Before getting stuck into the assignment there were some interesting statements, at least my interpretation of what was said, in the DVD introduction and sections that I need to put down for current and future reference. These are probably more paraphrased than direct quotes.
- Photography transforms what it describes.
- Talking about André Kertész's 1928 photos in Meudon France. He turned the ordinary into something extraordinary.
- Photography always transforms what it describes, that is the art of photography to control that transformation.
- Photography is about the frame you put around the image. What comes in and what is cut off.
- Intrigue is photography's true genius.
- 'Fixing Shadows' what was said that William H. Fox Talbot and Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre were doing with their first cameras.
- Capturing a moment in time - a romantic struggle.
- Photography – Easiest medium to be competent but the hardest medium in which to have a personal vision.
- How do you make it [photography] personal, i.e. a style recognised as a photo taken by a particular photographer.
- There are no accidental masterpieces of painting but there are of photography.
Statements from 'We Are Family'
- Meaning [of a photograph] needs to be pinned down using a caption or photojournalism context.
- Look at photos upside down especially those taken with large format cameras using ground glass backgrounds.
- Man Ray saw photography as a medium to Explore dreams, desires and unconscious mind.
- Walker Evans – American identity, he was a dissident believing 'Society was a failure'. He called his photography 'documentary style' because photos not real only show what photographer wants.
- Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange working for Farm Security Agency were actually producing propaganda photos to portray the government in a popular light.
What is photograph for?
One could say the simplest answer is that photography is to capture (I tend to say capture rather than make) an image of something. While true others would say but why capture an image and therein is the rub. The reasons to capture an image could be said to be the same as the proverbial question, 'How long is a piece of string?'. Images are captured for pleasure, relaxation, work, profession, hobby, etc. and then we get into the idea of use like the 'vernacular photography' of amateur and unknown photographers; portrait, wedding, forensic, adventure, travel, tourism, photojournalism, newspaper, magazine, product, erotic, exotic, theatre, music, macro, microscopic, telescope, animal, ... and it goes on and on.
Is it art?
The age old question that like the previous one is difficult to answer depending on how one defines art. There could be a very long and convoluted definition or the simple definition that, 'I am an artist, therefore whatever I put before you and say is art, it is art.
One could also argue that Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre's works and other daguerreotypes, including contemporary work, are art because they are original one of a kind images not reproducible like negative based images.
In the early period of photography those engaged in photography had to decide what to do with their photographs and of course as with most things the question of how to make many with photography arose. Initially it was the cartes-de-visite that started the profitability of photography. Once photography became commercial the 'real Artists and art community' shunned it as an art form.
Today we have photography that is classed as fine art works, with limited printings, displayed in galleries, highly priced and prized by owners similar, with the exception of multiple copies, to original artworks. In that regard one could say that some photographs are works of art.
Photographer's today sell their works in galleries, flea markets, café walls, and just about any place without limiting the numbers or sizes of reproductions made of each image. To the people buying them to hang on their wall are they works of art or just pretty colours that go with the furniture? As a photographer I'd like to think they are purchased as a work of art. I'm an optimist!
Is it science?
Early photographers worked with often dangerous and life threatening chemicals and materials experimenting on what would produce results. I doubt any would argue that that particular phase of photography history was not science.
I'd have to argue that 'wet photography' done by the photographer has a degree of science involved. While much is already chemically formulated the operator has to follow techniques (loading film in dark); mixing chemicals; precise timing (developing film, exposing paper, developing paper); maintaining constant and precise temperatures; working dust free environment, etc. that are the types of things done in scientific work. Standard scientific testing follows repetitive standard procedures to guarantee accurate results, for instance medical laboratory blood or urine testing.
Digital photography I would say has the photographer using a scientific apparatus to capture the image. Science is used in the optics; the sensors of various types; transfer of signal to digital format readable by some device; engineering involved; etc. The camera and the computers are scientific apparatus although the photographer does not need scientific knowledge to use it.
Excellent summary of the DVD, Paul. There are indeed many questions around art and photography - and you make interesting arguments about what needs to be considered in answering them. The idea of uniqueness and authorship as a marker of value is one that Modernism and postmodernism have tried to address - starting with the famous Duchamp work of found objects. If you are particularly interested in these subjects I suggest you try Walter Benjamin's classic essay "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction." It is a challenging but rewarding text.
ReplyDelete