George Kara
18-Oct-2007, 08:05
From the journal of Eugene Delacroix. September 1, 1859 Strasbourg
"When a photographer takes a view, all you ever see is a part cut off from the whole: The edge of the picture is as interesting as the center. All you can do suppose an ensemble, of which you only see a portion, apparently chosen by chance.
...The photographs which strike you most are those in which the very imperfection of the process as a matter of absolute rendering leaves certain gaps, a certain repose for the eye which permit it to concentrate on only a small number of objects."
Within the same journal date the artist adds the following profound summary of human visual perception.
"In the presence of nature herself, it is our imagination that makes the picture: We see neither the blades of grass in a landscape nor the accidents of the skin in a pretty face. Our eye, in its fortunate inability to perceive these infinitesimal details, reports to our mind only the things which it ought to perceive...it does not take into account all that the eye presents to it;it connects the impressions it experiences with others it received earlier, and its enjoyment is dependent on its disposition at the time."
Perhaps this sums up my love affair with the old and modern soft focus images of the figure and landscape.
The discussion of photography as art and craft appears to have changed very little in the last 138 years. Many of the others arts, have have made quantum shifts in
creative intent and perception during this same time frame.
As an artistic tool (not commercial) could it be that photography has simply bumped up against the inherent limitation of the medium? Is it possible to bust out of the black box so to speak?
George
"When a photographer takes a view, all you ever see is a part cut off from the whole: The edge of the picture is as interesting as the center. All you can do suppose an ensemble, of which you only see a portion, apparently chosen by chance.
...The photographs which strike you most are those in which the very imperfection of the process as a matter of absolute rendering leaves certain gaps, a certain repose for the eye which permit it to concentrate on only a small number of objects."
Within the same journal date the artist adds the following profound summary of human visual perception.
"In the presence of nature herself, it is our imagination that makes the picture: We see neither the blades of grass in a landscape nor the accidents of the skin in a pretty face. Our eye, in its fortunate inability to perceive these infinitesimal details, reports to our mind only the things which it ought to perceive...it does not take into account all that the eye presents to it;it connects the impressions it experiences with others it received earlier, and its enjoyment is dependent on its disposition at the time."
Perhaps this sums up my love affair with the old and modern soft focus images of the figure and landscape.
The discussion of photography as art and craft appears to have changed very little in the last 138 years. Many of the others arts, have have made quantum shifts in
creative intent and perception during this same time frame.
As an artistic tool (not commercial) could it be that photography has simply bumped up against the inherent limitation of the medium? Is it possible to bust out of the black box so to speak?
George