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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Unfortunately the reality is that we do not have control over the amount of time that people spend with our images (or if they ever see them at all).
I think you are narrowing the scope of photography by your definition of its nature. A photograph does not have to be a representative of a moment that will never occur again. You are forgetting about the directorial mode, what about photographs of setups created solely to be photographed -- these are more performances than documents. That captured moment can possibly be created again because by it is by its natured controlled and created.
But also, I think it's funny that you found a a new and different reason to put digital photography at a lower standing than traditional photographs and prints.
Well, my instinctive reaction is to say that I am NOT placing digital photography to a lower standard. I feel as though I just have to show the differences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with digital photography. We have discussed the major benefits of it, but as it marches forward it gets farther away from what I love about photography, and I feel as though it is leaving me behind. It is almost like a politician who you support and think stands for what you stand for, who, after getting in office, begins to do things you feel don't represent you. You agree with him on principle (he is a Democrat or he is a Republican) but then he just panders to the majority and all the little specific points that you used to agree on are overlooked. Does this analogy make sense?
I just feel as though photography as we all know it now does not follow the beliefs I have, and the only thing I can do is look for where it is different and talk about these separations. It is not meant to say one is better than another, but to say that there are major differences under the larger umbrella of photography. Some people might support and enjoy aspects that I don't, and vice-versa. I just feel as though we have to agree that there are so many ways to look at the term photography.
" I just feel as though we have to agree that there are so many ways to look at the term photography."
Now you are finally talking some sense.
This is what I have always been saying though. I am not the best at getting my points across, I know this, but I have always been trying to explain that there are differences. Not greater than, less than differences necessarily, just differing ways of doing the same thing.
Post a Comment