Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

  1. #41

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    A good summary of a common approach - focus on the form, not the substance

    I just love the way this response IGNORES the main content of my post, and focuses on the one minor point made.

    Were you trying to be ironic? Because if so, you succeeded.

    If you weren't trying to be ironic, well... you were anyway. But my opinion of you would be markedly different.

  2. #42
    Jon Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    651

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    In reading the article, it reminding me of a college philosophy course and the query of whether or not a tree makes noise when it falls in the middle of a forest without anyone around...it is a mental exercise intended to promote discussion without there being a right answer. As to my opinion, photography definitely can be fine art....albeit "art" like "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder.

  3. #43

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    I think that a number of people are misreading Berger's statements and then placing far too much emphasis on the opening page in that context. He's not attacking photography as 'not-art' - he sets it in opposition to the fine art of the privileged, embodying "a way of life which excludes the mass."

    The key sentence to the essay: "It is more useful to categorize art by what has become its social function." Redefining 'art' not debasing 'photography.' He's correct about 'property value' as well - it was well after 1968 that it became a mainstream practice for photographers to destroy their negatives in order to manufacture scarcity and improve standing in the fine art market.

  4. #44
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    "It is more useful to categorize art by what has become its social function." Redefining 'art' not debasing 'photography.' "

    Or if not redefining it, giving it a new (and more democratic) social function. Which is an interesting set of ideas. It echoes the voices of outsider art movements, primitivist art, socialist art, etc. etc.

    It's too bad he had to frame the essay with exhausted, ancient arguments over what is/isnt, or can/can't be art. Even in 1968 we were well past tying these questions about art to a medium. Is painting art? No. Painting is a category of media. It can be used for lots of things. One of those things is making art. Photography? Cardboard and dung? Same arguments apply.

    It's easy for someone to lose his audience if he precedes the interesting points with tired old ones that have long since been categorically discredited.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    471

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    Frederick H. Evans was a frequent contributor to Stieglitz's magazine, "Camera Work". In an article written by Evans, "What Constitutes An Artist" he offers some interesting insights. "Camera Work", no. 7 (July 1904), p. 21-24

  6. #46
    grumpy & miserable Joseph O'Neil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    830

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    For years I have been reading articles - like the one posted at the start of this thread.

    Anyhow, just a few days ago, I am explaining to a friend what large format photography is, showing him one of my cameras, etc, etc. His comment after I finished was :

    "Oh, I get it, you're not really doing photography, what you are doing is art."

    I suppose art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    joe
    eta gosha maaba, aaniish gaa zhiwebiziyin ?

  7. #47
    Photo Dilettante Donald Brewster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Malibu, CA
    Posts
    359

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    I think Berger is having a bit of an argument with Walter Benjamin's 1936 essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin argued that when a work of art is reproduced it loses its cult value and becomes inherently political due to its sudden accessibility to a mass audience. Berger in his essay is trying to rescue photography from the fate of "High Art": its commodification. Berger can be criticized for saying photography is not characterized by composition or form, which of course it is -- but he was not saying this in a pejorative sense. Berger is saying the photograph is distinguished more by the photographers choice of time, the extraction of a single moment from a related chain of moments, i.e., a photograph may be judged effective when the moment it records contains a quantum of truth -- and I think this is an important connection to the making and the maker of the photograph. Regarding the art as property issue, keep in mind that Berger wrote this essay in 1972, when you could still by an AA photo for $50 -- merely expressing the economic circumstances for photography at that time.

    Note that Berger wrote the book Fortunate Man in collaboration with the photographer Jean Mohr -- Berger is not an "enemy" of photography. And no, I'm not particularly fond of Berger's work in general.

    I'm sorry if I sound like I have an art history degree, but I do.

  8. #48
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

    "I'm sorry if I sound like I have an art history degree, but I do."

    please don't apologize for knowing something.

    even if it might make you unpopular with some people. or hurt your chances in american politics.

Similar Threads

  1. What is fine art photography?
    By Leonard Metcalf in forum On Photography
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 26-May-2008, 04:50
  2. Reflections in food photography (good and bad)
    By Michael Ray in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5-Aug-2005, 11:18
  3. FYI: The Friends of Photography closes for good
    By Merg Ross in forum Announcements
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18-Oct-2001, 13:38
  4. Hexachrome good for photography books?
    By Paul Schilliger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2001, 17:26
  5. Is there a good one-shot fine -grain developer for FP4?
    By Yaakov Asher Sinclair in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3-May-2000, 15:47

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •