Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format

[Supriyo]

After reading the comments here, it is becoming clear to me that the distinction between painting and photo - that photo cannot do this and that, painting can - resides more in the personal, preconceived baggage of the viewer than in the content itself. A photo cannot show narrative because it has shutter speed, it was snapped in a fraction of a sec - whaat! I am sorry. Cannot view artwork with that much baggage.

 

What’s next? A novel that was written over an year narrating the events spanning a week is unauthentic,

[leo_papandreou1]

I shall call it Policewoman Looking for Antifa Thug Who Stole Her Uniform.

[leo_papandreou1]

Narrative has a specific meaning in the visual arts. You can view art without learning this "baggage", make vague noises about snapshots that "tell a story" even, but you won't fully understand what you're looking at. There's a dearth of narrative in photography. That's a fact. Henry Robinson and Oscar Rejlander in the 19th century, when photographers were trading unsuccessfully in the prestige of painting, then a whole lot of nothing, and now today maybe someone like Crewdsen, whose work is "cinematic". That's about it. Edited October 24, 2019 by leo_papandreou|1

[Supriyo]

That's a fact.

 

To me, that sounds like vague noise.

[leo_papandreou1]

I think you've lost it.

 

I take a small solace in the fact I, at least, can still recognize people in their photos.

[tomspielman]

Narrative has a specific meaning in the visual arts.

 

Photography as Narrative Art

 

I'm not going argue that traditional photography provides the same kind of flexibility in achieving an end result that painting does. A photograph starts with something that exists, - at least for an instant. A painting doesn't have that limitation. But I don't think photography belongs in the small box you're trying to place it in.

 

And the level of flexibility of photography is only increasing as we move further into the digital world. The end result may only bear the tiniest resemblance to what was in front of the camera when the shutter was clicked. Modern photographers with all the emphasis on post processing may be becoming more like painters than the photographers of decades past were.

Edited October 24, 2019 by tomspielman

[leo_papandreou1]

"Photographs can be the most powerful storytellers: 1 picture = 1000 words, as is often said."

 

This is a cliche (the element of truth is that photographs can suggest a narrative), you won't find it in a formal art history or theory text. Compare the featured works in that article with something like this. I'm not boxing photography in, I'm reminding you it has a structure, if you care, because people nowadays are used to digital, which has infinite degrees of freedom (can simulate anything).

Edited October 24, 2019 by leo_papandreou|1

[inoneeye]

Narrative has a specific meaning in the visual arts.

which one? storytelling. connecting events. evoking emotion, suggesting meaning, posing question ......

 

There's a dearth of narrative in photography. That's a fact.

 

 

No it is not a fact. Many photographs care nothing for narrative, sure. But so many do. A quick google will present many fine narrative photographers. both single image and series.

It’s best to think of narrative as a potential element of all photography. Many photographs lead the viewer beyond the frame. and/or A photo may pose a question leaving the viewer to ponder the answer. That is motion, that is narrative creating connected events, forward or backward. an opening of connected space beyond the frame. That is Storytelling with viewer as a participant. What the viewer brings to the photograph is part of the narrative potential. as it is with other mediums.

[tomspielman]

"Photographs can be the most powerful storytellers: 1 picture = 1000 words, as is often said."

 

This is a cliche (the element of truth is that photographs can suggest a narrative), you won't find it in a formal art history or theory text. Compare the featured works in that article with something like this. I'm not boxing photography in, I'm reminding you it has a structure, if you care, because people nowadays are used to digital, which has infinite degrees of freedom.

 

That is a fantastic picture, but is photography limited to a single photo? I don't think so.

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by structure. Photography involves a means of capturing light to produce an image. It could be glass and sensors or a hole in the side of box and some film. But I contend that the process of photography starts well before the light hits the sensor or the film and continues until the photographer is satisfied with the image(s), - or gives up.

[leo_papandreou1]

It isn't limited to a single photo. I think single-image masterpieces are overrated and anyway history. Over a billion photos are posted daily. A few will be as good as any Bresson. it's just statistics. Sequences are the future, in photobooks. They can tell a story. They are more authorial.

[ruslan]

Do you sometimes look at a photograph and call it a painting?

I can give an example when you can not say if it is a painting or a photo.

