Photography as a purly utalitarian medium

Started Jan 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
blogan
Contributing MemberPosts: 677
Like?
Re: Moderator put down
In reply to v1fan, Jan 18, 2013

v1fan wrote:

The main problem why photography does not have a future as an art form is quite simple, there are no means and ways to understand what is a good photograph today - thanks to digital technology.

The look department is pretty much taken care of by software and the subjects are pretty much the same as they were in the beginning of photography, nothing else is left in photography that someone could aspire to.

When there is no challenge left and no clear goals then naturally what follows is a simple activity, like writing a journal but instead using photos, a personal journal means something to the person who wrote it but for others its completely boring and useless, this is the reality of photography today, basically everyone's photos are like their personal journal, therefore something very personal and irrelevant to everyone else and hence very far from art.

The best a photographer could aspire to in the past was publishing a book, well, today one can do that very easily by using blurb etc, but then everyone is doing it so whats the point?

Quote from the above post:

"basically everyone's photos are like their personal journal, therefore something very personal and irrelevant to everyone else and hence very far from art."

And what's so bad about that? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, so after reading your post all I can think of is, DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ART? I enjoy looking at my journalistic photos. They sometimes take me places. Back to where I was when I took the photo, and maybe they take me to a nice place in my mind.

Fortunately or unfortunately, however you choose to look at it, that is the way it is with all art forms. Did you ever go to a wedding that had music for the reception? Or for that matter as you were entering the church before the wedding? Was that art? Or was that music, serving a purpose. As a professional musician, I can hardly call wedding band music art. But, it serves a purpose. People want to either dance, or have some nice background, or as we in the business call it "Wallpaper" music to have dinner by.

Most of music today serves a particular purpose. Is the music that accompanies an infomercial on tv art? I think not. There is an art to producing it. An art to using the equipment with which it is created.

Same with digital photography. Is cloning a background from one scene to another art? Some would say no. But others might say that art has changed, which it has. The "New" art is about utilizing the tools (digital) to create what it is you envision in your mind.

What about the guys who crank out the drawings or pictures for your motel or hotel room. Is that really art? Or just something to give an impression of decoration. It's better than bare austere walls. They are not works by the masters, but imagine your room without.

Music serves a non artistic function for the masses, photography serves a non artistic function for the masses. That's just the way it is. It all started with the masses enjoying great works of art. Then they found that the great works of art were inaccessible to the masses, so not so great works started to surface and appease the masses.

Is the product photographer in pursuit of art? Or maybe is he in pursuit of money. Surely his mastery of the art of photography got him to the point of photographing coke cans and hamburgers, but I wouldn't think if he was asked if he was creating art that he would say yes.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. I'm going to go practice my instrument now so that the next recording session I do will for sure be an artistic endeavor.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow