I guess wed all best quit using light itself as an artistic medium and go start smearing crushed beetles onto dead plants with clumps of hair ripped from mammals. Because thats when the real art starts happening! I agree that this is infuriating article perpetuating the myth that photography is for some arbitrary reason Not art. The author states that the photographer is simply copying what is there while simultaneously undermining his own damn point. If it were that easy, why are those other photos not so hauntingly beautiful as Peter Liks work? A photographer choses what they photograph, when, under what lighting conditions, in what context, from which angle, What is included in the frame, what is not and that is not even delving into the technical side. Aperture, exposure time, film, editing, developing, printing paper. Each element has a distinct impact in the final result and at what point in this process is the photographer not in precise control of what appears in their photograph? Any art, when reduced to its components, sounds unimpressive. Singing is just making noises by squirting air through your larnyx. Most people can do that. I do it all the time. Thus by the authors definition, Singing isnt an art. Art can be defines as a work to communicate and evoke emotion. I have seen a hell of a lot of emotional photography that has provoked an emotional response from me. Dont just dismiss an entire medium just because you have preconceived notions about how art should be done.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:52:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015