[HN Gopher] Photography is not Objective, Art is a Set of Choices
___________________________________________________________________
Photography is not Objective, Art is a Set of Choices
Author : smbv
Score : 26 points
Date : 2022-03-17 21:34 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aaronhertzmann.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (aaronhertzmann.com)
| the_af wrote:
| I've found this series of articles about art and photography very
| interesting, thanks to whoever has been posting them here on HN.
|
| They helped me nail down some intuitions I had about photography,
| and clear some misconceptions. As someone who knows nothing about
| photography, I found it fascinating to learn about the process
| good photographers go through in order to get what they want out
| of a "plain" photo.
| smbv wrote:
| I would recommend subscribing to the RSS feed: all of the
| articles are frankly superb.
|
| https://aaronhertzmann.com/feed.xml
| bambax wrote:
| Art is intent + execution.
|
| Keep execution, remove intent: you get bathroom decoration, which
| definitely isn't art.
|
| Remove execution, keep intent: you get modern art, which is still
| art.
|
| Edit: this comment seems to be interpreted as being against
| modern art. It really isn't. The point is that there is still art
| when we remove execution. Some modern art has very elaborate
| execution, but sometimes modern art is pure idea, and then _it is
| still art_.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Remove execution, keep intent: you get modern art, which is
| still art."_
|
| I completely disagree with the lack of execution in modern art
| as a whole.
|
| There were plenty of modern artists for whom execution was
| critically important.
|
| Picasso wasn't throwing down completely random scribbles.
|
| John Cage scrupulously followed his randomly-generated
| compositions when he was performing them.
|
| Damien Hirst's crystal skull isn't anything if not amazingly
| executed.
|
| These are just a few examples off the top of my head, but there
| are countless others.
| bambax wrote:
| Yeah, that's not my point, but it's my fault for not being
| clear enough. I added a line to the comment you're replying
| to, to try to make it more explicit.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| It looks like in some modern art and the artists behind it are
| lacking , I'd say, skill/labor not execution because the
| execution exists in some shape or form. But many of these
| artists are trained classically and could perform in a
| classical way if they really wanted to (though some can't), but
| choose to express themselves in novel ways. And that does get
| pushed a bit too far, sometimes up to the point that we wonder
| what could NOT be considered art. But even if you don't like
| most modern art, at some point you will find something that
| stirs something in you, something that would not be possible if
| we had very rigid/conservative standards. I find that modern
| art is more about processes, abstractions and ideas.
| bambax wrote:
| Modern art is art! I said as much. It doesn't so much lack
| _in_ execution as it lacks execution: it 's often not
| executed at all.
|
| But that's good! In many ways modern art is pure intent: put
| something where it doesn't belong, or think of putting it
| where it doesn't belong, and you're done.
|
| My point is not against modern art, or even about modern art;
| what I meant to say was actually quite the opposite: that
| intent is what matters, and if you remove execution but still
| keep the intent, then there is still art, whereas if you do
| the opposite, then there is no art.
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| Agree, photography is not art
| smbv wrote:
| It's been the same argument for more than a hundred years now.
| Just because art is more accessible to create doesn't mean it's
| worse.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| What is your definition of art?
| alar44 wrote:
| Why? Do people actually think this?
| vmception wrote:
| Wrong article then
|
| This is about a painter realizing that photography overlaps
| with reality distortion aspects as others arts
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Why is photography not an art, just because anybody can do it
| and anybody and their dog can take a photo whenever they want?
| the_af wrote:
| Who are you agreeing with? This is certainly not what the
| article states.
|
| A closer summary would be (selectively quoting from TFA):
|
| > _Photography is not objective truth. Photography and painting
| both result from deliberate choices of depiction, and there is
| no clear dividing line between them._
|
| > _[...] I argue that pictures are like stories that people
| tell with pictures. In short, perception is interpretation, and
| visual art is a construction made for perception._
| Melatonic wrote:
| I am not sure I agree with this original hypothesis - does anyone
| really believe a photograph is a perfect recreation of truth?
| From most people I talk to they understand that it is somewhere
| in between art and documentation.
|
| I am big into photography myself and it would take a lot of
| conscious effort to actually take photographs that were as close
| as possible to what the average human brain is perceiving from
| their own eyes. It is certainly possible with the right tools and
| mindset but would require careful lens selection and conscious
| choice of angles/perspective.
|
| TLDR:
|
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-17 23:00 UTC)