maria_s. Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 The better word is NON-REPRESENTATIONAL. To follow him, you must assume that all art is representational -- it is conceived in an artist mind, it is a thought expressed in form. Then he tries to prove that photography, to be truthful to its medium, must reflect an objective reality and preclude creating reality. Which means that photography is not a representation. Therefore, it is not art. If I remember him correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 That argument is absurd. Photography cannot be anything other than representational, or else it is not photography! You cannot make 'fictional' photographs. You cannot photograph what does not exist. The film records what is shone onto it, and if the image is fuzzy, that is an accurate representation of what the film received! And of course art can create objects that have no relationship to others at all, either as represenation or as effect. The trouble with calling photography 'art' is that it is strictly cause and effect. Art cannot be thus. The Professor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maria_s. Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Anywhere in philosophy of art, representation means an artistic representation of reality. Following Scruton, a painting 'represents' reality in a way the artist wants us to see it. That means a painting is a fiction, even most realistic painting, represents something that does not exist -- a painting, therefore, is a representation of reality (you made that argument before). While a photograph merely documents reality, captures what is/was/has been there. Photography is representative of reality while painting is an artistic representation of it. Feel free to declare victory cause I'm quitting, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 "You cannot make 'fictional' photographs." Yeah, right. http://www.byllwilliams.com/b4b/03.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maria_s. Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 funny pic Will but note that it is still a photograph of something that was there. unless it is a photoshopped image -- which is no longer photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 If this is the most significant thing about what characterizes art then it's a cold dark world really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Hans, you are a very determined solipsist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_portera Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Hans :"This thread was based upon my frustration with so-called 'fine-art photography', a ludicrous concept. " Why waste bandwidth on this fool. Hans joined our community on 11/13/03 and two months he's managed 1026 postings. Diahrea of the mouth. You know sometimes its alright to keep your thoughts to yourself. Here comes post 1027.....and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Oh, where do I begin? Is it worth it? Probably! Skully, that is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long while. Hans wrote: "Cameras can be set up to operate automatically." They sure *can* be. Cameras can be wonderful recording devices. Saves you having to draw. Hans wrote: "The phograph is caused DIRECTLY by the object. Light rays bounce off the object and are focussed by the lens. Nothing analogous happens in sculpture." Wow, you've discovered the main property of photography. And you've also discovered that there are different art media out there. It really is a big, wonderful world. Trying to stick to the point: the subject doesn't cause the photograph to be - the photographer does that bit. Unless the camera is set on automatic... Hans, if you think it a big deal that photography is reproducible, think about this for a sec.: no two photographers working on a negative in an enlarger will ever produce the same print if it involves more than trivial dodging, burning and exposure. But hey, this is not your main point, is it? No, I'm glad of that. Travis wrote: "No 2 person can shoot alike bar on a tripod. Even then, air/light movements/shifts causes microscopic changes in exposure and hence leading t 2 different images." And hey, even if Hans is right on that point, any two frames are going to be different as no two frames (of film, anyway - what, so a digital photo isn't art, now? Yes, it is, but only if there's noise!! Aaaarrgghh!!!!!) have the same silver halide distribution pattern. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 >I defy you to distinguish two photographs of the same thing made by the same camera set up on a tripod, with the button pushed by me or Ansel Adams. Hans, I would leave Ansel Adams out of this; even using your arbitrary, overly-narrowed and thus incorrect definition of Art, Ansel Adams prints were products of a master in the darkroom who was able to skillfully dodge and burn portions of the image using hand-tools much like a painter uses a paint-brush. His prints would be better than yours, much like a painting by a true master is superior to those that copy it. Science is the study of Nature. Photography, like painting and drawing, can be for science or for art depending on the intent of the person holding the camera, pencil, or paintbrush. Galileo used pencil and paper to render the best images possible with the available technology of what he saw through his telescope. His work was science. Open up any 18th century illustrated medical book. That is science. Cameras render nature; holograms record it. My duties in the lab include scientific and technical photography; as such it is my job to use the available technology to render the most accurate representation possible of what I am studying. When I use a camera for this work, I set it up to the best of its capability to faithfully reproduce the object in 2D. I have custom lenses designed to suit this purpose if they are not available off-the-shelf. The moment that a photographer adjusts the controls of their camera away from the optimal position which will reproduce a scene in nature as faithfully as possible to what they are observing with their eyes in order to communicate a human thought onto film it becomes art. Required annoying remark for Leica Forum members: Because it certainly is not Science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Skully McMulligan Your shot is in very poor taste. I hope you never a) have "retarded" children yourself, or b) show it someone who does. Clearly you are someone who has no sensitivity at all. