anybody want to go philosophical on photography?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

then check this out...

http://www.pixiq.com/article/httpwwwpixiqcomblindeye

[ManiacJoe]

1. I do not buy into the author's rigid, narrow point of view.

> ... the fact that photography’s prime mission is to depict reality....

Photography exists on a sliding scale from "documentation" to "art". Certainly the "documentation" end of the scale is looking to depict reality. However, when you get to the end of the "art" side, it is certainly possible that the "picture" cannot be even recognized as something that started off as a photo.

For the sake of debate, if we restrict the discussion to the "documentation" end of the scale, a "good photo" needs a subject. If the photographer's choice of a subject cannot be recognized as the subject by the viewer, the photo tends to fail at "goodness" by the more commonly accepted definitions of "good". (Being recognized as the subject is not the same as knowing what the object actually is.) This is where "art school" photos often fail, in my opinion.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. well, being old and purposefully ignorant

of what art schools are doing now, I have no first-hand knowledge of this. This is not the first time I have seen this criticism and I think it is a "movement" back towards reality in photography, which could be a good thing.

But not, and I agree with you here, if there is a "dogma" in it.

Then it will surely lead to the same crap.

[blueraven95]

3. I'm not sure it's back to anything

if anything, our standards for documentary photograph are much, much more rigid now. I was looking at a series of photographs taken of a family suicide during WWII, and it was clear that the photographers had moved the bodies, changed things in the room, etc, to make their point or to find their aesthetic.

I haven't had a chance to read the link yet, but if we are talking about real versus art, then I think I fall in the it's almost all art, but some of it can show reality camp.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. we are not so innocent of that now

I fear. I know that practically every image you see in most magazines has been photoshopped beyond what we consider "darkroom" methods.

And there are still certain "news" organizations who condone stuff like you mentioned. It is even easier to hide now.

[blueraven95]

8. oh, I absolutely agree that

most magazine/art/commercial images are extremely processed.

If, however, a photographer wants to become acclaimed in documentary, the standards are different. The rules have become more stringent.

[Gamey]

4. Nothing more than a challenge to do better...

...nothing wrong with that.

I've already started.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. Good

me too

[Stevenmarc]

7. I feel the authors pain to some degree

I go to a lot of gallery openings and read a lot of artist statements, and well, the degree of MFA babble that one encounters has risen to a level that makes most of it virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been saturated in the culture. I don't have a problem with the "anything goes" concept of Postmodernism what I do have an issue with is the "Big Story" that comes attached to the work, as far as I'm concerned the work needs to speak for itself, I shouldn't need to go back to the artist statement to to figure out WTF I just viewed.

OK here's where we disagree "The ultimate purpose of photography is depicting reality.", sorry, no, the ultimate purpose of photography is to depict vision.

[alfredo]

9. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

Isaac Stern when in China was impressed with the skills of the young musicians, but noted they lacked feeling. There was no passion, no swing.

It isn't what you think, it is what you feel.


What is Jazz?

Who gives a fuck, let's dance.