Photographs on walls are souless?

Yv

Yv

TPer Emerita
Messages
25,725
Name
Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
Edit My Images
Yes
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 ;)
 
He makes some sense but is obviously out to stir things up a little. Of course photography should never set out to mimic painting (and that includes the faux business of printing on canvas!), but that hardly means that photographs shouldn't be hung on walls!

A photograph will often be "made with talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”, but much less likely with "time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth ...”.

Painting and photography are not in competition, they are different animals.
 
I ignore pretty much everything that bloke writes, he's an art snob for one thing. In this case he's falling into the trap of assuming that photographs and paintings are, and should be, looked at in the same way because they are both (largely) two dimensional and often representational. He really should know better - but then he wouldn't get as many comments to his pieces and the Grauniad wouldn't get as many clicks.
 
Compared to a painting (in some media), photographs are relatively flat but certainly not soulless. As Roj has said, the 2 formats are different animals even if they are fairly closely related. If the author of that article has been a competition judge, it explains a lot!
 
Art is art. The media used does not define the artist and is irrelevant to the value or quality of the output. The guy is just being a pr1ck..
 
It's in the Gruniad.
It's set to appeal to a certain type of reader, not me.
Let them pontificate, whatever a Guardian reader thinks or whatever article it publishes holds absolutely no interest for me.
That being said, compared to classical artists, no photograph can hold a candle to their depth but if you were to compare a good photograph to one of our modern 'artists' like Tracy Emin for example, the the photo will win every time. IMHO of course, but I don't read a rag like the Gruniad.
 
northernbiff said:
It's in the Gruniad.
It's set to appeal to a certain type of reader, not me.
IMHO of course, but I don't read a rag like the Gruniad.
Click to expand...

This, really (though not necessarily the rest - we're discussing it, so it must matter to us a little).

I never got Droj's memo in time, and have discovered I quite like my images on canvas, as do most of the people I've shown them to. Some of the pictures I'll happily to go back and look at again & again, because it feels like I'm inside the scene. :)

Great images (I'm not particularly including mine in that) by those who 'see' things well will always have depth to them, though the way we perceive that depth may be different. Some must see the creator trying to say something through their work, while others will use their eyes and imagination to sense the depth in the image. In photos we can't do 3D texture like a painter, but we have the advantage of being able to capture something that looks more like reality instead. Thanks to cloning we can now remove the bits we don't see as being part of the scene, just like the painters always did.

I'm sure the critic is very clever, carefully polarising and provoking, dividing and weakening.
 
Last edited:
This article has LOTS of photographers shouting about what a pillock the author is, but he has a point - sort of

Paintings are creations from the mind & brush of the artist, nothing is real, just their interpretation of what real is, if indeed reality matters at all

Photos are, in the main, very real - tweaked yes, but generally to enhance rather than create; certainly that's how mine are

This chap can stare admiringly at a painting for minutes and yet only seconds at a photo; and I'm exactly the other way around

I love the reality of my photography and, to me, painters are just people who probably can't take a good photo so they make it up lol :D

Dave
 
Probably time to add my own thoughts, which don't vary vastly what has already been said. Paintings and photographs are different animals, albeit often 'exhibited' in a very similar way. Regardless of depth and texture, a painting is still 2D just like a photograph and offers even more limited ways to show it off and less flexibility, but that doesn't mean that the best way to view a photo is by using that additional flexibility. I do think the chap in question is simply writing to create a reaction, an arrogance that manages to be both astounding and yet entirely unsurprising.

As for canvasses for photos, have to admit I am in the dislike camp, just not my thing but do understand why people like them.
 
There is more rubbish spoken about 'Art' by so called experts than there is talked about 'Food' by so called experts in that field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I think it's important to note that the author is talking only about disliking photographs framed and hung on walls. He is correct in suggesting that a photograph on a wall is a different viewing experience to a print in the hand or a reproduction in a book/magazine, but wrong in suggesting that viewing a print is the same viewing experience as looking at a photograph on a screen. He also neglects to mention that some photographs actually benefit from being printed very large - in which case they can only be viewed well when hung on a wall.

His real objection is that he thinks that photographs are unworthy of being placed on the walls of art galleries, where 'real' art belongs. Like I said earlier, he's an art snob. You only have to read his scathing review of the Tower or London poppies to see that he can't abide the notion of art being enjoyed by the hoi polloi - God forbid that art be popular.
 
I'm interested to know, as a side note, why people don't like prints on canvases? To me it's just another printing medium with a handy presentation not requiring a frame. From normal viewing distance the texture disappears, and you have a print without reflection or glare issues that sits well on the wall. The one thing I don't like is that canvas prints can be a bit 'Ikea', but that's to do with snobbery, rather than the medium itself.
 
