The future ...

I think photography is something that can bring you back to the past, reality or even future. This is the art of capturing memories, people, places... I think it is immortal.

Here in California, we've been experiencing the horror and tragedy of the nearby fires devastating our neighbors and bringing unhealthy levels of air to our skies. Of course, nothing is as awful as the loss of human life. Often among the highlights of the stories of loss of property, however, are family photo albums which were so precious to their owners. It's a reminder of just how finite and fragile photos are. So, though I understand what you mean by immortal, I'd sooner say that photos are strong reminders of the past and have an uncanny ability to project into the future, but they are very much not immortal. Perhaps that's part of their preciousness. Prints and negatives can so easily be destroyed or lost and files can be corrupted or otherwise vanish. If anything is actually immortal, it may more be the memories than the photos, but even those memories are fragile as they can fade or die over generations.

If you just had one little blurry photo of your Mum and Dad.

There's a great treasure to hold and take into the future,

If you just had one little blurry photo of your Mum and Dad.

 

There's a great treasure to hold and take into the future,

Dad and I invariably discuss that every time we talk about photography.

It is probably the singular reason he impressed upon me the value of a camera from early childhood.

Just last week he commented on how much photos continue to develop over time, long after the image is fixed.

“Even the poorest exposure develops an increase in value with each passing day”

Here in California, we've been experiencing the horror and tragedy of the nearby fires devastating our neighbors and bringing unhealthy levels of air to our skies. Of course, nothing is as awful as the loss of human life. Often among the highlights of the stories of loss of property, however, are family photo albums which were so precious to their owners. It's a reminder of just how finite and fragile photos are. So, though I understand what you mean by immortal, I'd sooner say that photos are strong reminders of the past and have an uncanny ability to project into the future, but they are very much not immortal. Perhaps that's part of their preciousness. Prints and negatives can so easily be destroyed or lost and files can be corrupted or otherwise vanish. If anything is actually immortal, it may more be the memories than the photos, but even those memories are fragile as they can fade or die over generations.

I used the word photography as an art of capturing, and the art won't disappear I think. But actually, photos and films as objects can be easily destroyed, that's true.

I used the word photography as an art of capturing

I think “capture” applies to snapshots and family photos quite well, and I love a lot of snapshots and family photos. I think “capture” applies but less all-inclusively and significantly to art photos. I think photography as art liberates and frees the vision of its subjects and vision itself more than it captures anything. Good art photography most often has re-envisioned things more than capturing them, has freed vision from past paradigms more than ensnaring anything in a grip. I understand the word “capture” is used often and get why that is, but I think it also does a disservice to the art of photography not to see “capture” as a very limited description of what’s really going on when a photo transcends forensics and moves into the world of expression, symbol, metaphor, illusion, and the rest that can comprise art.

I think “capture” applies to snapshots and family photos quite well, and I love a lot of snapshots and family photos. I think “capture” applies but less all-inclusively and significantly to art photos. I think photography as art liberates and frees the vision of its subjects and vision itself more than it captures anything. Good art photography most often has re-envisioned things more than capturing them, has freed vision from past paradigms more than ensnaring anything in a grip. I understand the word “capture” is used often and get why that is, but I think it also does a disservice to the art of photography not to see “capture” as a very limited description of what’s really going on when a photo transcends forensics and moves into the world of expression, symbol, metaphor, illusion, and the rest that can comprise art.

I see your thoughts about it. I agree the word I have chosen is not suitable. Let me try one more time, the art of saving the concept and revealing the meaning through capturing exactly that very moment. Not sure if someone would understand me correctly:)