Well I enjoyed the read, interesting.
Starts off with a quote that I find, a little too disturbing myself!
"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas.
It is a creative art"
Well it is kind of, but then..to many it is not. IMO Photography is many things, to many people. Good though, that Alain pointed this out.
On the other hand, I am not so sure that the "line" between those who consider themselves "artists", and those who are "documenting" with pictures is so clear. A picture can provoke emotions, and be considered to some "artistic", but to others it may not have that effect.
I quote Alain:
"When capturing emotions one must be sure to take into account one’s feelings about the scene, the object, the people or the event being photographed. An artistic photograph is about the response of the photographer to subject of the photograph. It is about the person who takes the photograph first and about the subject of the photograph second. In fact, the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself. The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value."
Again, this kinda worries me a bit. Let me explain a little. I am not sure I consider my photography "arty", or that I think of emotion or reflection of myself, or my thoughts. In fact, I would say I am not thinking of much at all, on a Conscious level, when taking photos. I might have an idea of what I am looking for, but just not seeing this uber emotion thing at all!
I don't want to come off sounding a bit cold, or detached with this. Or that I am shallow (lol far from it!) To me photography is to a large part "instinct", its an element that cannot be detailed, or described.
Are we overcomplicating thngs here a bit? Is there an element of "it just looks good", and no real reason other than that, for taking the photos?
I do not consider my photography art, is that a bad thing? For what I may feel or think, is one thing..what others might, is something else. I feel emotion when looking at photos of wars, and hardship for example, but then does a nice landscape mean anything on an emotional level, other than a nice scene? Interesting series though..there is a technical side, that is no more than a guide, and a creative element..that is wildly open to debate also. I for one think that the line between documenting and artistic cannot be defined, a mistake to attempt it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Alain's essay is designed to be thought-provoking, in which goal the article obviously succeeded. Whether the material was grammatically-flawless or not, or absolutely accurate or not, is unimportant. Its purpose was to stimulate thought and understanding. If you think about it, that is all the classical philosophers ever did, was debate and debate ... in the effort to find the truth and to reach new levels of understanding ... with an inner realization that this may never happen.
And so it is with Alain's essay. When he says,
"In fact, the more a photograph veers in the direction of art, the more it becomes an image about the photographer and less an image about the subject itself. The personality of the photographer must be present in the image for an artistic photograph to have value," I personally couldn't disagree more. And yet I appreciate what Alain is trying to say, and even see what he is saying.
IMHO, I believe the simple difference between photography as non-art versus photography as art, is the former tries capture
the facts of the scene only, while the latter tries to capture
the feelings of that same scenery.
Yet to say, as Alain says, that 'the personality of the photographer must be present' for the image to be art is not exactly accurate to me. This may be true if the artist tweaked the color, added all kinds of digital manipulation, and essentially
changed the original image scene ... then, yes, the end-product image would in fact be a reflection of that photographer's personality, by way of digital (and other forms of) manipulation. But this kind of effort will never be the most powerful kind of photographic art, at least not to me anyway.
To me, the most powerful "photographic art" there ever was, is, or will be ... is when no such digital manipulation occurs at all through software ... but rather when it occurs when a photographer is able (through his skill, his positioning, and his lens and setting choices) to capture the awesome beauty, color, and emotion of life (or death) in such a way as to convey these indescribable emotions so that WE ALL feel the same sense of awe when we see that image, in a way that 'words' could never bring us to feel.
The saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," exists for a reason. And that reason is
the right picture will impact us emotionally in such a way as words could never do.
A truly great photographer is simply able to use his photographic tools, and his knowledge of how to apply those tools with the right perspective, in such a way as to deliver in this capacity ... to be able to see the powerful moments of life before him ... and to capture the emotional essence of those moments in such a way as to convey their emotional power to every single human being who views his images.
The "photographer as artist" is simply one who is able to capture
The Awesome Power and The Awesome Beauty of Life and Death in his images in such a way as to emotionally-move whoever views those captured images in such a way where mere words are rendered useless and inadequate.
Therefore, I don't think saying 'the photographer's personality' is exactly accurate in describing what is coming through in his images-as-art. Rather, I believe it is the photographer's
ability to move others in the same way he himself was moved, that more closely describes what happens in "photography as art."
That is how I see it anyway.
Jack