Well of course it only reflects my opinion. Most people here like that
kind of photography, and, frankly, Frank, I'm impressed by the quality I
see on my screen. But I don't consider it art. And it doesn't reach me on
an emotional level, you know, that artistic and creative side of the brain
that processes emotion. However, I wasn't really kidding when I said I'd
like to see a bug scaring someone. That would evoke a response from me,
and I think it's because (and I suppose I have to say it - for me) there's
a story there. Something's happening, something reaches and touches me.
I always felt kind of sad when I saw those pinned bugs at the museum. Just
like I felt sad when I saw stuffed bears and tigers, and pictures of stupid
"hunters" standing over their victims. The bug pictures bring back that
feeling, to a degree, although I'm glad that the creatures are only being
shot by a Pentax camera. Still, they appear rather one dimensional. Maybe
if I saw a bug picture that showed something more - and I don't really know
what that may be exactly - I'd feel differently. But, to me, what I've
been seeing here, just ain't art.
I understand what you're saying, but hey, having a religious experience
while photographing a sunset, and a photograph of a sunset, isn't
necessarily art. Erwitt's "Snaps" is a good example of what we're
discussing. The idea that not every photo is art to everyone is exactly
where I'm coming from.
I recently had a discussion with a couple of photographers, the subject of
which was how Photoshop relates to Photography. Is an image that has been
extensively "adjusted" in Photoshop still a photograph, or has it somehow
morphed into something else? Is there a line somewhere that, when crossed,
moves the image out of the category of Photograph into something else? And
what is that something else? What I see in so many of these bug pictures
is a reliance on technique and technology to produce something that's as
perfect as possible, but there's no life in what I see, no vibrancy,
nothing to get me involved and to move me past an acknowledgement that the
workmanship is good. There's something to be said for good workmanship,
but that alone does not create art.
But these are just my feelings. I'm sure others here (and probably most
people on this list) will disagree with me. I say that based on all the
oohing and aahing these sorts of pictures generate. Lots of people here
like that stuff. I'm in a definite minority. I find most of it
derivative, not pushing any creative envelope except for the applied use of
technology. I guess I want MORE from a photograph, more from art ...
something that goes beyond the surface of the image and the gloss on the
print. I want to feel that the artist has something to say, something
original to say, and that he or she is trying to make a statement that goes
beyond just capturing light on film and pixels, and which is then run
through enough Photoshop to suck the life out of it. I don't mind
technically imperfect photos (although I love it when people try to make
'em, push themselves and their work to tell us something) that make us
think and feel.
You brought up Kenny G ... my example might have been George Benson for I
am quite familiar with his early work with Creed Taylor. Then came the
transformation, and Breezin' hit the scene. As Don Everley once said,
"Bye, bye love." Now George's music is much more technically perfect, but
the soul and the heart has been cut out to make room for higher bit rates
and better sound quality.
So, for me, there's a certain sterility with the images we're discussing, a
certain blandness, and a lack of (must I say it again ... to me) any real
connection between subject and photographer, and a lack of anything that
turns me on apart from an admiration of technical quality. ee cummings
once wrote,
since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you
I have not been wholly kissed by this photograph, nor do I feel it's
embrace. But the syntax is pretty good.
Shel Belinkoff
> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 6/14/2004 8:30:20 PM
> Subject: Re: PAW Art or entomology?
>
> To be fair, Shel,
>
> All you can really say is that this sort of photo doesn't evoke a
response
> in ~you~.
>
> They may evoke a response in others. I guess that means that it's art
for
> some, but not all.
>
> I wondered if the guy that made a dress out of meat and hung it at the
Art
> Gallery of Ontario, and let it rot, then made another one over and over,
was
> making art. Well, that was simple, really, 'cause it was in an art
gallery,
> so it ~must~ have been art.
>
> But I digress...
>
> I'm not much of a bug and flower guy either. If I were, it's the type of
> photography I'd do. I'm not much of a nature guy (photographically
> speaking, that is). I was, however, quite awed by some of the stuff I
saw
> from real nature guys at GFM. As I found out when I quite laughably shot
a
> roll at GFM for the Nature Photography Contest, I'm pretty bad at it, and
> it's pretty hard to do well.
>
> For some of these guys and gals (I found out), shooting Nature is a near
> religious experience.
>
> Does that make it art? I don't know, but lots of people think it is art.
> Personally, I find that ~most~ sunsets are to art what Kenny G is to jazz
> (that is, they aren't). OTOH, a really really good sunset, I must
> grudgingly admit, can be like Kenny Garrett (ie: art and jazz).
>
> I was just glancing through Elliot Erwitt's massive compilation, "Snaps"
on
> the weekend. I really must get that book. I've always liked him, now I
> love him. Lots of fuzzy shots, for one. For another, he called it
"Snaps"
> as a reaction to the "artsy" crowd (you know, the DIB's - Dressed in
> Blacks). He really doesn't seem (if I understand him correctly) to think
> it's important whether a photo is considered "art" or not - leave that to
> the critics, I guess. I rather like that way of looking at things.
>
> Sorry to ramble. This started out as a two line zinger of a post, but I
> kind of got the bit in my teeth, as it were...
>
> OTOH, Rob ~did~ ask. And you did answer honestly (honestly for yourself,
> that is).
>
> <vbg>
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist
> fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
>
>
> >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <snip>
> >
> >And, to answer the question posed by the subject, these ain't art. They
> >are technically quite good, but evoke little feeling or response. Little
> >different than when going to the museum as a kid and seeing all those
bugs
> >with pins stuck through them, frozen in time in a glass case.
> >
> >Shel
