The Online Photographer: "The Ort of Photography"

[Brian C. Miller]

John Camp posted a guest essay on The Online Photographer, entitled, "The Ort of Photography."

His premise basic premise is that painting originates from within, while photography originates from without. Photography will never match or exceed painting's strengths, so instead its practitioners should concentrate on photography's strengths. What happens for a fleeting instant before a shutter in motion is photography's strength, which painting won't match.

Do you think he's right? I think so, but to the extent that a photographer's name will fade, but the photograph, especially an iconic photograph, will remain. But I'm still not sure that a photograph will approach the monetary value of a painting.

[John Kasaian]

Monetary value is nebulous at best. For Art to have usefulness, it has to be appreciated and the most famous paintings are appreciated by far more people through photographic reproductions (and now digital images) than when hanging in museums or mansions.

[Greg Blank]

Brian;

Nice topic!

Does it matter, that a photo could, will, or would? So much of art is wrapped into religion-superstition (by that I mean man's earliest experience) and therefore is steeped in the depths of fear and reverence. The cave painters were the spiritual leaders of the klan and produced awe inspired into the others in the group. If others without the ability to consult the "GODS" saw you chanting and producing the creatures from the world onto a wall- you were powerful. Today: If you look at how enchanted people become, when they watch you draw something, or watch someone else as they produce -building something of interest from "scratch". Look at how distant society is from beliefs, moralities, nature, one's own self, you may understand that having enough money to fill that space places a much higher value than perhaps.

Suddenly a great percentage of society has technology but not everyone can draw with a stick, a brush, a pencil or ever will be able to without far greater advancements in technology. Tech may truly even the playing field- but uniqueness "could" ultimately be the thing that fades.

Do you think he's right? I think so, but to the extent that a photographer's name will fade, but the photograph, especially an iconic photograph, will remain. But I'm still not sure that a photograph will approach the monetary value of a painting.

[Greg Blank]

A very valid point, without photography, art on its own might not have produced a more vibrant and advanced society. In a way though as history happened it made Art a client or spouse to photography/instead of an included medium...which makes Photography somewhat obligated to Art. But then you have the Philosophy-Science-Religion- Superstition thing going on again by default

Just think if video had been the first evolutionary step in this process ,....we could have all been happy photographers without consequence.

Monetary value is nebulous at best. For Art to have usefulness, it has to be appreciated and the most famous paintings are appreciated by far more people through photographic reproductions (and now digital images) than when hanging in museums or mansions.

[David R Munson]

I do not think he's right. In fact, I disagree with him to a high degree. It's a matter of taste that he's presenting as a matter of truth. There are all sorts of problems with his argument, not the least of which is using what sells for the most as a basis for judging the inherent value of one form of art versus another.

[cowanw]

He says...
"•Portraiture
•Genre scenes
•History painting (including religious art)
•Abstraction
•Outsider art (which in photography would include snapshots)
In none of these areas do I think the best of photography can match the best of painting in terms of power, or emotional effectiveness, or aesthetic quality."

In an earlier post referred to he says...
"Ask, "Who can be judged a great artist (in photography) fifty years after he died?" So, right now, what photographer who died before 1961 is generally recognized by the public as a great artist?

In painting, of course, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of them, going all the way back to the Renaissance. Who hasn't heard of Leonardo? That's even true with Americans, like Winslow Homer, Thomas Eakins, Mary Cassatt, Grant Wood, Jackson Pollock, etc. Where are the photographers? When you say 'Stieglitz,' how many people jump up and shout, "Love those cloud photos!""

I think he is being a bit of a troll.
Just to ignore the portraiture of the 19th and 20th century, is remarkably obtuse.
I would answer. When you say 'Karsh' how many people jump up and shout,"Love those portraits"
You may insert any of dozens of your favorite portraitists.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Well, I think the monetary value of photography in the art market is somewhat determined by the number of prints made. He seems to feel that great paintings sell for more because people value them more than a photo however had Ansel only printed one "Moonrise, Hernandez" and that image was held in the same high regard amongst collectors then my guess is it would fetch millions at auction. The value is somewhat dictated by availability.