Guardian click-bait article, the success will be measured by incoming links such as from this thread and the number of comments below the line the article attracts..

As to photographs on canvas, just seems a bit naff to me. The texture doesn't relate to the image, unlike a painting where the texture is provided by the paint on the canvas and is directly related to the painted image. That's not to say that texture is bad for photographs, it's a very important part of of a photographic print and is always there and provided by the medium the image is printed onto. Canvas is just too crude a texture for my personal tastes. And I generally associate it with naff chavground family studio portraits.
 
While I have Only family photographs on display at home, I have many artifacts that I have made out of wood on display. (Form Spinning wheels to bowls)
For some reason, in 70 years of taking photographs both professional and amateur, I have not yet taken one that I want to display as a piece of Art.
This extends to other photographers work as well.
It is not that I am short of suitable candidates It is just that I see photographs better displayed in the context of books.
 
Last edited:
Alastair has put it succinctly above to do with canvas. Since it can be technically done, it's been commercialised, but the results can be hardly more than an affectation. It's to do with taste, and cultural integrity.

I view the Guardian article as fun, since it stimulates discussion. What else are we here for?
 
I have a lot of original paintings on my walls. Mainly Scottish landscapes (Jane Duckfield, Ron Lawson, Jolomo) but I've no photographs other than family pics.

Whilst I enjoy looking at photographs in books - I've just never come across a photograph that I'm prepared to commit to enough to have it hanging there day after day.
 
If they don't work, why then are so many photography exhibitions successful? He mentions the Taylor Wessing, I found last years fascinating. Same with the National portrait museum, I'll skip past many of the portraits all looking the same, yet the photography exhibitions are more interesting.

There's been some really interesting exhibitions. Baileys Stardust , Henry Callahan at the Tate, Burroughs, Lynch and Warhol at the Photographers Gallery...

No depth? Last years Taylor Wessing prize winner, Spencer murphy's image of Katie Walsh had real depth in the eyes, displayed large on the wall, you could just feel the tiredness, emotion.
Taylor-Wessing-Winner.jpg.jpg
 
Byker28i said:
No depth? Last years Taylor Wessing prize winner, Spencer murphy's image of Katie Walsh had real depth in the eyes, displayed large on the wall, you could just feel the tiredness, emotion.
Click to expand...


Given that emotion and engagement are so often what makes an image work, even with non-portraits, it's surprising how infrequently discussion of these topics or the soul of an image is ever seriously discussed on the forum. We've had the barrage of "art" threads, but I don't think they've ever got serious - or they're been shot-down by those that don't accept what they can't measure, or are uncomfortable with the concept.
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
I love the reality of my photography and, to me, painters are just people who probably can't take a good photo so they make it up lol :D
Click to expand...

yeah, because photography was so prevalent in the 18th century. Im sure the likes of Turner and Constable are spinning in their graves at the loss of not being able to take a few snaps.
 
essexash said:
yeah, because photography was so prevalent in the 18th century. Im sure the likes of Turner and Constable are spinning in their graves at the loss of not being able to take a few snaps.
Click to expand...

Well blow me down - I didn't realise all painting stopped when the first camera was born - cheers for that

lol

Dave
 
yeah but your point, if it was one, was "painters are just people who probably can't take a good photo so they make it up lol"

So ok, youre supposedly an "award winning landscape photographer" lets see it and compare with those people who probably couldn't take a good photo or who were just unlucky to be born in a time when they wernt invented, lets see if they really needed to?
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
yeah but your point, if it was one, was "painters are just people who probably can't take a good photo so they make it up lol"

So ok, youre supposedly an "award winning landscape photographer" lets see it and compare with those people who probably couldn't take a good photo or who were just unlucky to be born in a time when they wernt invented, lets see if they really needed to?
Click to expand...


You really think I want to get into a pointless argument based on a misinterpretation of a joke ???

In the spirit of staying polite on TP - err - no thanks :)

Dave
 
droj said:
He makes some sense but is obviously out to stir things up a little. Of course photography should never set out to mimic painting (and that includes the faux business of printing on canvas!), but that hardly means that photographs shouldn't be hung on walls!
Click to expand...

Same guy who came up with this a a few weeks ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde.../tower-of-london-poppies-ukip-remembrance-day

As they say. Opinions may vary. However some people publish their 'opinions' in order to be noticed and heard. Because that's their job.

He and those paying him don't care as long as it provides measurable response in the way of comments and or knock-on discussion and interest in external discussions - such as on these forums or elsewhere.

Kim Kardashian's behind fulfils the same sort of purpose.
 
