What is PHOTOGRAPHY.....Still...
scott hardy
WKoplitz
surfaces not about substance.
joe a. machado
creates a photo by placing props, models, even varying shutter speed
and aperture, is an accurate moment in time captured? or is photography
creating a moment in time which is to be captured by the camera?
the purity of "how" the photo is taken is the issue. without any
variance in the "taking" can any photograph really be taken? thus, how
can such slice of time, reality in fact, be captured to be printed in
order to be viewed again. not only is the dimensional quality missing,
even cibachromes dont come close to actual nature, but the print is
a 2 dimensional representation of a 3d, what, world, time slice,
vision, or attempt to capture a bit of reality that fits within the
viewfinder?
i fear photography is a meager attempt to duplicate a piece of reality,
a slice of time perhaps. what it may more accurately be is a creative
interpretation of a subjective view of reality that will fit within
the viewfinder, and thus the final image a personal experience within
a section of time.
thus, if the image is the output then are the electronic imaging
enhancements now in quick evolvement photography also? as long as the
adventure is viewing a print then, oh no, yes. but if the adventure
instead is the motions necessary to deliver the printed image then
is that more than a pantomine in the sublime, in essence, is the
viewfinder image sufficient?
the subjective interpretation of the world by the photographic method
encompases not only physical manipulation of equiptment and objects
but also electronic "enhancement" to deliver the final print.
the art is in the print. the method is the vehicle.
i am still complete in taking photographs without enhancing them and
thus safe from total creativity, or not yet skillful enough to deliver
the "enhanced" print without the computer manipulation.
Thomas C. Waters
wkop...@aol.com (WKoplitz) writes:
> You've got it a little mixed up. Photography is a lie, it's about
> surfaces not about substance.
Well yes and no.
The photograph may ber about surface... or it may be about content...
or it may be about both and how these two things relate or contrast.
Actually the photograph is no more of a lie than any other form of
expression.
I am always amazed by these threads which attempt to define what a
photograph is or what it does. Photography is and does many many things
and the same image may mean different things to different people. That
is not a liability or flaw... that is the truest asset to photography!!
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
scott hardy
Phottgraphy is a photochemical process in which an artist can record
two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world.
Any meaning derived from these two dimensional representations comes
from the imagination of the person who looks at them.
The artist can try to make the viewer derive a meaning by reconding
a scene in such a way that the photographer him/herself feels the
need to attach a meaning.
However, ultimately all the meaning comes from the viewer because not
all viewers get a meaning from any one picture. Hense: one man's art
is another man's garbidge.
I think this is deep enought for this morning for me!
S. Hardy
Knifeman, Photoglodite
and barnyard philosopher
Dominique Bernard Labrosse
> If definig Photography is what we are doing, then I have a HO.
>
> Phottgraphy is a photochemical process in which an artist can record
> two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world.
Technically, the word photography means "light-record." So a photo-graph
is a record of the light that existed at a particular place at a
particular time.
>
> Any meaning derived from these two dimensional representations comes
> from the imagination of the person who looks at them.
>
Gotta dissagree with this one. Meaning comes not only from the
imagination of the viewer, but from the experience the viewer has over
hisher enitre life of visual experience. Little do we consciously think
about it, but collectively we have a set of codes and conventions that we
use to understand the images we see. This changes with different areas of
the world. People in China have a different visual code than in North
America. This visual code we use not only to decifer images
(representations) but also works in everyday interaction. Furthermore,
there are also personal associations that people have with certain
images/colours. These associations are recalled when the visual stimulus
is present (kind of like smelling bannana bread reminds me of my mom's
bannana muffins).
An interesting perspective on this is in Oliver Sachs (of Awakenings
fame) new book An Anthropologist from Mars. "Virgil" who has been blind
all his life ends up having an operation and becomes sighted at the age
of 50. Well he experiences sensory overload and is never able to resolve
his newfound and choatic sight with his hearing and touch. He was unable
to figure out for sure when the doctor took his bandages off that the
blob in fromt of his face was his doctor! Only when the doctor spoke did
he localize the sound and confirm that. Virgil would often have to close
his eyes in order to properly orient himself. Aurally he was fifty years
old, visually he was a newborn! It is because he did not have 50 years of
visual experience and learning that he couyld not make his sight
useful.As babies we all go through this learning process (unlesss we're
blind from birth) we just don't remember it.
> The artist can try to make the viewer derive a meaning by reconding
> a scene in such a way that the photographer him/herself feels the
> need to attach a meaning.
>
That's right, the artist does encode a certain direction for meaning
generation
at the time of making the the image. This is so because the photographer
has to make choices about what to include in the frame, what film/lens
choice to render some sort of distortion in order to encode the desired
perspective, and how to print it (contrast and/or colour filtration,
retouching etc. . . )
> However, ultimately all the meaning comes from the viewer because not
> all viewers get a meaning from any one picture. Hense: one man's art
> is another man's garbidge.
