Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Photography and is it just a crap version of art for the untalented?

pointless and uncalled for

15:29 / 29.04.03

To follow on from the discussions which arise from Fake Puma Blowjob Ads

I am taking the liberty of copying D's last post in here to begin.

I don't really understand how you view photography as a restrictive medium.

It was said in the sense that no matter what the technique the work of every photographer comes down to creating an image from a genuine physical artifact. The options, the variables, the choices, many though they may be, are still anchored to a finite choice of real objects. In comparison to the blank page and a pencil, it is boundaried.
Perhaps a person's reaction to this depends upon their general approach to art. How far one may wish to be reflective, how far one wishes to be expressive or creative, whatever else and all the middle ground that rests in between.

Mario Testino by the way. Sure he can take a picture, he has that skill, but artistically his work is uninspired old-fangled Warholism.

And now I reply in another post for the sake of marked continuity.

Tryphena Absent

16:55 / 29.04.03

Oh, why not...

no matter what the technique the work of every photographer comes down to creating an image from a genuine physical artifact.

This seems utterly ridiculous. D has basically taken the view of anyone who's hopelessly opposed to modern/contemporary art, switched the usual points around and applied them to photography. Instead of saying something's invalid because it isn't representational, the photograph is apparently inferior because it is always representative of something. This seems to be a particularly biased opinion even while D presents it as subjective.

Testino's photo's are beautifully expressive and catch precisely what he wants them too and you really can't ask for much more than that. Aesthetically there's absolutely nothing Warhol about them- I don't understand your comment at all, it makes no sense, have you actually bothered to look at them?

Capitalist Piglet

16:57 / 29.04.03

All forms of art have some sort of boundaries on the creativity of the mind. Photography, though it may have more restrictions to creativity, is still an art.

Capitalist Piglet

18:40 / 29.04.03

As a former art student, I am still baffled by the elitist notion that representational art is not really art. One could argue that successful realism requires more talent than some formless brushstrokes on a canvas. Of course, I recognize the talent in both, if it is truly good work. Art IS subjective, but one should not immediately pass over a certain work of art because of some pre-conceived notion about the genre.

18:42 / 29.04.03

by Jerry Uelsmann.

Done without digital alteration, to the best of my knowledge (sometime in the late 80s, before Photoshop). All by hand in the darkroom.

And the thing is, Ansel Adams uses the same techniques. His images are just as artificial.

21:36 / 29.04.03

Except AA didn't ever suck like that does. :-)

Even the most slapdash amateur photographer makes choices about which negatives to print, which ones to stick in the album and which ones to throw away. So there is a lot of human agency in producing and presenting a photograph even without darkroom trickery. And the idea that a pencil and paper is not restrictive ... well.

01:25 / 30.04.03

There's an opportunity to look at photography as more than the snap of an image y'know. One friend of mine in particular works with cyanotypes and does a great deal of her treatment from the process of film to print. Being able to capture a moment, if that's what you want to do, is an accomplishment in and of itself, but there is possibility after that. Joel Peter Witkin is a good example of balance between a careful process of getting an image and then bringing it to where he wants it.

And to add, there's a plenty of room in photo within the digital medium. The digi cam I recently picked up can get some shots, colors, and exposures that I really like and then there's just the sheer number of images I can take. The versatility of the image nowadays has lots of room to grow and I'd like to say that it has opportunity to become much more ubiquitous.

An example of a contemporary photographer who does some interesting work online (shameless plug of friend) is Jordan Crane. He does some minimal digital photography for view online as well as prints and design. A nice marker along the way...

12:54 / 30.04.03

Joel Peter Wickman

Witkin.

Murray Hamhandler

14:09 / 30.04.03

(I'll try to make this as coherent as possible, through the fog of tooth pain and hydrocodone.)

Photography is one of those media that for some reason has just gone under the radar for me w/r/t intent of the artist, history of the medium qua form of artistic expression, etc. There is a lot of photography that I like, that I think is wonderful art, but I'm not terribly familiar with the artistic perspective of the photographer. Basically, I'm just curious about the reasons why an artist would choose photography as the medium of choice for his/her expression.

Flux? Any other board photogs?

16:03 / 30.04.03

Witkin *cough* ...yep that's the one.

at the scarwash

18:48 / 30.04.03

Well, I mean, just as much as any two-dimensional art form, there's the whole arranging light and color within a border thing. And from that perspective, I think photography is just a preference of media. There's also the amount of collaboration with the medium itself--the unpredictable contributions to the work made by the physical factors involved. The documentary angle brings in a whole extra level of content--using the fact that this is a medium that most viewers consider "realistic." I think photography is the medium best suited to take advatage of realism.

at the scarwash

18:48 / 30.04.03

Well, I mean, just as much as any two-dimensional art form, there's the whole arranging light and color within a border thing. And from that perspective, I think photography is just a preference of media. There's also the amount of collaboration with the medium itself--the unpredictable contributions to the work made by the physical factors involved. The documentary angle brings in a whole extra level of content--using the fact that this is a medium that most viewers consider "realistic." I think photography is the medium best suited to take advatage of realism.

pointless and uncalled for

18:49 / 30.04.03

Sorry for the delay.

It was said in the sense that no matter what the technique the work of every photographer comes down to creating an image from a genuine physical artifact.

Unfortunately for the misguided D, this isn't actually the case. There have been a number of photographic artists that have taken the very name to a semi-logical extreme. The concept of painting with light, while somewhat abandoned by the larger genre still stands as a valid and practiced form of photography. While there are those that simply resort to moving a light around against or as a backdrop to a physical opject, there are a few who have eschewed any physically identifyable element. You are welcome to put forth your reasons as to why this practice is not a valid form of art or photography.

