The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!

Started 5 months ago | Questions thread
BruceB609
Regular MemberPosts: 341Gear list
Like?
Re: dictatorial nonsense
In reply to T3, 5 months ago

T3 wrote:

MaxTux wrote:

Yes, photographs have been manipulated (or, to use current term, "post-processed" in the age of wet photography too. But two facts about that "post-processing" should not be ignored:

- the practice was mostly restricted to monochrome printing.

I don't see what difference that makes.

- the amount of effort required served as a natural limit for the degree of change.

I don't see what difference that makes either.

The ease with which the processing is performed on digital files is such that the process is more and more "overdone" for the aesthetic sensibility of some (obviously, the OP is among those).

The art of photography spans a huge gamut, from non-processed to heavily processed to full-on digital manipulation. It's partly because technology has allowed the art of photography to expand far beyond its past technical limitations, and partly because technology has made photography so much more accessible to a more diverse group of participants. It's also expanded the definition of photography to include a more diverse range of images and image-making techniques. Because the branches of photography have now branched out far beyond what many consider to be "traditional", many people think some of these branches of photography as being "overdone." Well, I guess that depends on how narrow your idea of photography is. There was a time when the early impressionist painters weren't considered real painters because their images deviated too far from the expected norms of painting (i.e., realistic depictions of nature, objects, etc.). I guess we're going through that same thing today with digital photos.

Fabulous debate

Here's my view on the situation. I understand the gist of the OP but it's like they're on a beach with toes getting wet. They could take a boat ride out and then jump in to find out there's no measurable depth to the debate. I'm an artist too but what's an artist? Well, OK, I'm a "real artist" (realism). What's realism?... and on and on.

As long as photography can be considered art, it too must suffer the consequences. There are no limits or rules and these days, no definition.

Personally, I love the limitations and challenge of the film era. I also appreciate the representational skill of John Singer Sargent like painters and have been left quite bewildered by the Pollocks that have since evolved. It's funny how people like Gerhard Richter can span such differences and now make millions with a squeegee.

I received an invitation to an exhibit in NYC this morning. Reading the commentary describing the show, I saw this:

...when the post-modernist art critic Arthur Danto, after seeing Andy Warhol’s exhibition of Brillo boxes in 1964, asked “What Is Art?” This led to a book and movement wherein Danto ultimately concluded that most of the aesthetic criteria and parameters of beauty were gone, that art is what the art establishment says it is, and that the age of pluralism had come.

Actually, wet toes on the beach will suffice for me too, as long as it remains a good and personal choice to be enjoyed. To each their own.

BruceWB

 BruceB609's gear list:BruceB609's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Voigtlander 40mm F2 Ultron SL II +5 more
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