I'm not well read in matters photographic, but you started me thinking. I hope you take these comments in the spirit they were meant - I'm interested, trying to put forward my ideas, wondering how they strike you.
The way I see my photography is that I'm recording beauty. Of course, there's the issue that beauty is subjective. To me, a fly's compound eye, or a hairy caterpillar sitting on a stem, is beautiful, as well as interesting - and when I photograph such a thing I try and capture this beauty and the life as best I can. The result hopefully shows some of these things that make me love my subjects (and if I was really good, I might even be able to bring that love itself into my photographs).
I understand your explanation of the matter and am just confused, as your points seemed valid, but yet I resisted. Is something beautiful less valuable than something that, while it may or may not be pleasing, has a message or depth, as you request?
As to your comment that you see no life or vibrancy in this sort of photo, well this is possibly the heart of the matter, where a great rift is revealed gaping between us.
Just one more point to tack on to the end in a confused way. Perhaps you've never heard of Densey Clyne - she's a local 'naturalist' who has written books (e.g. "The Garden Jungle", "Wildlife in the Suburbs") on the behaviour and natural histories of various insects, other animals and plants. The photography that accompanies these accounts is of a very high standard, and the entire 'work', being the illustrated story, is in my view admirable, giving you both a feel for the subject and the dedication of the author. Perhaps you would appreciate this sort of photography if you knew the story as well. The problem could be that these photographs need the story, which people like me simply carry around with them in their heads. Seeing only the object can't be satisfying.
I've not used the A word yet (three letters, rhymes with heart). The whole idea troubles me.
That's all I can think, for now. Looking forward to see what you think of this.
David
although I'm glad that the creatures are only being
shot by a Pentax camera. Still, they appear rather one dimensional. Maybe
if I saw a bug picture that showed something more - and I don't really know
what that may be exactly - I'd feel differently. But, to me, what I've
been seeing here, just ain't art.
I understand what you're saying, but hey, having a religious experience
while photographing a sunset, and a photograph of a sunset, isn't
necessarily art. Erwitt's "Snaps" is a good example of what we're
discussing. The idea that not every photo is art to everyone is exactly
where I'm coming from.
I recently had a discussion with a couple of photographers, the subject of
which was how Photoshop relates to Photography. Is an image that has been
extensively "adjusted" in Photoshop still a photograph, or has it somehow
morphed into something else? Is there a line somewhere that, when crossed,
moves the image out of the category of Photograph into something else? And
what is that something else? What I see in so many of these bug pictures
is a reliance on technique and technology to produce something that's as
perfect as possible, but there's no life in what I see, no vibrancy,
nothing to get me involved and to move me past an acknowledgement that the
workmanship is good. There's something to be said for good workmanship,
but that alone does not create art.
But these are just my feelings. I'm sure others here (and probably most people on this list) will disagree with me. I say that based on all the oohing and aahing these sorts of pictures generate. Lots of people here like that stuff. I'm in a definite minority. I find most of it derivative, not pushing any creative envelope except for the applied use of technology. I guess I want MORE from a photograph, more from art ... something that goes beyond the surface of the image and the gloss on the print. I want to feel that the artist has something to say, something original to say, and that he or she is trying to make a statement that goes beyond just capturing light on film and pixels, and which is then run through enough Photoshop to suck the life out of it. I don't mind technically imperfect photos (although I love it when people try to make 'em, push themselves and their work to tell us something) that make us think and feel.
You brought up Kenny G ... my example might have been George Benson for I am quite familiar with his early work with Creed Taylor. Then came the transformation, and Breezin' hit the scene. As Don Everley once said, "Bye, bye love." Now George's music is much more technically perfect, but the soul and the heart has been cut out to make room for higher bit rates and better sound quality.
So, for me, there's a certain sterility with the images we're discussing, a certain blandness, and a lack of (must I say it again ... to me) any real connection between subject and photographer, and a lack of anything that turns me on apart from an admiration of technical quality. ee cummings once wrote,
since feeling is first who pays any attention to the syntax of things will never wholly kiss you
I have not been wholly kissed by this photograph, nor do I feel it's embrace. But the syntax is pretty good.
Shel Belinkoff
[Original Message] From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 6/14/2004 8:30:20 PM Subject: Re: PAW Art or entomology?
To be fair, Shel,
All you can really say is that this sort of photo doesn't evoke a
response
in ~you~.
They may evoke a response in others. I guess that means that it's art
for
some, but not all.
I wondered if the guy that made a dress out of meat and hung it at the
Art
Gallery of Ontario, and let it rot, then made another one over and over,
was
making art. Well, that was simple, really, 'cause it was in an art
gallery,
so it ~must~ have been art.
But I digress...
I'm not much of a bug and flower guy either. If I were, it's the type of photography I'd do. I'm not much of a nature guy (photographically speaking, that is). I was, however, quite awed by some of the stuff I
saw
from real nature guys at GFM. As I found out when I quite laughably shot
a
roll at GFM for the Nature Photography Contest, I'm pretty bad at it, and it's pretty hard to do well.
For some of these guys and gals (I found out), shooting Nature is a near religious experience.
Does that make it art? I don't know, but lots of people think it is art.
Personally, I find that ~most~ sunsets are to art what Kenny G is to jazz (that is, they aren't). OTOH, a really really good sunset, I must grudgingly admit, can be like Kenny Garrett (ie: art and jazz).
I was just glancing through Elliot Erwitt's massive compilation, "Snaps"
on
the weekend. I really must get that book. I've always liked him, now I love him. Lots of fuzzy shots, for one. For another, he called it
"Snaps"
as a reaction to the "artsy" crowd (you know, the DIB's - Dressed in Blacks). He really doesn't seem (if I understand him correctly) to think it's important whether a photo is considered "art" or not - leave that to the critics, I guess. I rather like that way of looking at things.
Sorry to ramble. This started out as a two line zinger of a post, but I kind of got the bit in my teeth, as it were...
OTOH, Rob ~did~ ask. And you did answer honestly (honestly for yourself, that is).
<vbg>
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
And, to answer the question posed by the subject, these ain't art. They are technically quite good, but evoke little feeling or response. Little different than when going to the museum as a kid and seeing all those
bugs
with pins stuck through them, frozen in time in a glass case.
Shel
