit of skill to be able to render a painting with that level of realism, but once people figured it out (several hundred years ago), it became blase. At that point, the struggle switched from being about simple rendering and became about light, shape, context and subject matter. What symbolism could you include? What kind of political statement could be made? Obviously I'm paraphrasing history quite a bit here.

Should a realistic painting of nothing in particular be given high praise when so many painters can paint in this way? Does a painting in this genre not then require a level of depth and meaning or at least aesthetic aptitude to be given praise?

Why should photography be any different? Give 10 people two lights and a camera and tell them to take a photograph of a pear on a table. 2 will be terrible 5 will be ok 2 will be interesting, and 1 might be really impressive.

Realistic painting is a difficult skill to learn, but it is a skill that can be taught. This is the same as how the technical skills of photography can be taught. What can't be taught is how to make a piece of art that someone deems worthy to be hung on the walls of a gallery.

[tgtaylor]

Yes, its 1000x easier to start taking photographs vs painting a picture.

Taking a photograph and printing that photograph are two separate beasts. The former is quite straight forwarded and simple while the latter requires a skill set that is on the same level as that of the talented painter. Your fluency in your craft is the determining factor in how successful the image is.

Thomas

[Jim Jones]

I don't agree that the best photographs are flat and soulless but I never considered what I did as art. I considered it a technical medium with the need for artistic vision. . . .

Oil painting at its best is quite technical. Ralph Mayer's The Artist's Handbook was my bible when I dabbled in painting decades ago. The interaction between pigments, mediums, grounds, and picture varnish is quite complex. Too many who had a master's vision without the technical background have left otherwise commendable art that is either crumbling or fading away, or is a conservator's nightmare. Perhaps the most famous example is da Vinci's Last Supper.

[Darin Boville]

Taking a photograph and printing that photograph are two separate beasts. The former is quite straight forwarded and simple while the latter requires a skill set that is on the same level as that of the talented painter. Your fluency in your craft is the determining factor in how successful the image is.

Thomas

But your view sort of wipes out the part of photography that makes it photography. The part involving the camera!

Darin

[Peter York]

My take is that someone who makes a statement like this is one with no curiosity, or willingness to learn. Sad, really. I recently started studying Chinese painting, and at first glance every work appears to be largely the same, on the surface. The same goes for my initial encounter with most painting pre-Impressionism, with the exception of a few artists. Or with most expressionism, or post-modernism, whatever. When you engage material that appears immediate, however, layers of meaning often emerge. All art is like this in my experience. The best continues to grow on you as you engage and reflect.

It is true that we live on a world where most images get only a glance onscreen, and the author seems to think that this is the only way to experience a photograph. In other words he has been herded by technology into a position of ignorance. You would think that someone choosing to display work at such a large size is at a minimum trying to convey more. Some succeed and some don't in my opinion, but I at least try to understand. I wonder what he would say of Warhol, or Duchamp, or even Robert Frank if he saw their work for the first time with his mindset.

As others point out this critique is nothing new. Seichen had to combat it. Heck, Hal Gould had to combat it here in Denver. He purposefully situated his is gallery, the Camera Obscura, across the street from the art museum because at the time photography was not considered art. Guess who won those arguments.