This NYT article mimics the discussion we are having with photography and the proliferation of digital devices. Very interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&ref=movies
The more I read the more it becomes so obvious that all of the arts are connected, and can be easily compared to one another in their struggles and resistance to change.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Looking at Photographs
I visited my friend Tetsugo's studio last night and was amazed again by his work. His attention to detail makes you want to get as close as possible to the large prints and examine every little facet and texture. Then you back up and look at the larger image and are amazed at how well all the tiny details end up forming a wonderfully coherent composition.
The fun(ny) part of all this looking I was doing is that not once did I look at his work prints that were pinned to the wall as objects. So, as much as I may love the idea of creating objects out of my images, it never prohibits me from enjoying images for just what they visually represent. There may be the differences between object photographs and digital reproductions, but there are also differences between amazing works of art that are reproductions that you want to linger over, and digital reproductions that are meant to be glanced at.
I want to linger over photos more often than I get to these days...objects or not.
The fun(ny) part of all this looking I was doing is that not once did I look at his work prints that were pinned to the wall as objects. So, as much as I may love the idea of creating objects out of my images, it never prohibits me from enjoying images for just what they visually represent. There may be the differences between object photographs and digital reproductions, but there are also differences between amazing works of art that are reproductions that you want to linger over, and digital reproductions that are meant to be glanced at.
I want to linger over photos more often than I get to these days...objects or not.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Object Photography & Digital Captures
What is so inherently wrong with looking at photography and creating photography as a physical object?
Why must the image and idea be sacrificed when the photographer explicitly spent time to emphasize the "object" of the piece?
I believe that one can view an object photograph for both its represented imagery and the beauty of its constructed form. I feel that it is more valuable to view an object photograph for its construction and for what it is showing in its imagery. By its fortune of being explicitly crafted and possibly selectively produced, the image helps to underwrite the idea that a photograph can (should?) be a timeless capture representing one specific moment in time that is never to be repeated. Does this not help photography in that it creates that specific moment that viewers cannot see elsewhere, over and over again, at any time of their choosing, with as much repetition as one desires? The viewer must recognize that this one representation they are viewing is possibly the only visual representation of that moment, and therefor must truly pause, look, analyze and enjoy.
The idea of digital photography indeed can help more people see more images faster and easier, without even the need to produce or own a print if not so desired, but it also helps to move the viewer along to the next image, and then the next image, and then the next image, in the process slowly removing the time spent viewing each image (think of all those internet slideshows that allow you the option of looking at each picture for 1, 3, or 5 full seconds before jumping to the next image). The whole point of creating still images is to produce something worth looking at and analyzing. The removal of photographs as objects in conjunction with the overabundance of digital images in fact acts against the inherent nature of photography (the capture of a specific moment). It becomes more about capturing anything and everything and less about looking at any one thing in particular.
I have been thinking about this...
What are your views?
Why must the image and idea be sacrificed when the photographer explicitly spent time to emphasize the "object" of the piece?
I believe that one can view an object photograph for both its represented imagery and the beauty of its constructed form. I feel that it is more valuable to view an object photograph for its construction and for what it is showing in its imagery. By its fortune of being explicitly crafted and possibly selectively produced, the image helps to underwrite the idea that a photograph can (should?) be a timeless capture representing one specific moment in time that is never to be repeated. Does this not help photography in that it creates that specific moment that viewers cannot see elsewhere, over and over again, at any time of their choosing, with as much repetition as one desires? The viewer must recognize that this one representation they are viewing is possibly the only visual representation of that moment, and therefor must truly pause, look, analyze and enjoy.
The idea of digital photography indeed can help more people see more images faster and easier, without even the need to produce or own a print if not so desired, but it also helps to move the viewer along to the next image, and then the next image, and then the next image, in the process slowly removing the time spent viewing each image (think of all those internet slideshows that allow you the option of looking at each picture for 1, 3, or 5 full seconds before jumping to the next image). The whole point of creating still images is to produce something worth looking at and analyzing. The removal of photographs as objects in conjunction with the overabundance of digital images in fact acts against the inherent nature of photography (the capture of a specific moment). It becomes more about capturing anything and everything and less about looking at any one thing in particular.
I have been thinking about this...
What are your views?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)