Semi-humorous Quip About Photography by British Painter (and photographer) David Hockney: “There is nothing wrong with photography, if you don’t mind the perspective of a paralyzed...

MDI Mainer

“There is nothing wrong with photography, if you don’t mind the perspective of a paralyzed Cyclops.”

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

I don't agree with "paralyzed". When teaching photography, I would try to get my students to understand that every change in camera angle will change the final image, no matter how small. Even small changes can be the difference between a good photo with good composition and a great photo where the composition works perfectly. Look at any of the great iconic photos and imagine if the photographer were pointing the camera more to the left or right, or if they were a few feet to either side, it would NOT be the same photo.
"Cyclops" - OK, but in defense, the lens does see the world a little differently than the human eye(s), understanding that difference and using it to the photographers advantage is part of the art of photography.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

MDI Mainer wrote:

“There is nothing wrong with photography, if you don’t mind the perspective of a paralyzed Cyclops.”

Exactly true except for stereo photography and video.

MDI Mainer

MrMophoto wrote:

I don't agree with "paralyzed". When tea... (show quote)

I suspect Hockney was referring to a painter's ability to alter the view or perspective in imaginative ways beyond shifting the camera's angle or location, and selectively include or exclude elements in the painting.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

MDI Mainer wrote:

I suspect Hockney was referring to a painter's ability to alter the view or perspective in imaginative ways beyond shifting the camera's angle or location, and selectively include or exclude elements in the painting.

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

MDI Mainer wrote:

I suspect Hockney was referring to a painter's ability to alter the view or perspective in imaginative ways beyond shifting the camera's angle or location, and selectively include or exclude elements in the painting.

The ability to "selectively include or exclude elements in the painting." would seem to me to be an argument for photography being a more difficult pursuit. Granted, with modern tech, photographers can eliminate troublesome wires, etc and even completely rearrange the elements within a picture frame, but then again it adds to the difficulty of the process and the artistic engagement of the photographer.

MDI Mainer

Hockney's quip long predates the ubiquity of Photoshop. But a painter (e.g., my wife) would say the freedom to selectively include or exclude elements of the image makes the creative process more, not less, difficult because the options are almost unlimited.

Here's an interesting article about Hockney's photography and how it related to his painting. There was also a temporal element to his observation, based on the human tendency to aggregate data to form a memory or mental image.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2017/03/06/hockney/?sh=a73479d12835

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

MDI Mainer wrote:

“There is nothing wrong with photography, if you don’t mind the perspective of a paralyzed Cyclops.”

That is incredibly rich coming from an artist with very little talent. Much of his work could be replicated by a five year old. To say otherwise would be disingenuous.

Dannj

I think it’s just a funny comment. Nothing feather ruffling about it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"There's nothing wrong with painting if you don't mind getting dirty and wasting hours of your time." JerryC41

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Jerrin1 wrote:

That is incredibly rich coming from an artist with very little talent. Much of his work could be replicated by a five year old. To say otherwise would be disingenuous.

My thoughts exactly. But you have to admire his talent for convincing a lot of people otherwise.

Tinker

Jerry's quote seems a bit tongue in cheek, and I take it as such. Painting is an entirely different enterprise IMO, most especially for those of us who aspire to being abstract artists. Nothing at which to point one's camera, nothing to add or subtract from a scene, only place upon the work surface that which one feels appropriate for the effect or mood desired. It works or it doesn't depending upon one's taste and talent for the activity.

MDI Mainer

Jerrin1 wrote:

That is incredibly rich coming from an artist with very little talent. Much of his work could be replicated by a five year old. To say otherwise would be disingenuous.

Well since he is one of the most influential pop art painters, and his works now sell for 20-50 million, your opinion "macht nichts."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Tinker wrote:

Jerry's quote seems a bit tongue in cheek, and I take it as such. Painting is an entirely different enterprise IMO, most especially for those of us who aspire to being abstract artists. Nothing at which to point one's camera, nothing to add or subtract from a scene, only place upon the work surface that which one feels appropriate for the effect or mood desired. It works or it doesn't depending upon one's taste and talent for the activity.

Yes, you're right. I can't really paint, but I'm a member of a weekly painting group in town. It's fun (frustrating) and relaxing. I have about a dozen framed paintings sitting in a pile.