The options, the variables, the choices, many though they may be, are still anchored to a finite choice of real objects. In comparison to the blank page and a pencil, it is boundaried.

In objection to this statement, I call forth the names of Man Ray and Andre Kertz, who did actually pursue to combine a photograph and a pencil (or in their cases, other tools for the application of ink or graphite). In fact I will go so far as to say that while in an absolute sense photography has finite end results, it is at such an atomic level to render the above statement as both null and void.

Mario Testino by the way. Sure he can take a picture, he has that skill, but artistically his work is uninspired old-fangled Warholism.

Now here is a statement so laden with subjectivity it shocks me.

I would also like to comment on this earlier claim by D.

I have a very healthy appreciaton for the technical requirements of photography

I'm afraid that your healthy appreciation is looking incredibly wan at the moment. I'm highly suspicious that your "appreciation" is limited only to the rudimentary basics and that ultimately this claim is without credibilty or any form of merit.

I'm aware that this is coming off as a personal attack, however it is in response to a personal claim.

02:39 / 01.05.03

Boy do I feel misunderstood, let's see if I can catch up here.

Aesthetically there's absolutely nothing Warhol about them- I don't understand your comment at all, it makes no sense, have you actually bothered to look at them?

You're absolutely right, however, Testino is Warholian in the sense he manufactures iconography, his most famous work, though not lacking in flair, is cheap fame-soaked cultist artificialised portrayals of humanity. It's depressing.

And the idea that a pencil and paper is not restrictive ... well.
Is ludicrous!

While there are those that simply resort to moving a light around against or as a backdrop to a physical opject, there are a few who have eschewed any physically identifyable element. You are welcome to put forth your reasons as to why this practice is not a valid form of art or photography.

I never said it wasn't a valid form of anything, but I digress, no matter what the technique the work of every photographer comes down to creating an image from a genuine physical or non-physical artifact, even if it's only light itself. Still, if you are talking rayographs or similar creations (which I've long forgotten the names of) I don't know where to bracket those.
You know, I never said I wasn't bigotted.

Tryphena Absent

03:01 / 01.05.03

cheap fame-soaked cultist artificialised portrayals of humanity. It's depressing.

How can you hate the kitsch? Arrgghhh, next you'll be telling me you hate those plaster statues of the Virgin Mary they sell in Mexico and the gaudy parts of Catalan!

pointless and uncalled for

06:54 / 01.05.03

every photographer comes down to creating an image from a genuine physical or non-physical artifact

A nice change of tack but I think that this really furthers my point. If you're going to accept a non pysical artifact, such as light, then where is the line of demarcation between photography and painting? Painters don't use light on a canvas because it doesn't work and photographers don't use paint on film because it equally doesn't work. Each is using the methodology appropriate to their "canvas". Here then there is an equal limit on both camera artist and hand drawn artist and the only restriction that I can see as identifiable. In this respect I see that the hand drawn artists are more restricted as camera artists can subsequently use hand drawn techniques, and remain within the sphere of photographic art, whereas the hand drawn artist cannot cross-over to use light.

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:23 / 01.05.03

Testino is Warholian in the sense he manufactures iconography, his most famous work, though not lacking in flair, is cheap fame-soaked cultist artificialised portrayals of humanity. It's depressing.
Or, it's portraiture.

Hang on, I think I might've missed out where you've explained how painted portraits aren't manufactured iconography, too...

14:37 / 01.05.03

Co! Rect!

Is there perhaps some confusion here between medium and genre? Do we dismiss the medium outright because of a distaste for its dominant genre? If we did, I'd have given up on comic books long ago...

Just to muddy the waters further: by D's criteria, can cinema be high art? After all, it, too, is "creating an image from a genuine physical or non-physical artifact" ...

At the haert of D's argument seems to be that old saw that the camera never lies—that photography cannot be art because it is always going to be, at its heart, journalism—that it is intrinsically ill-suited as a medium for presenting a subjective "artistic" interpretation of its subject, because the photographic image is by its nature objective and literal, i.e. journalistic.

I've also heard this argument expressed as: "Can photography be 'art'? Yes, but almost never when it thinks it is." Corellary to this assumption of the objectivity of the photographic image is the notion that both Surrealist photography and abstract photography are oxymorons.

The counter to this argument, of course, is Magritte's Ceci n'est pas un pipe—the notion that all images are, by their nature and regardless of their means of production, untrustworthy. And if you can use it to fuck with the literal truth, then you can use it to make art.

A picture of Madonna (or the madfonna, for that matter) is not merely an extension of the person of Madonna: it is, first, last, and always, a picture, and must be judged as such—without reference to its subject.

Dances with Gophers

15:09 / 04.05.03

To properly answer that question you have to decide for yourself what is art. Is something art because someone decides it is or because it is done using certain media, processes or is it motivation. Some people use a camera to capture images to act as keys to memories, some pictures are used to to pass on information and some pictures are created because they look nice.

I use the word created because sometimes they are, some landscape photographers may sit for hours waiting the correct light. There are many factors that go into producing an image, focussing, depth of field, film speed, shutter speed, aperture etc etc which can be manipulated to produce (hopefully) the required result. Some people just pull out a disposable camera point it push the button and get wonderful results, others work hard and don't.

Myself I take photos for a variety of uses, but I do use a touch of artistic evaluation in composition and lighting, even though this is restricted by what is available(although flashes can be used to enhance the lighting). To me it's a craft and like many other crafts the products may or not be viewed as works of art.

The Return Of Rothkoid

11:59 / 05.05.03

Well that's the thing, isn't it - there's stock photo libraries and there's Adams; in much the same way as there's signwriting and there's Da Vinci...