<p>I have taught photography and art for close to 12 years now.<br>
In that time I have come to realize there is nothing wrong with photographing for the simple joy of the activity. Often I find the resulting images from such an approach as informative and pleasing to ME the MAKER. Often though this type of work is just that. It has an appeal to me because I am the one who has had an insight into the scene/object and much like a vacation photograph the image is a "trigger" to that emotion or insight that I had. In essence the photograph is a document that triggers a response in me because I was the one who had the experience of making the image. But just like a vacation photograph when shown to other people they have a lack luster interest in the image because nothing in the image "triggers" any of the same emotions or insights that I felt or had when taking the image. Conversely if I am an artist who uses photography as a means of "communication" I am most certainly NOT photographing for the pure pleasure of the activity. I am consciously trying to craft a statement with a visual image. Is there anything wrong with either NO. Both are useful and beneficial, one to the individual and one to the culture. To expand also on another topic within the OP I think the general public's definition of art does not sync up with the art world's definition of art. The general public often deems art that is beautiful and technically proficient as "Good" art. Statements like "I wish I could draw that well" and "oh those colors are pretty" etc... quantify this. While the art world is primarily concerned with the artist's intent and voice. This is why we have Andy Warhol and Campbell soup cans as art. Its not because the "image" is necessarily beautiful its the CONCEPT behind the work that is seen as beautiful. The art world moved well beyond the common notions of technically perfect and aesthetically beautiful IMAGES a long time ago. And it will continue to evolve from there. Why? Because culture continues to evolve. The definition of art changes from era to era, and a study of art history (hint hint) would allow anyone to see that. Campbell's soup cans can be drawn by a ten year old, what makes them art is the voice behind why there are so many of them represented. What I mean by this is Warhol was making a STATEMENT about popular culture and our MASS PRODUCED society. The beauty is in the concept and not in the particular beauty or construction of a soup can. How does this pertain to photography today, most anyone with a decent camera today can take technically "good" images. So just crafting a technically "good" image is seen by many in the art world as insufficient. If you want to add to the cultural dialog with your images "have something to say". This type of work is work that is collected by Museums and Galleries. Now does everyone need or want to make that type of work? No. If you are content to make images that the general public is pleased with and are satisfied with that then by all means let people appreciate them. There will always be differences in opinion about what is good and what is bad, why? because everyone is different and we pull from our own set of experiences and worldviews in forming those ideas. </p>
Photography and Art
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
<p>I have taught photography and art for close to 12 years now.<br>
In that time I have come to realize there is nothing wrong with photographing for the simple joy of the activity. Often I find the resulting images from such an approach as informative and pleasing to ME the MAKER. Often though this type of work is just that. It has an appeal to me because I am the one who has had an insight into the scene/object and much like a vacation photograph the image is a "trigger" to that emotion or insight that I had. In essence the photograph is a document that triggers a response in me because I was the one who had the experience of making the image. But just like a vacation photograph when shown to other people they have a lack luster interest in the image because nothing in the image "triggers" any of the same emotions or insights that I felt or had when taking the image. Conversely if I am an artist who uses photography as a means of "communication" I am most certainly NOT photographing for the pure pleasure of the activity. I am consciously trying to craft a statement with a visual image. Is there anything wrong with either NO. Both are useful and beneficial, one to the individual and one to the culture. To expand also on another topic within the OP I think the general public's definition of art does not sync up with the art world's definition of art. The general public often deems art that is beautiful and technically proficient as "Good" art. Statements like "I wish I could draw that well" and "oh those colors are pretty" etc... quantify this. While the art world is primarily concerned with the artist's intent and voice. This is why we have Andy Warhol and Campbell soup cans as art. Its not because the "image" is necessarily beautiful its the CONCEPT behind the work that is seen as beautiful. The art world moved well beyond the common notions of technically perfect and aesthetically beautiful IMAGES a long time ago. And it will continue to evolve from there. Why? Because culture continues to evolve. The definition of art changes from era to era, and a study of art history (hint hint) would allow anyone to see that. Campbell's soup cans can be drawn by a ten year old, what makes them art is the voice behind why there are so many of them represented. What I mean by this is Warhol was making a STATEMENT about popular culture and our MASS PRODUCED society. The beauty is in the concept and not in the particular beauty or construction of a soup can. How does this pertain to photography today, most anyone with a decent camera today can take technically "good" images. So just crafting a technically "good" image is seen by many in the art world as insufficient. If you want to add to the cultural dialog with your images "have something to say". This type of work is work that is collected by Museums and Galleries. Now does everyone need or want to make that type of work? No. If you are content to make images that the general public is pleased with and are satisfied with that then by all means let people appreciate them. There will always be differences in opinion about what is good and what is bad, why? because everyone is different and we pull from our own set of experiences and worldviews in forming those ideas. </p>