Photographs on walls are souless?

Pookeyhead said:
Which implies that a photograph does not take time, and is not difficult, and has no talent, craft or... here's the big one... MINDFULNESS. Here ladies and gentlemen is someone who simply does not understand photography. Here's someone who has not walked up to a Burtunsky print, or a Crewdson print and lost themselves in it.
Click to expand...

I thought the same when I saw the work of Hong Hao at Prix Pictet last year
http://www.prixpictet.com/portfolios/consumption-shortlist/hong-hao/
 
He seems to be under the impression that all photography is is clicking the shutter. He seems to forget that there's much more to any picture than just snapping what's in front of you, whether painted or otherwise. Beautiful landscapes don't just happen in photography, you can only capture that special moment if it truly is special. You can't just sit at your easel and start painting in good light, you have to earn it.

(I also paint by the way).
 
The twunt's at it again..

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

"Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras, when the most beguiling high-definition images and effects are available to millions. My iPad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at. Does that make me an artist? No, it just makes my tablet one hell of a device."​
 
Yv said:
Now this is a Friday discussion if ever I saw one! I read this through a link posted on facebook from a fairly well known photographer who also says the author has actually judged photography competitions from photographs hung in gallery format, which makes this article even more 'interesting' if he has.


"Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”. A good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. You see it, you’ve got it. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by Caravaggio – to take a painter so many photographers emulate."

Full article > http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries

Discuss ;)
Click to expand...

You are ST4 in drag and I claim my prize!:p
 
Alastair said:
The twunt's at it again..

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

"Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras, when the most beguiling high-definition images and effects are available to millions. My iPad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at. Does that make me an artist? No, it just makes my tablet one hell of a device."​
Click to expand...

I suppose they got to give the t*** something to write about :(
 
Well soulless our not, I've decided to invest in a quality printer so I can print out and display my photos as much as I desire, as I've come to the conclusion that there is just something inherently magical in seeing my work physically existing rather than just on the screen...what can I say I just love it (y)
 
MWHCVT said:
Well soulless our not, I've decided to invest in a quality printer so I can print out and display my photos as much as I desire, as I've come to the conclusion that there is just something inherently magical in seeing my work physically existing rather than just on the screen...what can I say I just love it (y)
Click to expand...

I wish more people would. It drives quality too, as quality really becomes an issue when you print.
 
They don't have to, to do what they want to do a print isn't necessary.

Besides the odd print for a wall and maybe a family album ?, they want them for one place only, for the masses a photo is no longer a print.

Technology gives with one hand but takes with the other.

I wonder what would happen to the forum content count if, like over at FADU, we could only post pictures of prints.

Shoot it on digital, print it on inkjet then photograph the print on digital....lol

You have to make the print the product :)
 
I wonder if becoming an art critic actually destroys your soul? Now there's a thought.
 
Yv said:
Now this is a Friday discussion if ever I saw one! I read this through a link posted on facebook from a fairly well known photographer who also says the author has actually judged photography competitions from photographs hung in gallery format, which makes this article even more 'interesting' if he has.


"Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”. A good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. You see it, you’ve got it. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by Caravaggio – to take a painter so many photographers emulate."

Full article > http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries

Discuss ;)
Click to expand...

These people have too much time on their hands!
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wish more people would. It drives quality too, as quality really becomes an issue when you print.
Click to expand...

Well just made an order for these sample packs

http://www.premier-ink.co.uk/papers...ple-pack-matt-smooth-a4-14-sheets-p-2672.html

http://www.premier-ink.co.uk/papers...e-pack-matt-textured-a4-12-sheets-p-2673.html

http://www.premier-ink.co.uk/papers/a4-papers/hahnemuhle-sample-pack-glossy-a4-14-sheets-p-2674.html

Going to be interesting to see how good they are as I've heard good things in the past, but what to see which I like before buying packs since it will come in at well over £1 a sheet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top