Here are photographs of three different flowers, each having a character of their own: elegant, robust or abundant. But lets go from photographs to photography.
The Online Photographer made quite a provocative posting under the title "Tat", concerning photographers who point and shoot, without thinking about what they are doing: "... present-day photographers will point at anything, no matter how trivial or mundane, and feel no qualms about posting it for the world to see even if it is devoid of any discernible interest or distinction or meaning or visual grace whatsoever. That's not the medium's fault—but just as surely, our situation has changed. We have greatly relaxed our sense of discrimination, to the point that it might as well not exist."
I think there is some truth in this, but also that this is not the whole truth.
Namely, there are also photographers who don't point and shoot - who spend a great deal of effort in making even a single photograph - and despite all of this, the end result is somehow... void.
Here is a quote from the book Art & Fear by David Bayles and Ted Orland: "To the viewer, who has little emotional investment in how the work gets done, art made primarily to display technical virtuosity is often beautiful, striking, elecant...and vacant. [...] Compared to other challenges, the ultimate shortcoming of technical problems is not that they are hard, but that they are easy."
I think this is very apparent in the area of nature photography, where often technical virtuosity prevails, but there is a great deal of emptiness below the surface. What is being said?
So, then, should one try to concentrate on the thinking, not so much on the technique? Or as they write in Art & Fear: "Simply put, art that deals with ideas is more interesting than art that deals with technique."
However, I feel this can result also in a dead end. This could happen in an exhibition where the puzzled viewers try to show their appreciation by saying "But he/she is so intelligent!" I think you can say the same of the guy (if there is one) who invented the atomic bomb: "But he is so intelligent!"
So, if it is not about pointing, not about technique, not about intelligence - what is it then about?
I think there is little that can be said in generic terms about photography, except this, again quoted from Art & Fear: "The world we see today is the legacy of people noticing the world and commenting on it in forms that have been preserved. Of course it is difficult to imagine that horses had no shape before someone painted their shape on the cave walls, but it is not difficult to see the world became a subtly larger, richer, more complex and meaningful place as a result."
Posts
A moment of profound silence followed.
4 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment