She then goes on to say though that one can present
photography in as an artistic manor as one pleases, however to be a good
photograph and not just a good piece of art it has to hold some connection with
the world around us. This argument made me laugh and not because I thought it
was wrong, I actually think it is a very good argument, but I laughed because
after so many years of trying to prove to the world that photography was indeed
art Abbott is turning around and arguing against this point.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Photo as Document vs Photo as Art
In Abbott’s essay in Illuminations
she develops a clear understanding of what photography is by stating what
photography clearly is not. She starts by saying “A photography is not a
painting, a poem, a symphony, a dance. It is not just a pretty picture, not an
exercise in contortionist techniques and sheer print quality.” I agree,
photography is none of those things, because it is in its own realm of art.
(Although it is interesting to note that Ansel Adams thought of photography as
very similar to a symphony). Abbott argues instead that photography is unique
because it requires selectivity. Without selectivity and serious contemplation
a photograph is wasted. It does not hold any artistic merit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think Abbott makes a really good point when stating that what makes photography unique is that it requires selectivity. It is one of those things that when you think about it, it seems so simple, but as a photographer I had never really considered selectivity as something that was crucial. And continuing on with this point, it could be said that the best photographers are those who are the most selective when composing an image and make sure everything within the frame is important to the meaning of it.
I agree with Troy in that photography's success as an art form relies on its selectivity. You can photograph anything around you and in any way you want. This is what made people reject photography as an art form in the first place. It was just a simple replication of reality. When the artist chooses to take a photograph, the way he chooses to take the photo and what he takes it of says wonders about its ability to be a form of art. In an age when you can instagram anything and make it "artsy" with a filter, the merit of photography seems to have diluted if this is all considered "art". Art makes you feel a certain way. Art has a sense of harmony and balance that takes this specific "selection" which Abbott discusses.
-Morgan Kirol
Interesting topic. Without heavy manipulation photography is always a documentary tool, because it is an accurate representation of the world. The only way that it can become successful art is if the creative decisions of the photographer improved the design of the image. Cropping, lighting and angles all have an effect on the subject matter, and the correct choices will always translate to a great work of art.
-Matt
Your post is very well thought out.I also agree with troys comment. What really struck me was when you said "This argument made me laugh and not because I thought it was wrong, I actually think it is a very good argument, but I laughed because after so many years of trying to prove to the world that photography was indeed art Abbott is turning around and arguing against this point". This raised the question is all photography and art form? With modern technology hundreds of photos are taken per day. Should photos or selfies on a phone count as a art. These types of photos are the opposite of Ansel Adams work. Ansel Adams often thought his work out and made creative decision. But selfies are just a spur of the moment.
Post a Comment