keith selmes Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I never showed any aptitude for drawing or painting or any arty handicrafts.<BR> I did find some aptitude for technical things, and using a camera suits me.<br> Thats my personal answer - of course there are people who have the choice, and choose the camera.<BR> Photography can, and often does, have a similarity to hunting, seeking the time and place to snap, whereas I imagine painting nearly always must be a construction, even when taken from life, since it cannot freeze a moment.<br> I've not really felt comfortable with the shopping idea, perhaps because I don't understand shopping. <BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 "Bresson's "moment" method can be seen in countless other works. As a painter and photographer, Bresson never considered photography to be a true form of artistic expression and he constantly downplayed its artistic significance and then stopped shooting. He never gave up painting." He won't be known for his painting, but neither will Winston Churchill, two serious painters who no doubt had much pleasure from the canvas yet who achieved much more in other areas. Nobody photographed like Bresson, his best 'decisive moments' are quite special and unique ones. Just think of what he might have added to his images and photography had he printed his own photos and had embarked on creative darkroom work to complement a great sense of observation and composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 "Bresson's "moment" method can be seen in countless other works. As a painter and photographer, Bresson never considered photography to be a true form of artistic expression and he constantly downplayed its artistic significance and then stopped shooting. He never gave up painting." Bresson's "decisive moments" are special and unique ones. Many such "moments" in photography are interesting but not special. Like Winston Churchill, another serious artist, he won't likely be celebrated for his painting but for his other accompishments. Too bad he didn't want to do his own darkroom work. Perhaps If he had applied creative control of light, tones and shadow in the darkroom he might have added other dimensions to his great sense of observation and composition and his superb photographs (the best ones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Please cancel one of these two prior posts. Had a lot of trouble with my connection tonight. Sorry for the unintended duplication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "Bresson never considered photography to be a true form of artistic expression and he constantly downplayed its artistic significance and then stopped shooting. He never gave up painting." Did he say that about all photography or his decisive moment approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Arthur and Don: Bresson relied on the master Pierre Gassman for his darkroom work, so it is not exactly like he took a shot and relied on drug store processing. I respectfully disagree with your comment concerning his works creative control of light, tones and shadow though I think you have to experience the originals to confirm this. I do believe that Gassman's darkroom work illustrates an expertise. If I remember correctly, Bresson instructed Gassman to take no liberties with cropping and to keep the image dimensions as per the negative. The control of lighting etc. to me at least, is certainly very well executed. Bresson made the famous remark: "I'm only a hunter, not a cook" As a matter of fact he made very critical remarks about photography as an art form throughout his career including this one to the Indian writer Sadanand Menon in a 1981 interview: "Photography is ? pfft ? like shooting crap... But drawing is a completely different medium; even a little amount of meditative drawing completely changes the idea of the image." I agree with the Bresson comment above concerning how drawing changes the idea of an image. It is totally a subjective, personal and , like HCB says, a "meditative" exercise whereby even a summary execution transforms the subject. That was the point I was trying to illustrate, though I think the concept is troubling and irritates most who spend time doing "fine art" photography. The disparaging comments HCB made about photography that I have read concerned photography in general. I don't think that Bresson's decisive moment approach is an artistic concern, but rather a mechanical method; a technique at which Bresson certainly excelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "meditative drawing" The intellectual activity in the process of making art does not exist in decisive moment photography. There's not enough time to form a complete thought at 1/250 (or even in a few seconds) much less be meditative. Instead, the intellectual activity occurs before and especially after the exposure (developing and printing). This may be why classic fine art photography is made in the studio or on location, where the photographer can be meditative. Bresson's lack of nuance regarding art and photography is annoying. I put it down to a personal quirk he probably couldn't be argued out of by god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 There is no question that the act of taking a "fine art" photograph is an intellectual and meditative activity. I do not believe though, that this is what the argument above is. What the point above is, I think, when comparing a photograph and a painting, is the level of originality, subjectiveness and altering of the subject that both genres demonstrate. The goal of "art" for me is the production of something that will produce an original experience for the viewer. A painting delves right into the soul or brain of the artist. You experience something from within the artist as opposed to the more mechanical rendition of the outside world that a photograph records. I agree with Sontag that much of photography is "shopping", or as Bresson states, "hunting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I wonder how much hunting Bresson did. Most of the hunters I know enjoy cooking their game. Interesting gender distinction, shopping ('gathering') and hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_reid Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Steve, If you want to compare snapshot shooters to van Gogh sure .. its just hunting/shopping. But comparing van gogh to most painters.. even 'revered' ones (theres a reason people snicker at "art") is like comparing a leica to a chinese paper box camera. Art is about communication. Its an open ended form of communication. Real art shows something to someone they would never see or understand otherwise. Most of our "art" is mundane. Standard amazngly beautiful photograph whos only purpose is to alter mood. That beautiful waterfall on the wall just makes those entering the room feel good because of the beauty around them. Thats pretty mundane. Its also not something Everyone can create and is very worthwhile, even noble. But occasionally we mere mortals create magic. We show people something special. We teach them to walk out their front door and rather than seeing "borng boring see it every day" they learn to see light as we (at least want) to. They see that broken old fence and how the shadow falls on the grass and where before they ddint even notice it they see how beautiful that is. They look at that patch of grass and remember the macro that turned it into endless fields of flowers and living communities. We've put the magic of childhood in their lives. The picture i consider my "greatest accomplishment" wasnt standard photography 101 using booktechnique 23323. It was done with a 2mp digicam one afternoon. I walked out into my yard and saw a tiny group of flowers in the grass. Each about 1/8" wide. I got on my knees, put on a macro filter and crawled around in the dust looking for the shot for half an hour. People who saw the print loved it and kept asking where this was.. what kind of flowers.. they saw a new world in the picture, literally. That