I also don,t agree that photography is an external response while painting is an internal response. All art begins with an internal vision, at least good art. I think a great photographer works the same way any other great artist works, they begin with the end in mind. Perhaps abstract painting is purely internal' but then so would abstract photography (and I think even abstracts begin with an external influence at some point).

I will spend a little more time with this article, thanks for posting.

[Jim Jones]

Monetary value is nebulous at best. . . .

Yes, indeed. Art is art, and money is business. The value of each is variable. For example, the value of one dollar to someone desperate for a loaf of bread is rather higher than the value of one dollar to Bill Gates. A child's fleeting wonder at the beauty of music and other art should be as valuable as the shreds of wonder that remain under the burden of sophistication.

John Camp claims, "In none of these areas do I think the best of photography can match the best of painting in terms of power, or emotional effectiveness, or aesthetic quality." I strongly disagree. Even in the age of Photoshop, photography suggests integrity. Has any painter ever portrayed a sitter as completely as Yousuf Karsh in his most famous photo of Hemingway? Perhaps Rembrandt shows what Rembrandt saw and felt about his subjects, but Karsh doesn't stand between us and his sitters.

Then Camp says, ". . . those artworks that are most widely accepted as masterpieces sell for the most money." To some businessmen, probably yes. Perhaps by a similar standard we should consider Paris Hilton as the epitome of class and wisdom.

[Brian K]

I agree with Camp when he states that "photographers will be lost in time" but to that I would add "the vast majority of photographers" will be lost in time. And I think the problem is not that photography itself is a less expressive medium than say painting or sculpture, but because there is so much of it that lacks any real expression or merit that photography as a whole has become devalued. We have gotten to a point where photography is so full of really poor photographs, being produced by the billions everyday, that work of merit is deeply buried by the mediocrity.

Much of the contemporary styled photographic work being produced today that is lauded by the art establishment is little more than fashion or short term politically based. Subjects that future generations will not see as particularly interesting as so much will change in society and it's interests between now and then. And let's be real here is that the general population looks at much of this work and thinks that they or even their children could do it. Contentless and pointless work does not inspire.

The comparison that Camp made to the painting of flowers by Breughel and the flowers by Mapplethorpe I think is a good example. I can view a painting of flowers and be so blown away by the painter's ability to render such amazing detail and quality that that in itself makes me revere the piece. And if the painter has combined that impressive talent with content that is interesting then I am incredibly impressed. I look at Mapplethorpe's sample of flowers in a vase, and have to say to myself that I'd seen that type of image 1000 times before Mapplethorpe did it so it's not like he did anything unique or creative there, I've seen it better done, and as someone with extensive studio experience know exactly how difficult and how competent a photograph that is. I also know that there are perhaps a dozen photographers here on LFF who could have done it just as well, perhaps even better. So to say the least I am not impressed with it, and have never been.

However what Camp seems to forget is that photography has a few other tricks up it's sleeve that painting lacks. One is that traditionally photography was a capture of a real event, and unless the content is edited, is still telling a real story, that is a story from real life as it happens. Paintings do not get the degree of credibility that photographs get when it comes to the truth aspect.

The other thing that photography does well is the use of the 4th dimension. By utilizing either super short exposures and freezing an instant, or by using very long exposures to expand time, a photographer can show what the eye can not see.

I think long term that landscape will become more valued, especially photographic landscape. I think this because we are altering the surface of the planet at an alarming and accelerating rate, and at some point the beauty of nature will be all but gone. We just welcomed the 7 billionth person to the planet, and the rate of population is also accelerating. Sustaining the natural beauty of the Earth will not last long against the requirements, of food, energy, raw materials and housing. And while a painting of a landscape lost may make the viewer ponder what was, the credibility of what really was , that only a photograph can provide, will resonate far more deeply.

[Ben Syverson]

The entire argument is hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

As I just posted to TOP, "You can ask whether they'll ever make a potato chip that's as tasty as a french fry, but you can't expect a rational person to engage in that debate."