Photography and art
UC
A serious question though : Why don't you consider Photography art?
Steve.[/QUOTE]
Let me try this one more time:
Consider these objects:
1) A household steam iron
2) Something that looks exactly like a household steam iron
3) A picture (painting) of a boy in blue clothes
4) A color photograph of boy in blue clothes
5) A color photograph of the (painting) of the boy in blue clothes
Let's start with the steam iron, shall we? If you leave it around your
house, no one is going to ask 'what is that a steam iron [i]of[/i]'?
You're inclined to say: 'Excuse me, I don't quite understand you!', and
you'd be right. A steam iron is not a steam iron of something else.
It's self-contained.
Turning to No. 2, the 'mock' steam iron, you could call it a work of
art I suppose, but if there is no structural difference, how can we
call that art? Suppose an 'artist' comes to the steam iron factory one
day and takes away a bunch of slightly off-tolerance parts that are
rejects, and then assembles these in exactly the correct way so as to
form a working steam iron. Is there really any difference? I'd say
we're straining to say so.
Now, to No. 3, the painting.
http://www.imagereproductions.com/galnsborough/Galnsborough01-blue%20boy.jpg
Why is this 'art'? Well, in its day, it may not have been! The term
'artist' has been corrupted today to mean someone far more significant
than that of the portrait painter. By those lower standards, I could
accept that photographers are 'artists', but I must caution that I am
talking only from the standpoint of portraiture, and that calling
someone an 'artist' was more of an insult than a compliment. Ancient
Greek and Roman sculpture that we praise so highly was essentially a
commodity. What we have left today from them is mostly the cheap marble
stuff. The good stuff was made of bronze or other metals, and most of
it disappeared centuries ago.
Now, is the color photograph of the boy in blue clothes 'art'.
Certainly not in the modern sense, but perhaps in the ancient sense,
and again the term 'artist' was more a term of derision than praise.
Finally, our fifth object is but a mere copy of an artist's portrait.
Oh, I almost forgot the most important point of my little essay. The
steam iron is not a steam iron of something else, but a photograph is
always a photograph of something else. That is its nature.
Steven Wandy
Is the painting not a painting of "something else"?
The painter - granted it takes a lot more talent atleast in
my eyes to properly paint the young man as opposed to
taking his picture - did not imagine this, he painted what
he saw, same as a photographer would do.
UC
Steven Wandy wrote:
> > but a photograph is always a photograph of something else.
Not in any causal way..
UC
Steven Wandy
>
>
But there also are photographers who start with some basic photos and use
programs
like Photoshop, etc. to make images that only their imagination dreamt up.
UC
Those aren't photographs. They're composites.