Photography and painting are like shooting & fishing. They both can give food but they are completely different past times.
I strongly believe if Caravaggio had a access to a camera he might have used on. Photography can have just as much symbolism as painting but we (probably) aren't as subtle as these old guys had to be.

@Blank_Canvas , by Art v Photography do you mean Photography isn't art?
 
I would discuss but frankly I don't think there's really any point in discussing such nonsense. The author is either a monumental snob, has a tremendously narrow minded idea of what art is, or he's writing with the intention of starting arguments. Or all three.

I want the few minutes of my life it took to read the article back!
 
Alastair said:

Given that emotion and engagement are so often what makes an image work, even with non-portraits, it's surprising how infrequently discussion of these topics or the soul of an image is ever seriously discussed on the forum. We've had the barrage of "art" threads, but I don't think they've ever got serious - or they're been shot-down by those that don't accept what they can't measure, or are uncomfortable with the concept.
Click to expand...

Sadly IMO it was the problem highlighted...
 
DG Phototraining said:
This article has LOTS of photographers shouting about what a pillock the author is, but he has a point - sort of

Paintings are creations from the mind & brush of the artist, nothing is real, just their interpretation of what real is, if indeed reality matters at all

Photos are, in the main, very real - tweaked yes, but generally to enhance rather than create; certainly that's how mine are

This chap can stare admiringly at a painting for minutes and yet only seconds at a photo; and I'm exactly the other way around

I love the reality of my photography and, to me, painters are just people who probably can't take a good photo so they make it up lol :D

Dave
Click to expand...

As usual I'm agreeing...tut

Isn't it as much about expectation as anything.

If you go to a gallery to view paintings, you have certain expectations of the work you are about to view, does a gallery of photographs evoke a different set of expectations.
If you go to a gallery of art that includes paintings and photographs, are we lingering around the photos longer because they are real....supposedly...... or because we are predisposed to spend more time there through common interest.
There are artists who's paintings are considered photo-realistic but, at the end of the day you can't be certain whether a photo-realistic painting is a copy of reality/actuality, or a complete figment of the painters imagination.
Does that mean we value pictures of real things above imagined things no matter how much skill, effort and creativity was expended making them.

Seems to me, photography has a layer of content a painting can never have
 
Now it's late [snip]....

Too tired to write what I waa going to write, but Mr Jones seems to be equating effort with outcome. Painting is, in his opinion, harder, so may produce better art.

Do I have a preferred medium? Nope, there are photographs I like, there are painting I like; there are photographs I'm not keen on and there are paintings I'm not keen on.

I have to say this had the potential for an interesting debate and for that, I thank Mr Jones.

Cheers.
 
(also posted in the Guardian)

I read that a couple of days ago. Looks like the guardian are stooping to trolling these days :)

There's a great deal of personal opinion and rhetoric in that article.

jonathan jones said:
"That is because when you put a photograph on the wall I cannot help comparing it with the paintings whose framed grandeur it emulates, and I can’t help finding photography wanting."
Click to expand...

Well.. fine... for you Jonathan :) I'm afraid I don't compare it to painting at all. Why would I? Why SHOULD I? Just because it's in a gallery? It's not a painting. I don't make direct comparisons between sculpture and poetry either. Jonathan is merely fooled by the fact that both mediums are hung on gallery walls as flat prints/canvases, so are making an inevitable, and naive connection, thus directly comparing one to the other. Art is art, and the medium chosen is almost irrelevant. What Jonathan suggests is that painting is just superior because HE doesn't understand the complexities of photography. This blog article merely demonstrates his ignorance.

jonathan jones said:
"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."
Click to expand...

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.

We get it Jonathan. You don't understand photography. I seriously think he doesn't understand art to be honest. The irony of a historian becoming interested in art via modern art, then decrying art because it doesn't have the trappings of traditional art is not lost on me, or many of his readers I imagine. A bit of an own goal Jonathan I think.

Alastair said:

Given that emotion and engagement are so often what makes an image work, even with non-portraits, it's surprising how infrequently discussion of these topics or the soul of an image is ever seriously discussed on the forum.
Click to expand...

Most forum readers have a great deal in common with Mr Jones, that's why. It's all about impressing people with an outward, and obvious set of craft skills. No one seems to consider what it's FOR, or what it DOES. We just want something to look good. I think the only difference is that Mr Jones IMO, doesn't actually believe that.

I can't take Jones seriously. I really do think he's stooped to trolling in order to raise his profile. He knew full well the reaction that blog post would incite. He knows what he's doing. If it wasn't intentional, he's got no business blogging for a quality newspaper as he's just being ridiculous. He is ridiculing what he doesn't understand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top