How sad how sad to see the last light of December falling early and to log into this a blog as quiet as the Ore sound at midnight.
Today I clear the cobwebs and find a nice response and a link from someone nice to another blog called Fragmentadora de Papel. The fragmentizer of paper? The fragmentation of paper? The deconstruction of paper? The deconstruction of thought? What was this link, now broken, and how might I find it again?
Shall I make myself the promise to post often and to check the vast web more than that for signs of communication? Bah. Why do that today when New Year's fast approaches and I can save this little gem for something to promise on the glorious day?
OK, I shot a lovely family Sunday. With a camera and not lead, obviously, if you have not paid attention to the topic of this web log. I very much enjoy portraiture with its focus on pleasure. Giving pleasure by showing beauty, creating beauty, and sharing beauty.
NB: this post is lowbrow, intended just to sweep the floor before more posts. If your brain starves, be patient.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Coments on the Sprawl series
Getting much flack on the Sprawl series. Are they dead or just sleeping? Perhaps neither. Perhaps lawn oranments. What does, indeed, happen when children are not at their cutest? Out of context? What is the range of our emotional experience? How innate and universal, how ubiquitous is the parental instinct, the urge to protect?
Parents don't like the series. What I find ironic is that their eyes are immune to the large potbellies of starving refugees, with their beautiful saucer eyes. They marvel at the round cheeks of the handsome child soldiers, at a distance, removed. Enough attention to the detail to file an emotional response, but its impersonal.
Not bothered really. If Sprawl can get a respone from the viewer, then I have engaged the viewer in a debate. That is really simply what the series is about. The role of the image of the child in its environment
Parents don't like the series. What I find ironic is that their eyes are immune to the large potbellies of starving refugees, with their beautiful saucer eyes. They marvel at the round cheeks of the handsome child soldiers, at a distance, removed. Enough attention to the detail to file an emotional response, but its impersonal.
Not bothered really. If Sprawl can get a respone from the viewer, then I have engaged the viewer in a debate. That is really simply what the series is about. The role of the image of the child in its environment
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
From a response to bad photography on photo.net
I cannot speak for Michael, but I shared a similar emotional reaction to Greg's post - which deserves greater explanation if it is to be considered seriously. Anthony, your first comment is spot on, however, I would add that good art critics are also known for their ability to express how the output of artists is relevant in current society. John Canaday or Robert Hughes, for example, are known better for their explanatory and educational value than for their evaluations of particular artists or trends. Furthermore, "art" is societally conformant and Greg's narrow definition of art (if I understood it correctly, Greg) as excellence in "craft" is not universal for artists over time.
Outsider art, for example, defies the notion that craft is a relevant concept in the merits of a product as art. Henri Rousseau, to illustrate, couldn't recognize perspective or light if it poked him in the eye. He is, unexplainably, considered a 19th century master.
Even for Mr. Adams or Mr. Weston, I would dispute the notion that photography is purely the way the photographer captures and manipulates light. Craft is critical, but interpretation - translation of the seeing eye's connection to the brain and its emotional potential is priary.
And while craft is important in many ways to the ability to connect to the emotional or reflective triggers of art, since the 18th century is is far from being the most important one. Hanging today in every major museum collection is a minimalist piece featuring 90% blank unpainted canvas. In many cases, the canvas is not even primed. These products from painters from the 60s and 70s of the last century are considered by every art critic today to be art - valid representations of the politics, culture, values and emotions of their period. They speak to and about the society that created them.
I use the example of painting here in a photography forum because it is stereotyped most closely with the concept of "art" and societal discourse, whereas photography is associated so closely with documentary and journalism and has, therefore, considerable trouble breaking away from those stereotypes.
I do believe photography is in crisis, due to two reasons: 1. the capability of the current tools to both plasticize its product and introduce doubt and mistrust in the mind of the viewer ("It must be fake"). Witness the work of Eric Baudelaire's "The Dreadful Details" http://baudelaire.net/fs/index_dreadful.html. I think this piece exemplifies the current discourse. Secondly, the popularity of photography (phones, cheap digitals, etc.) makes it more difficult to separate those engaged in the medium from those using technology for personal reasons unrelated to the medium ("my kid's pictures, my morning coffee and my bloggy ramblings on the subject"). But I don't think this cheapens photography: In a world of close to 7 billion people, who I am as an individual (including what I ate for breakfast) becomes increasingly relevant.
