Interesting.
Could it be that you put painting over photography because you are... a photographer?
It’s too easy for us to disregard our skills and hard work and imagine that others work much harder than us...
I once heard a painter share an almost mirrored opinion : Painting is easy, I get in my studio every morning and I paint, from my head straight to the canvas. Photography must be so much harder because one must either walk around in an intense state of observation until they find a scene that resonates with the feeling they’re trying to express, or if they are studio based they must assemble all the necessary elements and personnel to create the image they envision.
Me, I like both painting and photography and admire many practitioners of both, but wouldn’t presume that either is easier or take less of an effort to make a truly great piece of Art. Plenty of lazy artists in either medium though. If all you have to do to produce your work is get up early and get to a scenic location, it doesn’t matter if you’re painting it or photographing it, chances are I won’t be interested in putting it on my wall.
"I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection. To photograph reality is to photograph nothing." Duane Michals
"Seems to me an overwrought defense of...
I already wrote, the image in discussion is a well known location to me
Not quite down by the river..."
You know, I keep an even keel when it comes to other's perspectives in this forum, but I couldn't follow the bouncing ball when it came to your epiphanies. One minute rage, the next embarrassment, and then a James Joyce moment, or two or three consecutively. Stream of consciousness..., super.
My essay was simply responding to your underdeveloped series of hyperbolic statements (perhaps some acetylcholine lapses there) which you seemed to be promulgating from sheer force of nature, otherwise I wasn't following it.
So we are witness to some prominent individuals who use the similar technique, I feel therefore what I say must be true (a perverse derivative of Buber). And the reference to Berkeley - so much egocentrism - I guess is a fad acceptable to aging WASPS. But count me out.
I get it if you need the attention, but perhaps you can PM your inner most expressions to your group of friends, and free up the website for those who have some real insight.
You realize that the Tin Man did eventually realize his capabilities, once it was brought to his attention. Living in the moment, not the past helps me to stay centered. Not to offend...
Indeed, I have no skills to paint or draw though have tried. The conversion of what's in the painter's mind onto the canvas assuming one has the skill set to manage it, is unique and individual. The photographer takes what he sees and allows the the camera to in effect act as the artist. So photographers lined up at the same scene with comparable equipment will capture essentially the same image, no distinction unless through aperture or size of format, or AOV. Also DR is a huge issue with photography which before digital made it nigh impossible to get reasonable range in bright light. Even with digital one must be very careful not to lose highlights (my experience). So many times I have said, if I could only paint this scene etc. Also, with film you are subject to it's color palate, and then you must become a scientist in color management for post to get what you want. Very tedious and time consuming.
But with B+W, tonal range can be modified through filters and post techniques to mitigate the diminishment of DR. Color film is so limited, you really have limit your taking to low or diffuse light, particularly with chromes, somewhat less so with negative color film.
You are right, if the image doesn't work, either medium, it doesn't go on the wall.
There are too many examples, but particularly in the first half of the 20th century, which show that art is exactly the expression of ideas, concepts, shapes, color relationships, and ultimately in the hands of an adept artist, a product which may speak to the observer. Fauvism, Vorticism, Cubism, Hudson Valley School of American Impressionists, the Symbolists, Abstract Impressionists, all convey a distinction of style, concept, born out of in some cases a manifesto, or a group effort to seek new approaches to visual expression. Whether it connects with you emotionally or not, is inconsequential, as it was the conveyance of a new vision which was of utmost importance - and least we forget, artists had to survive and to do so required modifying their style, technique, or vision to pay the bills.
I am not discounting that a person may connect with an image emotionally, it happens especially when we view previously unseen images of family for example - nostalgia.
But I do not see how strict landscape photography, if considered art (and I am not convinced), can convey emotion. Yes we might see beauty in its form and color, but ultimately, does that appealing sensibility rise to true emotion, or is just a moment's pleasure. Is there intended emotion in Gursky's large format images, or rather, does anyone experience a tinge of emotion in viewing them? They are conceptual, tidy, detailed, balanced images of a construct which has no immediate human dimension. Where's the connection for emotion?
Some have a need to connect emotionally with art; however, there are far too many including myself who find emotion the least important response to any piece of art. On the other hand, I cannot but become emotional when severe and evocative images of the human condition find their way to me. Unfortunately, LF is not the most ideal medium for those protrayals.
Of coarse it can if there is familiarity with the subject, evidently Mr Can has. I would think a lot of people would have a emotional attachment to places they are familiar with. I'm always drawn to a landscape that has gum/eucalyptus trees, because they are party of my environment. The trick is to portray emotion with a subject the viewer isn't directly connected to, then you need to be good at dodge and burn and working the light.
Perhaps PD never saw my NOT ART scheme, I have posted a version of this
1997 I made 10,000 stickers and gave them away at the largest Art Fair Chicago has ever had. Centered on Wicker Park, all inclusive, open your studio, bands played, we danced in the streets. A very diverse scene, streets were closed. No Police.
Originated 1979 by frenchman Jim Happy-Delpech, that was THE peak year, the next year leeches created rules, bigger fees and failure
ATC was free to visitors, artists were asked for a $25 fee to get a spot somewhere...very hard to find any spot
I paid the fee, but did not want a spot, I had 2 young women volunteers to help hand out stickers anywhere
We were chased down the street a couple times, one was the Big Art Boss, incensed by our giving stickers while he was trying to sell $5 stickers, we moved down a block, he was red faced and shouting
The next day, he found me and apologized. He was head of ATC organization, we got on after that
Art teachers loved the stickers, we gave them as many as they wanted
One stern fellow shouted, 'I AM an Artist' and stalked off
We never went inside any studio, but some stickers did, that also created danger
1-NOT ART Sticker by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr
Tin Can
I think that it's kind of ridiculous, because there's so much related to photography that can be politically related, and yet also be enlightening and insightful. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog, it began when the Lounge sub-forum was created. One can imagine the kind of political discussions that RAGED out of control. So "logically," political discussion was banned in ALL of the sub-forums. (This decision may have also been a bit of an over-reaction by moderators who actually had to deal with the mayhem that was occurring in the Lounge.)
As a former moderator, I argued that political discussion need be banned only in the Lounge. In other sub-forums, errant political discussion was controllable by requiring that all discussion be photographically related, and as current guidelines require, that discussion "maintain forum decorum."
Alas, this logic did not prevail.
Actually, I originally argued that the Lounge be jettisoned, in favor allowing thoughtful and respectful political discussion, which had been permitted previously to the Lounge. But, I could see where the Lounge offered value, so I tempered my input somewhat.
Bookmarks