is art. No its not van gogh but im not van gog and neither is Msr. Bresson. But it is certainly art. It certainly touched people. It certainly touched me. And thats all i care about. That i use "mechanical techniques learnable by the masses" while Bresson and company use standard techniques five year olds learn in kindergarten is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_sharf1 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Charles: I agree with what you say about communication. It is what is being communicated that I question. Is your photography communicating to the viewer something originating entirely from within? Or are light waves being recorded and doing much or most of the communicating? The mechanical techniques that can be taught of which you mention above is not my point. Techniques are taught in oil painting as well. It is the expression that is produced totally from within the artist when viewing the final work in a painting, that is the difference. The mysteriousness whereby one experiences the workings of the brain and resulting original message of someone else by looking at an oil painting for example that is my point. Where does this exist in photography? If it does exist in photography, can one attribute a particular work as being definitively from any particular photographer? Forget about past examples that you know of already from, say, Adams or Arbus or Friedlander or whomever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "Bresson never considered photography to be a true form of artistic expression and he constantly downplayed its artistic significance The expression of the mind coerced by the artists brush based on their perception of the reality. .....the photographer tasting the truth of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Reality is honesty and beauty; the supreme reality. The image maker, the Painter merely makes a poor copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Reality,never been a master to the Artists brush.....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Reality,never been a slave to the Artists brush..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I'm a photographer, i bow to nobody....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Cartier-Bresson was no different than many of us in that he was probably quite critical of his own work, in terms of their artistic statements. This can also lead to thoughts that the medium we use is somehow not up to what we would wish it to be. Then, other media (sculpting,drawing, painting...) can sometimes offer an escape from that and bring new horizons. Not necessarily better as approaches, but more of a challenge. I don't think it matters if the decisive moment was preceded by a half second or even 1/250th of a second in preparation or perception of it. Lots of 1/250th of a second "decisive moments" in photography. Not many, however, that are truly decisive. Bresson seemingly had an enormous instinct and considerable intellectual bagage that were both brought into play when he perceived his decisive moment. Things came together very quickly. That doesn't mean that this images were not of artistic merit. Many are. He was more able than most in composing his instantaneous images and imbuing many with emotional and artistic qualities that few achieve. More contemplative fine art photography can reach high levels as well, but rarely as a direct result of the slowness of image perception and composition by its originator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Why write a piece of music rather than make a sculpture? Photography is as different from painting as music from sculpture. The net results may be generically pictures but pictures that differ radically in their nature. A photograph, usually, approaches an instant of time, whereas the fastest drawing takes minutes and a painting takes hours, days or even weeks - or in the case of the Mona Lisa, sixteen years. For me, a photograph captures an instant and as literal a likeness as is possible, and yet photography is capable of its own interpretations of subject matter, though differently from painting. Photography belongs to the pantheon of visual arts and is a form in its own right, not, as has been implied, a pictorial medium for people who can't draw (and who could if they practised long enough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 "That doesn't mean that this images were not of artistic merit." I did not mean to imply his photographs are w/o artistic merit, but that the 'contemplative' part occurs before and after and not during the creation -- we seem to agree there. I do find it odd that he did not see the art in the 'before' and went out of his way to avoid it in the 'after'. Maybe it was necessary to be that way about it. Whatever the reason, it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felixg Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Chris Waller: right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samn Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I painted extensively for years. I began using photography as a tool, as part of my research and prep for a painting or drawing. I had fair ideas and good skills. Along the way (I was a complete photographic novice), I began to enjoy the spontaneity of photography and dislike the tedium of painting, especially with oils or alkyds and the one mistake ruins of watercolor. Painting slowly slipped away and I became more and more involved with photography. As computers appeared and the capability of manipulating photographic images came into being, I was hooked. Fine art photography became the goal but it too is now slipping away. I find that the prospect of finally becoming a pretty fair photographer is more rewarding than drawing and painting ever was. Anyone who thinks producing a quality image through photography is easy is sorely mistaken and anyone who thinks it is not rewarding is sorely mistaken as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyyearginjr Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 <blockquote><i>"what can photography provide that painting or drawing or printmaking can't do?"<br><br>The moment.</i></blockquote><br> I totally agree with Don E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daverave Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I've found myself heading the other direction lately when I have some free time (not often enough). Although I've been behind a camera for as long as I can remember, in the last year I've started doing some acrylic painting based on my photography. I don't have the skill and speed to try plein air work yet but wouldn't mind getting there at some point. Thanks to the digital age, to a certain degree, it feels like everyone these days is a "photographer" (how many photos have been uploaded to Flickr?!?) To try and break away from that all of that noise, I'm finding the painting more satisfying; I've even sold one! I've posted some of the results here on PN at this folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=721720 Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st184 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 I use photography to influence my painting, in an indirect round about way. And I use painting the same way, to influence my photography. They are just different mediums, thats all there is to it. Both mediums are valid in their own way. There is really no point in making judgements and comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_crider4 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 "question... what makes a person desire to shoot a photo instead of drawing or painting the scene?" No skills, or no interest/desire to learn them and time. In life I have met and seen many great photographs by many different casual shooters. I don't feel tho that one of them could paint a great painting. Wasn't there a famous quote something along the order of, a person takes pictures because they can't paint? 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