Jump to content

Artist or Photographer?


davebell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With all due respect to Ms. Ball, her dismissive use of the term "Semantics" as a rubric for this entire thread is quite telling. My guess is that she intends it in the bastardized, pejorative sense, i.e., with the modifier "mere" implicitly attached to the term "semantics." Implicit in Ms. Ball's missive is the notion that "it's all just a matter of words." Words DO matter, however. They are the vehicles of ideas, and ideas can be systematically fashioned into concepts, and concepts into theories. The underlying issue raised by this thread and sensibly addressed here by many members did not strike David Hume or Immanuel Kant, among others, as "just a matter of words." They and others devoted much thought and reflection to this very issue. Follow Ms. Ball's thinking, and I suppose you'd conclude that "truth" and "fiction" or "war" and "peace" are "just a matter of words."

 

Finally, a further thought about the "unintentional art" notion raised by Parker Tyler. I thought also of the "Cahiers du cinema" crowd of the 1950's who, like Parker, saw "art" in the seemingly banal and workmanlike American studio productions of the decade and concluded that they had perceived something that had eluded "mainstream" analysts and critics. I literally laughed when I first learned that they hailed the work of the Danish-born director Douglas Sirk as genuine masterpieces of art, whether they were ever intended to be or no. "What?," thought I. "Those trashy technicolor melodramas of the fifties with Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson? Or 'Written on the Wind'? Art? These people are deluded." But over the years I have turned that one over and over in my mind. As craft, the Sirk and Nick Ray films of the fifties were pretty nearly flawless. They were also entertaining, and somehow fell easily on the eye. But art? Naaahhhh. Still, I wonder. They came to mind again recently when I was beating up on St. Ansel of Taos on this very site. His photos were technical tours de force, pleasing to the eye, and entertaining. Pretty, really. Like Sirk's Universal melodramas of the fifties? Were the Cahiers people right? Maybe Adams did produce something like "art" after all? Maybe Kant's "agreeable art"? To paraphrase the poet, I am locked in, and the key is turned on my uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sirk may very well be my favorite director. I don't care how one labels his films, they are transformative to watch . . .

lush, emotional, awash in visual wonder. They really are at their very core -- color and flowers and tears and melodrama

and all -- human.

 

Here in America they are more often than not taken to be camp. I don't mind. On one level, they are. But those who miss

a deeper appreciation of his truly masterful vision, miss a lot, in my book.

 

I've noticed, however, that audiences who tend to laugh at various points during Imitation of Life suddenly are not

laughing when Juanita Moore is dying.

 

To be so in touch with one's era as Sirk was with the fifties is a gift. Sometimes only that just perfect sense of hyper-

reality in art can actually capture reality itself.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An artist creates art. In any medium. This is in relation to an artiste (beret, goatee, scarf, all dressed in black, etc) that creates pretension and trouble. 99% of the people that call themselves artists are the latter. Go to a gallery opening and wade through the art scum. You'll see enough of the critters to last a lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off point, I know, but I have come to an appreciation of some of those fifties Universal melodramas. I can't resist "Imitation of Life," i.e., Sirk's 1959 remake, any time I catch it on TCM. Far better than the original with Claudette Colbert. Visually rich, sometimes to an almost stunning degree, very engaging somehow, and amazing art/set decoration. I can imagine art house crowds giggling derisively at Juanita Moore/Annie on her deathbed, but despite making some inordinate demands on "suspension of disbelief," it works. Another in the same vein was the 1957 film version of "Peyton Place," which, I think, came out of Fox. Directed by Mark Robson, but it might as well have been Sirk. The novel was genuine pulp, but the film raised it to a higher level. It's one of my "guilty pleasures," I suppose.

 

This has been a commendable thread. It has left me some things to chew on, and those are always the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, forgot one small matter. I commend to Ms. Ball's reading the late Senator Hayakawa's works (e.g., "Language in Thought and Action"). The antidote to the notion of "mere semantics." Good eventide, ladies and gentlemen; this one has been both instructive and fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out NEWLIGHTSTUDIOS.COM they are all polaroid pictures from a polaroid camera. This is ART! From a

true Artist. They are not paintings but, they are as original and command attention, just as any great painting or

detailed drawing would. He uses only the poaroid camera as a tool (brush) and the film as the canvas. Very cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, I went to the website you suggested,

 

http://www.newlightstudios.com/

 

the site makes a vague reference to a "David W. Lundahl", with the usual cryptic (no) biography, several paragraphs

about a guest house, some out of focus shots of paintings and little else. There was no mention of polaroids, etc.

What gives ?

 

Bill P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes words are important. My comment was not entirely dismissive although I can see how some might take it in that spirit.

 

I read the entire thread and it was interesting but I am just saying that, to me... it is just not important to "label" something or argue our subjective views about a "word". These type of arguments never come to a conclusion and many times it is a matter of a personal interpretation of "words". Everyone sees their views from their own windows.

 

My own "opinion" is that there is a difference between a snapshot and a photograph that is a work of art.

Some photographers, in my opinion, are artists and some are mere "photographers".

 

Regarding "Semantics"

 

I've seen paintings by "artists" that leave me cold and others that are wonderful expressions of a vision.