So I believe the challenge of photography is to find relevance in a world that differs greatly from the world of Cameron or Coburn. A blown highlight or excessive noise makes for a terrible traditional exposure, but it does not necessarily make it a bad photograph if that photograph evokes strong emotions relevant to the societal discourse. If it triggers or provokes meaningful commentary, than it could viably be called art. Sculpture, painting, architecture and other mediums have gone through the same transmogrification (sic.)
However, this community may also be in a minor crisis by bringiing together a group of people which divergent interests. Those interested in the craft of print photography within traditional boundaries, those interested in tricks for making a quicker buck at weddings, those interested in blogging and camera phones, those interested in social interaction around a morning cup of coffee and a nice little picture to look at (and those wishing to step on a soapbox armed with a brod topic ;-). Is the community inclusive of diversity or narrowly defined and focused on a common interest?
Greg, you can do anything you like, but I would welcome the voice of a serious critic. The role has value. In that case, it might be beneficial for others to understand that role in which case links to current day (we don't live in the past) photographers who represent the leading edge of what you would define as photography, together with essays or comments explaining their value, would be very helpful to advance your point. If you define yourself as a photographer, then I think your own portfolio with the educational text would be helpful to the community.
Outsider art, for example, defies the notion that craft is a relevant concept in the merits of a product as art. Henri Rousseau, to illustrate, couldn't recognize perspective or light if it poked him in the eye. He is, unexplainably, considered a 19th century master.
Even for Mr. Adams or Mr. Weston, I would dispute the notion that photography is purely the way the photographer captures and manipulates light. Craft is critical, but interpretation - translation of the seeing eye's connection to the brain and its emotional potential is priary.
And while craft is important in many ways to the ability to connect to the emotional or reflective triggers of art, since the 18th century is is far from being the most important one. Hanging today in every major museum collection is a minimalist piece featuring 90% blank unpainted canvas. In many cases, the canvas is not even primed. These products from painters from the 60s and 70s of the last century are considered by every art critic today to be art - valid representations of the politics, culture, values and emotions of their period. They speak to and about the society that created them.
I use the example of painting here in a photography forum because it is stereotyped most closely with the concept of "art" and societal discourse, whereas photography is associated so closely with documentary and journalism and has, therefore, considerable trouble breaking away from those stereotypes.
I do believe photography is in crisis, due to two reasons: 1. the capability of the current tools to both plasticize its product and introduce doubt and mistrust in the mind of the viewer ("It must be fake"). Witness the work of Eric Baudelaire's "The Dreadful Details" http://baudelaire.net/fs/index_dreadful.html. I think this piece exemplifies the current discourse. Secondly, the popularity of photography (phones, cheap digitals, etc.) makes it more difficult to separate those engaged in the medium from those using technology for personal reasons unrelated to the medium ("my kid's pictures, my morning coffee and my bloggy ramblings on the subject"). But I don't think this cheapens photography: In a world of close to 7 billion people, who I am as an individual (including what I ate for breakfast) becomes increasingly relevant.
So I believe the challenge of photography is to find relevance in a world that differs greatly from the world of Cameron or Coburn. A blown highlight or excessive noise makes for a terrible traditional exposure, but it does not necessarily make it a bad photograph if that photograph evokes strong emotions relevant to the societal discourse. If it triggers or provokes meaningful commentary, than it could viably be called art. Sculpture, painting, architecture and other mediums have gone through the same transmogrification (sic.)
However, this community may also be in a minor crisis by bringiing together a group of people which divergent interests. Those interested in the craft of print photography within traditional boundaries, those interested in tricks for making a quicker buck at weddings, those interested in blogging and camera phones, those interested in social interaction around a morning cup of coffee and a nice little picture to look at (and those wishing to step on a soapbox armed with a brod topic ;-). Is the community inclusive of diversity or narrowly defined and focused on a common interest?
Greg, you can do anything you like, but I would welcome the voice of a serious critic. The role has value. In that case, it might be beneficial for others to understand that role in which case links to current day (we don't live in the past) photographers who represent the leading edge of what you would define as photography, together with essays or comments explaining their value, would be very helpful to advance your point. If you define yourself as a photographer, then I think your own portfolio with the educational text would be helpful to the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)