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Karim Damien Ghantous hat geschrieben: Travis wrote: "No 2 person can shoot alike bar on a tripod. Even then, air/light movements/shifts causes microscopic changes in exposure and hence leading t 2 different images." And hey, even if Hans is right on that point, any two frames are going to be different as no two frames (of film, anyway - what, so a digital photo isn't art, now? Yes, it is, but only if there's noise!! Aaaarrgghh!!!!!) have the same silver halide distribution pattern. :-)" For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are identical: no two paintings made by hand will ever approach the uniformity of two successive frames of Tri-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 If one can draw a scene to look exactly like a photograph of that scene, what is it then? A photograph or art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuck Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 <b>Robin Smith</b><P> You don't know anything about me or my children. Fortunately, I don't really care what you think.<P> Poor in taste it may be, but, as they say, if the shoe fits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Like many others I�m sure, I found it really funny. And brave. A lot of people quiver within the boundaries of Political Correctness. Thanks Skully. Not for the photo, but for hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_merrill Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Skully, FWIW, I found it funny. My wife told me a joke that is exactly like you photo on our first date. Its not the only reason I married to her, but I found out right away that we have the same sort of humor. Robin, Jokes usually always poke fun at somebody, (hell, my wife is blond and a lawyer and I am from Irish, Polish, and I went to catholic school) it doesn't mean that the person telling it really believes it. That photo is still not art per Hans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 "Travis . , jan 20, 2004; 10:57 a.m. If one can draw a scene to look exactly like a photograph of that scene, what is it then? A photograph or art?" It cannot be done, actually.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 "Clearly you are someone who has no sensitivity at all." Did we get caught in a re-run of Thirtysomething? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1664876441 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Actually, it has been done. I forget if it was modern or pop photo that did a full two-page spread of a fairly typical picture of a lake scene. It made the reader wonder why they published it. Then the last words of the story revealed that it was a painting. I have a series of scientific drawing pencils and tools designed for very detailed work measured in LP/mm. This would be the equivalent of an 11x14 enlargement in terms of resolution. Human beings are capable of more than you are giving them credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 "And brave" Oh yes - let's poke fun at Down's syndrome people - how noble and clever. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Brian: I suppose if someone worked from a photograph on a grid or something like that and airbrushes, but what I was talking about was brush-strokes made free-hand. Reality does not have brush-strokes. Working free-hand with brushes, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_merrill Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Robin - "Oh yes - let's poke fun at Down's syndrome people - how noble and clever." Jokes are clever, rarely noble. Lighten up man. It's a joke. The picture is still not art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Brave in regards to living without the confines of what others, especially strangers, think from ones actions. �They� have a done a great job at getting us to worry about what others think and feel about ones own self image. �Can�t do that, what will Status Quo Joe think!� So many of us wont say, wont wear, wont act, on what we truly want to do, for fear of reactions from others. There�s probably a good number of photographers here that wont take a photo on the street because of the awkward looks one may receive�from a stranger! Self policing at it greatest. Nice hat man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuck Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 <i>Oh yes - let's poke fun at Down's syndrome people - how noble and clever.</i><P> 1) Who's poking fun at "Down's syndrome people" (a sensitive epithet if I've ever heard one)? I'm poking fun at all this bullcrap. In the history of communication, intent has never meant anything at all. Perception is everything. If I say it's "art", or "Art", even, and someone else says it's "crap", or "Crap", even, then it's crap. Get that through your thick skulls. Stop talking about it and go outside or something. Yeah, I know. I don't have to look at this stuff. But I do, really. I'm comfortable with discomfort, and this deal makes me uncomfortable. I like to go to the mall the day after Thanksgiving, too. That's how I'm wired. If thy eye offend thee, prick it out and all that, blah blah blah, whatever.<P> 2) Who ever said I was noble or clever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Hans, all you've done is point out the differences between photography and painting. This is no bad thing. And to ask, "Is photography an art form?" is an interesting question and produces an interesting discussion. So the subject of a photograph has a causal relationship to the image. This is a matter of fact. That's photography for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now