Slow Photography

...... graphing the photons.....

Photons traveling through time....

settled that question

No question of art is ever settled.

Photography will always be object-oriented by the very nature of the medium.

What I'm pointing out is that this categorical statement doesn't apply for me in much of my shooting. I'm not saying it can't be how other photographers think and shoot. However you want to think about your own shooting and however you want to think about Atget is fine with me, and they are likely welcome ways to photograph. Just don't extrapolate from how you see and what you do and what photographers you've studied are doing to "photography" and what it will "always be."

The language of photography is foundational to the world (and therefore also invisible to the undiscerning eye), whereas the language of painting, sculpture, poetry, etc., is abstracted on top of the world’s foundation. An astute photographer sees more than an astute painter. Evans saw more than Picasso.

Camera and framing through it are strong abstraction layers (to me), as much as any other visual medium. The mindset that whatever is photographed existed and there is a closer objective connection to the world than painting, actually works to the photographer's favor in creating an alternative reality. However, photography is obviously not limited to that.

Well, if photography is just the same as any other medium then what the hell are we talking about here? Why not talk about painting since it's all the same.

All visual mediums involve abstraction doesn't equate to meaning that they all are the same.

.

I came to the very encouraging conclusion by reading the this discussion.

Photographers and painters are using the objects/tools to tell their story. The big difference is the tools that photographers use are much limited in compare to collective/compiled product of the free drawing. The paradox of perception is the real objects on photograph may be more appreciated/valued than perception of painting just because photographs displays the real, existing objects/details over that photographers have no control in some genre. So the story made by limited tools may evoke more respect/appreciation in viewers.

We’re both aware of that. And both already alluded to it. Both felt there was still relevance and maybe worth reviving. Thanks for the reminder because sometimes I miss the dates and spin my wheels, so it’s always good to be reminded.

Dates don't matter at all.

Dates don't matter at all.

Don't tell that to my dates! :eek:

We have liftoff.

 

Quick, someone quote Plato.

The excessive increase of anything causes a reaction in the opposite direction.

Plato

Hence slow photography, slow food, etc.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time quickly firing off many digital shots of places and things as I travel around the world, I kind of "get" what Mr Wu alludes to. As one who has recently put down his digital camera and is shooting more film, I also "get" it. The thing about photography, as in other forms of art (or whatever one ends up with- whether or not it is "art" may or may not be up to the creator to decide) is that it is a representation of somebody's view(s) of a given thing, person, place, item, object, etc. Many people can photograph a place or anything else and it is likely that a majority will come away with the same shot. A few however, will find a way of seeing that others haven't found. Is it because they took more time? Or because they have the ability of seeing more in-depth? Because their vision is more varied or more widely informed? Because they studied the person/place/thing more successfully? Perhaps it is because most people are very similar in what they see and how they perceive, and a handful are simply inspired to look further into things, to see things differently- and can then create something which roughly or exactly transforms their vision in such a way so that it may be seen by others, exactly as seen by the artist.

Maybe slowing down, feeling and absorbing the experience of seeing things, is a new art form in and of itself. This is kind of funny, and timely for me, as I have really taken to noticing how many people spend so much time and energy into taking phone pix of simply everything. No matter how mundane.

It reminds of something I saw somewhere - probably f@c3b00k:

"Never before have so many so fully documented themselves doing so little"

"Never before have so many so fully documented themselves doing so little"

I Like That.

Maybe slowing down, feeling and absorbing the experience of seeing things, is a new art form in and of itself.

Yes, it can be a reaction to our own fast times. But I also think it’s getting back to basics. Slow food positing itself as the alternative to fast food calls to mind that there was a time before fast food when no one would have thought of the status quo as slow because it simply was what it was. It didn’t have to be called slow. For centuries, art has been, at least for some and in part, about “slowing down, feeling and absorbing the experience of seeing things.”

As for the Facebook quote, I think a lot of artists, historically, didn’t spend/waste much time on pop culture and what it was doing. Warhol came along and, importantly, helped change some of that, bringing pop into the art world instead of looking at it with disdain. Nowadays, there’s more symbiosis between pop and art as art has become a little less highbrow than it was in prior times. There are still important differences, though, even when art uses or pays homage to pop.

Many people can photograph a place or anything else and it is likely that a majority will come away with the same shot.

One way to avoid that is not necessarily to think about it as photographing this place or this thing. It can sometimes be more about the new thing you’re making than the existing thing you’re photographing.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time quickly firing off many digital shots of places and things as I travel around the world, I kind of "get" what Mr Wu alludes to. As one who has recently put down his digital camera and is shooting more film, I also "get" it. The thing about photography, as in other forms of art (or whatever one ends up with- whether or not it is "art" may or may not be up to the creator to decide) is that it is a representation of somebody's view(s) of a given thing, person, place, item, object, etc. Many people can photograph a place or anything else and it is likely that a majority will come away with the same shot. A few however, will find a way of seeing that others haven't found. Is it because they took more time? Or because they have the ability of seeing more in-depth? Because their vision is more varied or more widely informed? Because they studied the person/place/thing more successfully? Perhaps it is because most people are very similar in what they see and how they perceive, and a handful are simply inspired to look further into things, to see things differently- and can then create something which roughly or exactly transforms their vision in such a way so that it may be seen by others, exactly as seen by the artist.

 

Maybe slowing down, feeling and absorbing the experience of seeing things, is a new art form in and of itself. This is kind of funny, and timely for me, as I have really taken to noticing how many people spend so much time and energy into taking phone pix of simply everything. No matter how mundane.

 

It reminds of something I saw somewhere - probably f@c3b00k:

"Never before have so many so fully documented themselves doing so little"

I would call this phenomena a perpetual photo-trophy contest which has flourished on simplicity of f@c3b00k sharing and has little if at all in common with art.

Faux Art.

Otherwise known as “Fartography”.