While this passage
was brief, I enjoyed reading it. I thought it was beautifully written, evoked
picturesque imagery, and I felt a personal connection to it as a
photographer. I can understand how Nancy
Newhall’s writing boosted photography’s popularity as an art form in American
culture. She had an obvious affinity for Ansel Adams’ work, and her writing
reflects that. In fact, this article is basically a poetic combination of
Newhall’s analysis of Adams’ photography and his own words and principles. The
most poignant quote in the piece for me comes not from Newhall, but from Adams:
“He wonders why so many artists should be ‘mostly concerned with the expression
of their egos.’ For himself, ‘There is too much clear sky and clean rock in my
memory for me ever to wholly fall into self-illusion.’” In fine arts programs
and art schools, there is an enormous push toward this “egotistical,”
self-expressive art-making. When I first got into photography as a teenager, I
was expressly interested in nature photography – flowers, trees, the elements,
the sky. As I began formal training in college, I learned that this type of
photography was not exactly encouraged. They were regarded as hobbyist snapshots
that didn’t require deeper thought. Interestingly, these were the type of
photos that were egotistical, according to university classes, because they
were an indulgence. Because of that, we spend much of our time coming up with
ideas for more meaningful projects and ways to talk about our work, instead of
letting our work speak for itself, which is what it will have to do when it is
displayed for the viewing public. In my opinion, Ansel Adams got it right when
he says “a true photograph need not be explained, nor can be contained in
words.” I think self-expressive art making is also important, but I also
believe that it exists on the same level as art mirrored after the natural
world.
2 comments:
Kelsey,
I enjoyed the points you have made and, honestly, they have enlightened me. I had never thought of photography and art in general as you have described it. Letting the work speak for itself and letting the subject talk rather than imposing an idea upon it. As an illustrator, I always aim to get a certain reaction and always telling a story. I don't ever really appreciate an image for the sake of the image. I always try to look for the deeper meaning, the story, etc. Perhaps, I am simply programmed that way or need to be taught to see images for what they truly are. I also think its interesting when Adams says that art is a concern of expression of an ego. I agree that your work shouldn't become you boasting about your artistic talent, but I see nothing wrong with expressing something through your experiences. I feel like there is also a deviation between formal landscape photography that Adams shot and other genres. I just think these points are interesting and although no points are wrong it is interesting to discuss. Thank you for the thought provoking post.
My response is simple here, because all I have to say, really is- I agree.
I am not studying art in college, I'm just in this class for fun and on my own volition. But being exposed to the art department just a little, I have noticed the language that is used to describe art in an educational setting. For me, sometimes it can be overwhelming. I find myself just wanting to let the art do the talking too. Beauty is both subjective, and objective in my opinion. Sometimes objective beauty can be understood and shared with others by just both looking at it. It's a hard thing to explain; but I think you sum up the essence of that in your explanation of egocentric art vs nature photography.
I just really liked this post - I related to it, and understood completely what you are saying. Thanks for sharing!
Post a Comment