[leo_papandreou1]

Structure arises from selection You can only select facts (details of the world) and discrete time intervals. A selection may lead the viewer's imagination outside the rectangular frame (another structural element), as inoneeye points out, but its edges and the passage of time eliminate everything but the selected facts. 1000 words, but which ones? If you're interested in this topic I recommend the terrific Believing is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography), by the director Errol Morris.

[inoneeye]

A selection may lead the viewer's imagination outside the rectangular frame (another structural element), as inoneeye points out, but its edges and the passage of time eliminate everything but the selected facts.

so this means what? That there is no narrative? or limited? no storytelling or connection be it inside or outside the frame -

Edited October 24, 2019 by inoneeye

[inoneeye]

With photography, with the passage of time and the existence of a frame we are left with facts.

?

But not so with painting because of structure and selection is less restrictive because it unfolds over time.

?

[leo_papandreou1]

*shrug* back in the days of photo story magazines editors had to caption everything because photos don't explain (cf Sontag quote above.).

[inoneeye]

Now adding to my understanding. Paintings are better at creating narrative because they are presented without captions in magazines.

[leo_papandreou1]

I can give an example when you can not say if it is a painting or a photo.

 

I'd rather learn why people visit portrait studios. What's that all about?

[Nick D.]

What all this musings have to do with topic of this tread?

[tomspielman]

Structure arises from selection You can only select facts (details of the world) and discrete time intervals. A selection may lead the viewer's imagination outside the rectangular frame (another structural element), as inoneeye points out, but its edges and the passage of time eliminate everything but the selected facts.

 

I think that is but one way to look at photography. And it is a way that suggests limitations that don't really exist, - especially in the digital age.

 

A photographer is using light to form an image. That image may be left more or less as is, combined with other images and/or molded into something very different.

[Ed_Ingold]

A painting is what the artist perceived of the subject over a long period of time. A photograph is what the photographer saw in an instant.

[tomspielman]

A photograph is what the photographer saw in an instant.

 

A photograph can be that. But I think it's more accurate to say that an un-altered photograph is what a camera captured on some medium over some period of time. The time interval could be short or relatively long.

 

A simple example: This weekend I plan to shoot a roll of 20 year old Ilford SFX 200 using a red filter. I have an idea of what the photographs might look like but it won't be what I saw, - at least I hope not. I expect that there will be some resemblance to what I saw and with some luck, at least one photography will look cool.

Edited October 24, 2019 by tomspielman

[samstevens]

Some photographers see the future. They take the photo in a an instant but may already be well ahead of the game in previsualization. A good photo is often seeing beyond the instant.

[leo_papandreou1]

Now adding to my understanding. Paintings are better at creating narrative because they are presented without captions in magazines.

 

They're better at narrative, and have a rich tradition of narrative, unlike photography, because they can depict the past, present and future on the same canvas. The photograph shows a moment in the real world. Its purpose under "SCREAMING HEADLINE" is to make the headline real (whether it's true or not), not explain what happened (because it can't!) Photographs index the world: they're taken, not made. That is their currency and claim to making things real. (Also why a straight portrait of Miss Wilkins fails as Juliet, who's an idea, an icon, and in particular not an index of flesh and blood Miss Wilkins in costume.)

 

Yes I know about montages etc, they're ugly and incoherent as photographs, forfeit indexicality, and to the first approximation no one does them. Wouldn't you rather just make a movie instead? I know I'd rather look at one.

[Nick D.]

why a straight portrait of Miss Wilkins fails as Juliet

Because JPEG was used instead of RAW:)

[tomspielman]

Photographs index the world: they're taken, not made. That is their currency and claim to making things real. (Also why a straight portrait of Miss Wilkins fails as Juliet, who's an idea, an icon, and in particular not an index of flesh and blood Miss Wilkins in costume.)

 

I know this discussion is weeks old but there is something about it in particular that would pop into my brain now and then and that's the discussion of Juliet. I'm assuming Leo is referring to Juliet of "Romeo and Juliet". To be sure there are many paintings of Juliet. But she was a character written for the stage, - intended to be played by a flesh and blood actress in costume.

 

The idea that a painting could properly capture Juliet while a photograph could not doesn't make any sense given that Juliet was meant to be portrayed by a real person.

 

Yes, a camera can capture what is real, but it can also be a tool for the imagination. Just as flesh and blood actors and actresses can bring works of fiction to life.