Yesterday morning in careers I read a very dream-shattering article on the Internet. It was about how photography isn't art, I will never be successful as a photographer, photography is only popular because it's easy, and that if I did get a good career in photography I would be subjected to spending the rest of my life shooting mindless photos of weddings, babies and other creative-ly confining subjects.
It's been eating away at me for the past couple of days, and I'm only barely able not to track down the person who wrote that article and kill them slowly and painfully. I'm not going to pretend I know ANYTHING about any of this, but this is my opinion.
- Photography is an art. It's not just about taking a frozen image from our lives, it's also about creating an image that is ART. If you knew every tiny little technical detail on how to mathematically manipulate dials and shutters and apertures and ISO numbers and who knows what on a camera, in order to get the most scientifically technologically beautiful picture, I'm sure it would look like a piece of crap if you didn't have talent. That's not to say if you had all the talent in the world, and didn't know how to work a camera you'd get a great photo, but there is nothing scientific about some of the greatest photos ever taken. Think about "Afghan Girl".It's (arguably, of course) one of the greatest photos of all time. Yes the colours are nice, the background isn't distracting. And sure, in this version her face looks a tad low in the frame to me, but honestly looking at this photo is that really what anyone actually sees? Personally, I see the emotion in her eyes and in her dirt covered face. This photo tells a story, and it communicates something to whoever's looking at it and creates some emotional response. That to me is one of the many signs of art. I'm well aware how much technical knowledge helps photography, I understand what aperture, ISO, shutter speed, mega pixels, etc. are. It's hard to explain! You need both, but if you had to pick one or the other, go for the thing you can't learn. The invisible magic substance in your soul that tells you what you need to know.
- It isn't EASY. I sort of touched upon this already, but you can't just flippantly pick up a camera and take a snap shot of something pretty. Even if you have talent, that's not to say you don't have to WORK to get it to show through. I personally am not even close to being an amazing photographer. I'm maybe about .000001% there. But I honestly feel that I've improved immensely from my first crappy little shot of wet pine needles to the photos I take now that I am personally very proud of. And I worked HARD to do that. I looked things up, I read my whole manual, I tested out every function on my camera. I took photos of identical things from different angles and lights, trying to get different emotions. I take maybe 80 photos at least usually to get one I'm satisfied with. You need to pay attention to different elements and think and see artistically.
- Now, as to making it a career... that's one thing I still need to think about. There are so many pros and cons and lists and issues and decisions, I have no idea. I don't even know any professional photographers, but there are some I think I could maybe contact. I think it would be great to be a photographer, it's not something I just find fun, it's something I really LOVE and hold very close to my heart. When I'm out creating photos, even if they aren't the best, I feel like I'm doing something amazing and natural and calming and inspiring. It just feels like something I have to be doing. I honestly, truly, LOVE photography. I don't know if I'll ever succeed at getting to make it my profession, but whatever I do I will definitely incorporate it into my life.
And then...
I went on to find one of the people who's work I admire most's photo to show up on DIGG, not posted by her. I was heartbroken as I read all the disgusted comments, the stupid jokes, people made fun of the COMMENT she wrote at the bottom. Hey, it wasn't the most intellectual thing anyone could say, but please people, grow up.
My opinion on photoshop:
The photo was VERY heavily photoshopped, and I'll admit the original looked a bit crappy. But I've been thinking, and I've decided that photoshopping an image is just as much an art form as taking one is. You need to pay attention to lighting and texture and contrast and composition, and I really, really, admire this DIGITAL ARTIST'S work, because I think it's usually gorgeous and it conveys so much feeling and character through it that I find it difficult to believe that someone could be so stupidly narrow-minded that they would completely miss the entire point of her work. Maybe I've been using the wrong word for her this whole time, and I think I have been. I'd definitely say she's a digital artist, not necessarily a photographer. A painter might paint a painting. And then he might think, hey, this would look a lot better if I added some snow on top. And maybe I could get rid of this funny looking branch here, and add in a couple holding hands and walking down the street together in the background. And would people say it wasn't art anymore?
This isn't to say that anyone who photoshops their photos slightly is a digital artist, no way. I mean, even before photoshop there was dodging and burning and contrast enhancing and cropping going on, in the DARKROOM. I like it when people call photoshop and similar programs digital darkrooms, I think it's completely true, very, very advanced darkrooms with tons more features, but all the same, there's nothing new about editing our photos after we take them.
Photography is art because...
"Because there is a difference between a picture and a photograph. Anyone can learn to operate a camera. The art comes in when you start cheating the camera. You select a non-standard exposure and/or aperture, you select the framing of the photograph and its composition. If you are shooting in a studio you control the lighting. A professional photographer once told me that a real artist with a camera can take a black and white photograph of an apple and the viewer will know whether it is red, yellow or green. I learned what seemed like a million things from him but I still take pictures and he seldom misses the opportunity to tell me."
"Photography is an art for the same reason modern art is art. Its the process the effort and the thought that's put into it. Photography may not be as time consuming as other media, but all the elements of art are present. What differentiates a photo from a snapshot is first the art elements(i.e. rule of thirds, composition, lighting, line, shape, form, etc. that all would be present in a drawing or painting). Then secondly the meaning that is behind the photograph, which is also present in other art mediums. Fine art photographs are supposed to be worth a thousand questions not a thousand words. Granted, a photograph can make a statement, but along with that statement should come the question why. Photography is mostly considered an art form because it is meant to give a completely different perspective on the way our world is portrayed. I could go on about this forever......"
This is an endless debate, and I have about forty million different and conflicting opinions on it, so I think I may stop for now and go stew for a bit. Though I think the best comment I've heard made on this whole photography/art/photoshop etc debate has been:
I never argue or even contemplate this issue.
I have replaced the word ART with SELF EXPRESSION a long time ago.
l same goes for the word ARTIST."
A bit blunt, but a very good point.
2 comments:
My personal definition of art is basically, something creative that communicates a message. So, photography, most of the time (I say this because I'm meaning good photography) should be considered art. (That's by my own personal standards)
Let's compare photography to theatre, just because theatre is a long accepted art form. Both communicate a message visually. Both are practiced, and improved upon, and edited. Both require the knowledge of technical skills (blocking, articulation, intonation etc. as far as theatre is concerned, and all the obvious for photo) We take photography classes, and we take theatre classes to improve. Both photography and theatre are appreciated more highly when done in a creative and original fashion. And both photography and theatre are critiqued heavily, by different people with different opinions.
A question: if photography isn't an art, what is it? A hobby? Should it be ranked among things like fishing, and reading and playing chess? I somehow don't think fishing and photography are similar in need of skills and creativity at all. This debate is actually kind of similar to the dance: art vs. sport debate, funnily enough. I believe strongly the only reason photography as an art is questioned is because it is associated with new technology; it isn't 'classic' like visual arts or theatre. People are ready for it.
As for photography for a career, well my opinion: go for it. You only live once. If it doesn't work out (and you have to be prepared that it probably won't) then you can move on to other things and keep it as a hobby. But there's no reason to avoid trying something you really want to do. In fact, I think its more cowardly to not try then to try and fail.
Keep in mind what (I believe it was Zanini) said: "When art becomes work, it is no longer art."
Actually, it was my moms friend, who told my mom, who told me who told you, lmaoo.
But yeah I agree with you, most of the people who disregard photography are just afraid of the new technology coming in, but I think they need to accept that the world is developing constantly. :)
Post a Comment