• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Newspaper article: Image fatigue

Tom Yi

New member
Personally, I really don't care if it's art or not. I enjoy shooting, working on my image, and sharing it with others. If some think it's art, fine, if not, I'm also fine with that as well.

For me, art conveys a specific emotion intended by artist to the audience. And you can do that with speech, motion picture, painting, photography, music, dance or what not.
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
The author of the article obviously confuses his nostalgia for "better times" with a universal notion.

The tools of the trade never played that much of a role as many laymen think. Can't remember having heard painters talk about the brushes they use - Nikon or Canon. Technical decisions are always dictated by what they want to convey, not if some self-appointed critic deems it "just another way to create an image".
 
Last edited:

Olaf_Laubli

New member
A good friend of mine deals with fine art photography and he always tells me that it is a healthy and growing market. However there are legions of mediocre wannabees fruitlessly trying to get their share.

Sound like the same than in any other field of photography...

Olaf
 

Alain Briot

pro member
mcarthur said:
Image fatigue
In a culture saturated with visual images and increasingly cynical about their manipulation, photography is losing its status as an art form, writes Sebastian Smee
The author of this critique centers his argument on two main positions: 1-that photographs at one point were seen are represening reality, and 2-that there we were not inundated by photographs. I see a problem with both points.

First, not every photographer's goal is to create "realistic" photographs. It is not my goal for example. I aim for "believable" instead of "realistic" photographs in my work. Furthermore, while we are aware that photographs can be manipulated (they could be from the day photography was invented, though not as extensively as now), most people still believe what they see in photographs. In fact, few photographs are manipulated in regards to content.

Second, certainly there is an overabundance of photographs at our disposal. But there is an overambundance of just about everything when it comes to the media: movies, TV programs, videos, articles, you name it. Photographs are only one aspect of the media overabundance we are experiencing.

Is photography losing its status as art? Well, first, we would have to agree that it had a status as art. And if it did, why would a change in the technology make it lose this status ? Making this point would be, inherently, making the point that changes in musical technology (from acoustic to electric or digital instruments for example) made music lose is status as art! The same point can be made about technological changes in any other art medium.

I see this essay as being yet another voice wondering if photography is art. I don't see this writer believing that photography ever was art. Instead, I see this author as first, unsure about what can be said today with photography and, second, as unclear about where photography as art fits amongst the many other possible uses for photography.

Numerous people never considered photography to be an art form. So for Sebastian Smee to say that it has now lost its status as art is pointless since he may be one of those who didn't considerer it art in the first place! In other words his article may be just one more faulty argument about why photography isn't art.

What I do agree with is that the overabundance of photographs is making people unsure of what is a good photograph and a bad photograph. But again, this isn't very different from the situation say 20 years ago. Telling what is art and what isn't, and telling good art from bad art, has always been difficult.

That to me is the important point to remember. It is difficult regardless of the medium being used. The commodification of the medium is also an issue of importance. Because technology is becoming easier and easier to use, it is now possible for people to be "creative" using mediums for which they hardly have any training. Yet, this does not mean they are creating art.

Maybe what we need above all is an understanding of what is art and what isn't art.
 
Last edited:

John_Nevill

New member
The defintion of art is derived from the latin word ars, which means skill or craft, so in this sense the author is confusing the process and application of the medium with what a voyeur may see as an aesthetic and pleasing output.
 

Guy Tal

Editor at Large
I think it's pretty futile to dispute the premises in the article from a photograhper's perspective or from a literal/linguistic perspective. Whether we agree with it or not, the author represents a public perception (perhaps one of several) and as such the lesson we should take from it is that there are people out there who truly do feel that way. Trying to discredit the article's factual or lingual minutiae will not change that.

The real question is - what can we as photographers (whether we consider ourselves artists or not) do to change that? The f/64 group is one example of photographers acting in union to define and promote their specific style as worthy and valuable. Who today can carry the same torch?

It seems most working artists these days are more concerned with celebrity, financial success, and the challenges inherent in the unholy union of art and business, while others seem to be engaged in a relentless pursuit for acceptance by the fine-art elite and, at least in my mind, deliberately generate obscure and meaningless work that the fine art community is so fond of spinning.

The value of art cannot be measured in tangible metrics. It's not about how big it is, how many colors it has, or how much it cost to produce. The value of art is all about perception and credibility. If we want people to value our work, we must stand up for its artistic value and promote the perception of such value in the proverbial hearts and minds of our audience.

To do so, in my opinion, we should separate such discussions from discussions of business/sales/marketing that may geopardize artistic credibility. This is not to say we should not be making an honest living off our skills and creativity, but that we need to first plant the seeds and establish our work's value before we can reap the benefit.

It is not rare for groups of artists to band together in an effort to promote their discipline, art, or unique philosophy independent of any other affiliation or interests they may have. I'll be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on the possibility/viability of such unions in this over-saturated world.

"I regard it as a waste of time to think only of selling: one forgets one's art and exaggerates one's value." --Camille Pissarro

Guy
 
Top