>
If one subscribes to the view of established codes of meaning in the
visual then this point is debateable, especially considering the amount
of information filtered out (what was not in the frame) and introduced
(via scene distortion and film/lens/printing characteristics) by the
photographer.
That said, not everyone has exactly the same understanding of visual
codes. Others know more than one. So non-dominant and opositional
"readings" of photographs are enitrely possible where the viewer's
experience informs quite a different perspective!
> I think this is deep enought for this morning for me!
>
> S. Hardy
> Knifeman, Photoglodite
> and barnyard philosopher
>
>
What do ya think? Please sed answers directly to dlab...@sfu.ca
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dominique Labrosse
School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Undergraduate studies, INTERNET: dlab...@sfu.ca
_______________________________________________________________________________
James Keivom
scott hardy <sha...@spider.lloyd.com> wrote:
>If definig Photography is what we are doing, then I have a HO.
>
>Phottgraphy is a photochemical process in which an artist can record
>two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world.
>
>from the imagination of the person who looks at them.
>
read Sam Abel's "Stay this moment", William albert allard's "The
photographic essay". you can't define photography, you can feel what it
is. and that feeling is one of the best there is.
--
______________________________________________________________________
"With considerable soul searching, that to the utmost of my ability, I
have let truth be the prejudice."
- W.E. Smith
Nicholas Kempf
suggest reading the small yet insightful and thought-provoking treatise 'On
Photography' by Susan Sontag.
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>You've got it a little mixed up. Photography is a lie, it's about
>surfaces not about substance.
I agree with the above, but find it to be only part of
the picture [PI]. Also, it's the photographic image
that is the lie, not photography as a process. From
this distinction I would go on to say that the process
of producing these artifacts that lie, that deal in
surfaces, teaches us a truth: That all we really have
to go on for knowledge of *sustance* is derived from
our experience of *surface*.
Regards, David Rosen
dr8192@albNYvms
dr8...@uacsc1.albAny.edu
Guy Teague
--------
"Eventually he began to see that light was what he photographed,
not objects. The objects merely were the vehicles for reflecting the
light. If the light was good, you could always find something to
photograph."
Waller, Robert James - Bridges of Madison County, The
----------------------------------------
--
Regards, [dteague 73 de "Brown shoes don't make it" -- F. Zappa
Guy @csc.com] KG5VT "They're out there" -- K. Kesey
ecl...@ari.net
>if photography is capturing a moment in time then when the photographer
>creates a photo by placing props, models, even varying shutter speed
>and aperture, is an accurate moment in time captured? or is photography
>creating a moment in time which is to be captured by the camera?
>the purity of "how" the photo is taken is the issue. without any
>variance in the "taking" can any photograph really be taken? thus, how
>can such slice of time, reality in fact, be captured to be printed in
>order to be viewed again. not only is the dimensional quality missing,
>even cibachromes dont come close to actual nature, but the print is
>a 2 dimensional representation of a 3d, what, world, time slice,
>vision, or attempt to capture a bit of reality that fits within the
>viewfinder?
personally i dont try to capture a "slice of reality" instead i create
it.
>i fear photography is a meager attempt to duplicate a piece of reality,
>a slice of time perhaps. what it may more accurately be is a creative
>interpretation of a subjective view of reality that will fit within
>the viewfinder, and thus the final image a personal experience within
>a section of time.
Isnt this all any art is?
Thus, if the image is the output then are the electronic imaging
>enhancements now in quick evolvement photography also? as long as the
>adventure is viewing a print then, oh no, yes. but if the adventure
>instead is the motions necessary to deliver the printed image then
>is that more than a pantomine in the sublime, in essence, is the
>viewfinder image sufficient?
If you can create the image you want in the viewfinder it is.
>the subjective interpretation of the world by the photographic method
>encompases not only physical manipulation of equiptment and objects
>but also electronic "enhancement" to deliver the final print.
>the art is in the print. the method is the vehicle.
>i am still complete in taking photographs without enhancing them and
>thus safe from total creativity, or not yet skillful enough to deliver
>the "enhanced" print without the computer manipulation.
Hmmmm.. perhaps in my next show i will setup a studio shot, put a 4x5
view up, setup the image in the viewfinder and that will be the final
image...
could it be that the art is in the actual moment of creation, and that
the final "work" is noting other than mere residue???? Afterall,
anyone can take a snapshot, but not everyone can create "art", at
least in terms the critics understand... True the final product is
important as a physical object that can be viewed by other people, but
personally i dont create for other peoples enjoyment. I create to
fulfill a need within myself, from the other "artists" i know this
seems to be a common perspective.
:)
thanks for the idea!!!
eclipse