Does that mean the "bad" painting is not art? Does the painter who does mediocre work according to some but still sells his/her work - not an artist?

 

My personal thought is that photography is painting with light. A true artist captures a scene in a unique way on film (or digital image). I personally have seen photographs that have left me breathless with excitement. Anything that fills me with such awe - to me - is art. Maybe to some - it is just photography.

Either way - it adds beauty to our world and I don't care what the label is. That's what I mean by semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary--

 

I appreciate your following up.

 

Many of the great arguments (what is art?, free will vs. determinism?, is there a God?, should we

have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?) don't seem to come to a conclusion. In my opinion, they are still

worth having. They air ideas and they help socialize us, they stimulate us to think just a little deeper, and they may

make us more self aware photographers or people. Nothin' wrong with that even if there are no ultimate answers.

 

I've brought up the question about bad art in other instances and I believe that there is bad art. To relegate art

only to the world of what's good seems to do art and, particularly, good art, a disservice. There will always come a point

when something is so bad that we will want to say that's simply not art, just as when a carpenter is so bad that we may

want to say she's simply not a carpenter. But we can allow for that ambiguous cutoff point without insisting that

everyone has to be equally good at what he or she does.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming late to this interesting discussion that was discussed before in different variation, so I will write again what I wrote before in some forums touching this subject..

 

The camera is a tool ! Like the brash for the painter and the chisel for the sculptor.In order to create meaningful work and become an artist, one needs to have the intention first, to learn the technicalities and what the medium is meant to be, to get to Z ,one has to start from A., to learn, to search,to develop sight, to work hard to tie it with his/her thoughts and inner world. It applies to all creating forms, and needs a long perseverance in the process, and the process is not less important than the last result. Not less is skills , love and feelings to what one tries to achieve.

Photography is a long time listed as one of the creative arts. Some will be artists and some will not, calling yourself an artist, is a personal feeling of your achievements. Some will get public recognition( justified or not, it is relative.) and some will be good silent artists,and still doing good deep touching work....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, let me add a couple of observations. First, we apply the same compositional rules to a photographic composition as we do to a painting. Second, most photographers apply a thought process when taking an image. What's my subject? How do I simplify the image and emphasis the subject. What is interesting about this subject/context/lighting? It doesn't matter that we can't control every aspect of an image as a painter does on a blank canvas. And, it doesn't matter how well the photographer met his or her goals. The result is an image of a subject depicted in a way that expresses something about the photographer and his or her views on the subject. It is a form of communication that expresses emotion and thought. I think that's the purpose of art.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the Artist. David Lundahl. The website show no painting they are all polaroid photo's he has been working in this media for more and 13 years and his work resides all over the world including some major museums. Here is another sidte to review if interested.

http://sugarmagnolia.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/polaroid-artist-david-lundahl/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, for years after the camera was invented, some well known painters used it for their paintings and research . Even in the renaissance artists have used camera obscura to help with their paintings( especially landscapes and portraits) , and later on ,to name just a few well known , Delacroix ( 1857, look for "Odalisque" that was painted after photographing her) Monet and Degas. Degas did a real research how the horses are running( legs in movement and their position, with a camera! and his ballet works as well.) In the middle of the 19 century the realistic movement was founded( influencing also the impressionists later on) in order to try and be objective as the camera was, in depicting reality. Each of them was creating changes, bringing his point of view and personality.

 

There were debates , it is right, painters saw the camera as a competition to painting, but later on, photography was received as part of art, because a line of skilled photographers showed that photographing a tree( as your example...;-)) and give it a special context and perspective needs personal skills , not less than a painter needs, and the camera became just another tool for creating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pnina, you let the cat out of the bag! Camera obscura was one of the best kept secrets for getting those 'photo-realistic' portraits onto canvas long before there were cameras as we know them. The subject's image would be 'projected' onto the canvas, where it was traced! Then the painter could finish the 'painting', which was more like colorising the tracing. That's a lot more than 'help'!

 

Bill P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, long thread. I scanned it but haven't read the entirity of it.

 

In my mind it's simple: when you strive to make a beautiful or arty image you're an artist at that moment. When you try to capture an image or an instant in a more documentary way you're a photographer at that moment.

 

Sometimes you strive for both at the same time. At those time you're both. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

(And no, I do not know what to call people who aren't striving for beauty and that take pictures without trying to capture an image.)

 

Kind regards, Matthijs. (Sometimes photographer mostly artist...)<div>00RZzY-91259684.jpg.0ac3df6b1a84767dc33b3a708be2de03.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About my comment about photographing a tree. (or taking a picture of one) I guess photographing is the Ansel Adams , Weston version. The painters that I have talked to. Who were not also photographers, including one that got a lot of money for his. ALL looked at me as trying to years ago sell photos as art. Said how difficult is that? To point a camera at something and take a photo of it?

 

I'm not talking about using the camera for studies for the final painting. I do that for my watercolors. I'm talking about their view about the Photograph being the final art form. Their view was that they use brushes and paint to make the shadows, etc stand out for a certain mood. But, to do that with a camera. Take the Photo, develope the film, make the print, you're done.

This was their view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...