April 28, 2007 at 15:36Photography: what has changed?
I do not want to repeat for the umpteenth time that the attitude towards photography has changed with the advent of numbers, but nevertheless it is.
Let's try to figure out why this happened and how to deal with it. And most importantly - is it necessary to deal with this? Maybe this is a natural process, an unconditional stage in the evolution of photography?
Before proceeding to the questions outlined above, I will answer other questions that you may have, dear: I am not an art critic and do not consider myself a professional photographer; I am not a historian; I in no way pretend to the absolute correctness of my point of view, I simply express it.
So what has changed? A lot has changed! The world has changed, attitudes have changed, the demand for photography has changed, and most importantly, the technique has changed, making photography publicly available. Each of us can take the camera in our hands and, without bringing the viewfinder to the eye, take a picture. It is possible that this shot will not be bad, for luck and chance are an integral companion of this art form! But we are not talking about luck now, but about the relation of photography to art. Specific photos / photos.
Unfortunately, the term “photography” in Russian is too universal. The game of professional musicians we call "music." But can we call music the mumbling of a person who does not know how to handle a musical instrument, who does not have a musical ear? There will be sounds, but not music! So it is with photography - not every shot taken can be a real photograph. Only words here for such a category of photographs, and with their dominant number, no. I call them simply - "pictures".
We are all at least potential producers of “photos”, but not every one of us can be a photographer. The real masters of photography are known by name, there are only dozens of them. And there are millions of us. Photography (in the general sense) quantitatively becomes the most common means of documenting, and not a multifaceted branch of art. And I think this is normal. Moreover - naturally! Our children from an early age learn to draw, and this is a necessary skill for life, this exercise, which in addition to necessary, also develops a sense of taste and composition. And the love of “photos” can be not only a means of documenting certain moments, but also a simulator for potential photographers. For those who want to build a bridge for themselves between “photos” and “photography”.
In an insane amount of produced “photos” really worthwhile works are lost, those worthy of being called “photography”. But “photos” and “photos” are not competitors. Neither one nor the other will not get out of each other, they will not force out. I think that over time, two independent and unequal areas will gradually emerge from the “common photo”: publicly available (popular, mass) photography and photo art. I am sure! What do you think?
Let's try to figure out why this happened and how to deal with it. And most importantly - is it necessary to deal with this? Maybe this is a natural process, an unconditional stage in the evolution of photography?
Before proceeding to the questions outlined above, I will answer other questions that you may have, dear: I am not an art critic and do not consider myself a professional photographer; I am not a historian; I in no way pretend to the absolute correctness of my point of view, I simply express it.
So what has changed? A lot has changed! The world has changed, attitudes have changed, the demand for photography has changed, and most importantly, the technique has changed, making photography publicly available. Each of us can take the camera in our hands and, without bringing the viewfinder to the eye, take a picture. It is possible that this shot will not be bad, for luck and chance are an integral companion of this art form! But we are not talking about luck now, but about the relation of photography to art. Specific photos / photos.
Unfortunately, the term “photography” in Russian is too universal. The game of professional musicians we call "music." But can we call music the mumbling of a person who does not know how to handle a musical instrument, who does not have a musical ear? There will be sounds, but not music! So it is with photography - not every shot taken can be a real photograph. Only words here for such a category of photographs, and with their dominant number, no. I call them simply - "pictures".
We are all at least potential producers of “photos”, but not every one of us can be a photographer. The real masters of photography are known by name, there are only dozens of them. And there are millions of us. Photography (in the general sense) quantitatively becomes the most common means of documenting, and not a multifaceted branch of art. And I think this is normal. Moreover - naturally! Our children from an early age learn to draw, and this is a necessary skill for life, this exercise, which in addition to necessary, also develops a sense of taste and composition. And the love of “photos” can be not only a means of documenting certain moments, but also a simulator for potential photographers. For those who want to build a bridge for themselves between “photos” and “photography”.
In an insane amount of produced “photos” really worthwhile works are lost, those worthy of being called “photography”. But “photos” and “photos” are not competitors. Neither one nor the other will not get out of each other, they will not force out. I think that over time, two independent and unequal areas will gradually emerge from the “common photo”: publicly available (popular, mass) photography and photo art. I am sure! What do you think?