Making it old

[don_essedi]

"So what is to be made of this? While I enjoy his work, the fact that the photos have been so obviously doctored is hard to ignore. Would you call it disingenuous? Brilliant? Fakery? All of the above, or none?"

 

I'd call it a vignette.

[luis_g]

<p>"So what is to be made of this? While I enjoy his work, the fact that the photos have been so obviously doctored is hard to ignore. Would you call it disingenuous? Brilliant? Fakery? All of the above, or none?"</p>

<p>I'd call it photography. While I may not personally agree with Brandt's sentimentalist aesthetic, it's not my work, and he isn't defrauding anyone by claiming they were made in another process. I fail to see what's "wrong" with it. Scott, this is coming across as a kind of fundamentalism to me.</p>

<p>[i do have one thing against those frayed-thin jeans, though. With certain wearers they cause eye strain.]</p>

[Brad_]

For Fred's benefit, with clarity apparently needed... Being a photographer who only shoots

people, I enjoy seeing what others wear, and am glad you do as well. It's an important aspect of my image-making. But in the context of addressing

the *particular* question, with ridicule/contempt being the motivation, I just don't get worked up about how others dress.

[don_essedi]

"Brandt's sentimentalist aesthetic..."

 

Regarding the referenced photos...I don't know anything about Brandt or his motives. However, I do know that animals do not present themselves for a photo op in nature. Such encounters are rare -- except in a glorified petting zoo. So, what would a 'non-fake' version of his photos be? The lioness bounding across the veldt in pursuit of game? The leopard leaping up to or down from a tree? In gorgeous color, tack sharp, each hair of their coats reflecting brilliantly in the sun? Brandt's photos because of their aura of sentiment, even nostalgia -- having been made "old" -- acknowledge the faux reality evidenced in the 'non-fake' current genre wildlife photo and evokes a time and place when such things were not the bullshit product of a bag-your-shot day at the zoo.

[luis_g]

<p>I think Scott meant the 'fakery' is in the antiquing, Don. The pictures don't pretend to be au naturel, and part of the theme is their apparently ephemeral future. In that sense, what he did with the pictures to make them look old, adds a sense of urgency to protect and save these creatures. Fakery? Not to me. Articulated, integrated vision is what I see.</p>

<p>I grew up with fashionista parents, particularly my mother. Must have been a recessive gene, because it passed me by, but I've always been fascinated by what people wear, how it affects their identity and more.</p>

[don_essedi]

They don't look like old photos. They don't look like fake old photos. They look like contemporary photos.

 

Two things seem really weird to me about the 'fake' and 'old' assertions. One is the appropriation of certain effects to film photography that have been part of the practice of imagery since at least the 13th century in Europe. The second is that these effects are "old" which means something is "new"; that those considered old when applied to the new means the new is a fake of the old (Poussin and David painted fake Roman mosaics).

 

So, history, development, reference, continuity, reflection, Art -- in fact everything is trashed for the new . This is a radical notion which would require digital imaging to break with the photography paradigm. And that is kind of neat, except it doesn't call for photography to break with the painting and drawing paradigm as well as scanning film and thus film photography breaking off with the digital paradigm.

 

My opinion? Neither Scott nor Stephen have thought it through, philosophically.

[furiousennui]

<p>Don said, "Based on what we have been presented, I feel perfectly in tune with it by<br />claiming all art photographs are fake paintings and drawings."<br>

Not all photographs attempt to emulate paintings. There are many reasons why emulating some elements of some techniques are impossible, for example the texture and 3 dimensionality of using a palette knife, or pointilism. <br>

I would say that painting, drawing and photography are all siblings in the same family of, essentially, 2 dimensional visual communication. To claim that photographs are some how "fake" representations of their older siblings is to demean photography as art.</p>

[don_essedi]

"I would say that painting, drawing and photography are all siblings in the same family of, essentially, 2 dimensional visual communication."

 

Two things common to our species, making images and telling stories. Photography is a way of doing that.