Photographic art
It wasn’t in the model,
It wasn’t in the pose
It wasn’t in the lighting,
It wasn’t in the focal length
It wasn’t in the aperture
It wasn’t in the film or digital
It wasn’t in Cannon, Nikon or Hasselblad
It wasn’t in the eye
It was all in the mind,
Which looked with the eye,
Through the lens to the model and the light,
And created what was seen in the mind before it existed in the world.
The nature of art is hard to pin down.
The traditional artist is not constrained by the physical world in that they can create on their canvas anything that they choose. The photographer has the constraint that in order to capture an image, he must first create it as a physical representation. Can you imagine creating Dali’s “Persistence of Memory” in camera?
As photographers, do we simply take what is before us in the form of a model or panorama and take the best photograph that we can, or should we strive to create that which would not exist except for the images in the mind?
I have many shots of figure studies and they have often been referred to as art. Indeed, the whole genre is generally referred to as art-nude. However, I would contend that it is not true photographic art. Whatever the art-nude photographer does, he is still only capturing what is placed in front of him. He may be guided by the appearance of the model and may create some outstanding images, but they are not true art, just as the same way that those students drawing still-life figure studies are not truly creating art.
True art is that which comes from inside the artist, that which speaks of both the artist and the viewer. It should elevate and challenge the mind; it should speak of the soul. It is not for everyone, it is a private message between the artist and the viewer.
It wasn’t in the pose
It wasn’t in the lighting,
It wasn’t in the focal length
It wasn’t in the aperture
It wasn’t in the film or digital
It wasn’t in Cannon, Nikon or Hasselblad
It wasn’t in the eye
It was all in the mind,
Which looked with the eye,
Through the lens to the model and the light,
And created what was seen in the mind before it existed in the world.
The nature of art is hard to pin down.
The traditional artist is not constrained by the physical world in that they can create on their canvas anything that they choose. The photographer has the constraint that in order to capture an image, he must first create it as a physical representation. Can you imagine creating Dali’s “Persistence of Memory” in camera?
As photographers, do we simply take what is before us in the form of a model or panorama and take the best photograph that we can, or should we strive to create that which would not exist except for the images in the mind?
I have many shots of figure studies and they have often been referred to as art. Indeed, the whole genre is generally referred to as art-nude. However, I would contend that it is not true photographic art. Whatever the art-nude photographer does, he is still only capturing what is placed in front of him. He may be guided by the appearance of the model and may create some outstanding images, but they are not true art, just as the same way that those students drawing still-life figure studies are not truly creating art.
True art is that which comes from inside the artist, that which speaks of both the artist and the viewer. It should elevate and challenge the mind; it should speak of the soul. It is not for everyone, it is a private message between the artist and the viewer.
posted by Richard at 1:39 PM
3 Comments:
Powerful words.
and an interesting shot.
It is one of the questions I often ask, when I shoot, capture what is there how I see it, or create reallity I wish to see.
There will never be an agreement on the definition of art, no concrete evidence or axiom to agree upon..its merely subjective to each individual. No one not even god himself can say "this is art" or "this is NOT art". I believe, as you stated, that art comes from within (at least my photographic art does). I have always said that I recreate my photographic art, as it existed first in my minds eye. The camera, Len's, lighting...even the post production methods and printing process are simply tools to get the photographic story told. Trust me...many of my photographs do not exist naturally in real life...I create their existence. I allow the camera, lens and photographic print to allow others to see what I see in my mind.
Ansel Adams greatest works are as much Art as the works of David LaChapelle, Helmut Newton, Mapplethorpe, Jeffery Scott..etc, but that does not mean that one has to aesthetically like any of their work...but...they are all Photographic Art pieces non the less. Adams photographs are incredible works of photographic art.....who cares if he dodged and burned ?
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships".
~Ansel Adams
The photographic example in your blog is a perfect example of photographic art. The photographer obviously set the exposure and light..and allowed the image to be "captured" as was intended. Some post production may be involved..but there is nothing wrong with that. As the subject sat waiting to be photographed...I suspect that the background/subject relationship did not look exactly as the photo ended up to represent in THE physical light that was present. Because we can control the exposure, the lighting..etc.. we can create an image that looks drastically different from reality. This is art..you are re-interpreting what you see physically to be presented the way you want others to see it.
Lets face the truth..Everyone is a photographer (one who takes a photograph). But not all are photographic artists. But all photographic artists are photographers. No camera will capture the scene EXACTLY as it is...as the film/grain/digital pixels and the lens etc....will effect the final outcome in some way, and it will be different than we see it in reality. So photography is not just capturing an image...all photographs are manipulated by our choice of film/lens/digital chip size..../depth of field..focus...or lack of .....etc, then we have a plethora of post production methods to draw from if we choose to do so. I see in color..and not black and white..but I prefer black and white photographs. B&W is in fact a manipulation of the perceptual rendering of the image...and not an exact recreation of said image as it physically exists.., unless the viewer can see no color..and only black and white. And even then..we can use filters to manipulate how the film/chip see's the colors in the real world. Is this photography?...or photographic art? As we are NOT recording the image EXACTLY as we see it. One could in fact argue then that we ALL are photographic artists....as no camera captures exactly as we see things in real life.
Duchamp turned a urinal upside down and called it art....and subsequently that piece arguably became the single most important piece of art in the 20th century. Why?..because it was a beautiful work?..I think not. The reason it is considered so important is because it questioned and challenged our traditional view of what we referred to as "art". Duchamp wanted us to question what in fact WAS Art. As a result, the modern art movement emerged from our re-interpretation of art and what it could be (learn more about Fountains Impact on Modern Art at) http://www.sfmoma.org/msoma/artworks/1466.html
Bottom line...I suggest its all semantics.....a rose is a rose is a rose..unless you insist it is not a rose...but instead a flower.
again..my $.02 or ($.02112 Canadian)
BT Charles
Great blog post as always and though provoking..thanks for sharing.
What a great post. And I agree with Bt's comments completely.
I have talked with Jim Young about this a whole lot and he ended up writing this artist statement, which I think exactly says it all:
As a photographer and artist, there is more to my image than merely the execution of the capture. That image is just the beginning. Give me an image and an editing program, a tablet and a pen, and all of my drawing and painting experience converge with my many years of darkroom experience to help me create my own reality. I'm looking for the essence of the beauty that is in front of me. When I feel the convergence of that, a new image is born. It is the melting of the reality that was present at the moment of exposure and the reality created in my mind. Reality is transient. My images are moments captured of reality, I control that moment, and I can bend it after that moment to create my vision. As an artist, it is the most inspiring way to express reality as I want to see it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home