Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Artistic License  (Read 14074 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #80 on: April 02, 2012, 12:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that different art forms have inherent truths to them -- the inherent truth in painting or drawing is abstraction (in the broadest sense) ... The inherent truth in photography is precise reproduction...

"Computer manipulation means that it’s no longer possible to believe that a photograph represents a specific object in a specific place at a specific time -- to believe that the object is ‘true’."
David Hockney

Much more than that --

[20 years ago] "From the moment of its sesquicentennial in 1989 photography was dead -- or more precisely, radically and permanently displaced -- as was painting 150 years before."

The inherent truth in digital image making is mutability.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 04:52:35 PM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #81 on: April 02, 2012, 03:48:09 PM »
ReplyReply

... in landscape photography in the digital age, the question about manipulation is inevitable. ... it's simply a way for the viewing public to know something of the artist's intentions... Especially when you're serious about buying "fine art".

Perhaps that's just reading too much into such questions, here's a shrewd suggestion --

As for the viewer asking the question: does he really ask that? Maybe he’s just looking for something to say when confronted by the maker of the ‘artwork’. Better to ask an inane question than reveal, face to face, that there is absolutely nothing else to be said or even discussed about the ‘work’.



By invoking "artistic license" and claiming there are no rules, Alain undermines one of the medium's most powerful attributes. ... This destabilizes one of the chief advantage photography can claim over other arts, however tenuous its connection to reality.

Although the essay can be used as a jumping off point for all kinds of discussion - from the different opinions within pictorialism to Is Photography Over? - there's a much simpler way to read the essay and what the author is saying about his work compared to others' work --

In the case of the author, Alain, I can appreciate fully that everything he produces has to be, intentionally or not, part of the publicity machine that makes everything tick. I would do exactly the same, had I an axe to grind, a product to promote.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 01:34:07 PM by Isaac » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2012, 07:52:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Every photograph in every newspaper and every magazine and on every news website professes to depict reality. It isn't so strange that the general public view photography as depicting reality in an accurate way to the extent that although I agree with Alain's views of art, the sooner we disassociate our art from the word 'photography' the less annoying questions we will have to answer.

I'm teaching a photography class in a local art school. The photography is only a minor sideline to the main curriculum. I started off like this. 'Photography is the same as painting. We use a camera instead of a brush and light instead of paint.' That isn't however how photography is perceived by the general public.

Just stop using the term 'fine art photography'. It's fine art, period. Our tool of choice for the work is a camera but that's just a side point. On my website I don't mention the word 'photography' once. That is very much on purpose.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2012, 05:06:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm teaching a photography class in a local art school. ... On my website I don't mention the word 'photography' once. That is very much on purpose.

So you're not teaching a photography class?
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2012, 06:32:01 AM »
ReplyReply

My fine art website does not mention photography. Not connected, I am teaching photography in a local art school. I've been a full time wedding photographer for a decade and now am heading a large studio shooting repro of ancient manuscripts and books for a museum.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:56:39 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #85 on: April 05, 2012, 06:37:21 AM »
ReplyReply

My fine art website does not mention photography once. Not connected, I am teaching photography in a local art school. Can I assume your sarcasm has failed?

Quote from: Ben's Homepage
"Timeless Jewish Fine Art Photography"
???
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 06:39:09 AM by Christoph C. Feldhaim » Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #86 on: April 05, 2012, 08:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Ha I'd forgotten that was there, was originally put there 3 years ago when I made the site, thanks for that catch, I will fix that soon! One tends to not focus on stuff like the main banner after all this time!

Aaargh, the web man changed hosting on me and now I can't get in. Trying to get through to him now...
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:34:34 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2012, 08:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Fixed, thanks!

Now have to do the title bar on each page, pain. I got rid of all the photography reference stuff about 9 months ago, mainly due to the problems it brought. How do you explain that you are not 'photoshopping' your picture (i.e. faking it in their mind) when you are shooting complex stitches with only one stitch containing a moving element, i.e. a person. No not every element of the picture existed at that same moment, it would fail as a true photograph but who cares? If I could sketch I would never pick up a camera again for my personal work.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 08:57:35 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2012, 12:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Can I assume your sarcasm has failed?
You can assume we now have a better chance of understanding what you're talking about.

... not 'photoshopping' your picture (i.e. faking it in their mind) ... it would fail as a true photograph but who cares?
Seems like you're concerned someone ("faking it in their mind") might care.

Perhaps you can think of yourself as making camera art.

Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2012, 01:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply

My suggestion for Ben (Since his website banner now looks somewhat castrated):

"Timeless Jewish Fine Art Imaging"

Copyright to use this phrase is herewith granted, Ben !

Cheers
~Chris
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2806


« Reply #90 on: April 12, 2012, 01:08:06 PM »
ReplyReply

The reason I picked the crucifixion is that it's so rife with symbolism, and means so many different things to so many different people, and interpretations change so radically over the ages. The Isenheim Altarpiece was once hung in a hospital to help bring relief from suffering for dying people...now, we look on it with horror, if anything, for its graphic gruesomeness.

afaict The 8 panels of the Isenheim Altarpiece were commissioned for the church of a monastery that housed a hospice for mainly terminal victims of the plague.

Interpretation of the iconography is controversial because it isn't certain which day which panel was opened, or what purpose each stage served. The performance for which the paintings were designed has been lost, the original meaning has been lost. So interpretation of one panel, showing Christ's suffering on the Cross, as intended to produce a bond of sympathy with the suffering of the plague victims; and interpretation of another panel, showing the clean body of the Risen Christ, as intended to suggest their freedom from pain and disease in the hereafter, is speculation.


I think the fact that people take vastly different things from paintings in different times is one criterion for a serious work of [painting] art. But that doesn't really work with photographs, because while (I believe) photography is a serious art form, it is essentially different from painting. As long as people are human and use native vision, I think the meanings of photographs will remain relatively fixed -- when you think of great photographs (choose one) how will the interpretation of that work change in 100 or 200 years?

Timothy O'Sullivan's 1870s photographs of record from the Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel re-interpreted as art during the 1930's and 40's.

Sebastião Salgado's 1984/5 photojournalism of the Sahel famine mostly unpublished in the US until 1990 when it was re-interpreted as art and exhibited at SFMOMA.

In 100 years will anyone remain who can believe that photographs were once expected to represent a specific object in a specific place at a specific time? In 100 years will anyone understand a photograph as more than a still frame from a lost video commercial?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 10:06:05 PM by Isaac » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad