Photography Standards - Should there be any?
Apr 5, 2013 13:32:15 #
Below is a snippet from a 1983 interview between James Watt & Ansel Adams. Thoughts or comments? Does Adams' comments still hold true today?
Watt: Don't you believe there are standards that can apply to all photography?
Adams: I think there are, but it's very tricky. One photographer I know is almost diabolically concerned with making poor images. The prints are terrible and the compositions are dreadful--the horizons aren't straight and all is very casual and haphazard. However, his subjects have a very definite human interest--street scenes, families, bars. If they were presented simply as slices of human experience, that would be fine. But when they are mounted and put on a wall behind glass, they immediately take on the appearance of being more than they are. The photographer becomes the "in" thing, critics applaud, prices shoot up and books are bound. To me, the emperor still has no clothes. And I particularly resent the intentional lack of craft. The painter Arp is often misquoted as having said, "If I say it's art, it's art." In fact, I am told, he said, "If I say it's art, it's art to me." The first is a very arrogant, belligerent statement. The second simply states that art is personal and subjective. Well, you may say a photograph that is very carelessly composed and executed is art, but to me it is bad craft and little more than that. On the other hand, art, to me, is what strikes me in some very special way.
Watt: Don't you believe there are standards that can apply to all photography?
Adams: I think there are, but it's very tricky. One photographer I know is almost diabolically concerned with making poor images. The prints are terrible and the compositions are dreadful--the horizons aren't straight and all is very casual and haphazard. However, his subjects have a very definite human interest--street scenes, families, bars. If they were presented simply as slices of human experience, that would be fine. But when they are mounted and put on a wall behind glass, they immediately take on the appearance of being more than they are. The photographer becomes the "in" thing, critics applaud, prices shoot up and books are bound. To me, the emperor still has no clothes. And I particularly resent the intentional lack of craft. The painter Arp is often misquoted as having said, "If I say it's art, it's art." In fact, I am told, he said, "If I say it's art, it's art to me." The first is a very arrogant, belligerent statement. The second simply states that art is personal and subjective. Well, you may say a photograph that is very carelessly composed and executed is art, but to me it is bad craft and little more than that. On the other hand, art, to me, is what strikes me in some very special way.
Apr 5, 2013 13:47:14 #
I couldn't agree more with Mr Adams. There are those who view art as whatever they are told is art. Personally, even if I had all the money in the world I would never buy a Picasso painting. I would, however, have an entire wing of my mansion devoted to Ansel Adams' work. (my work would be in another wing) ;-)
Apr 5, 2013 13:51:28 #
wierdphotoguy wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Mr Adams. There are those who view art as whatever they are told is art. Personally, even if I had all the money in the world I would never buy a Picasso painting. I would, however, have an entire wing of my mansion devoted to Ansel Adams' work. (my work would be in another wing) ;-)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 5, 2013 13:51:47 #
I wonder what Ansel Adams would have made of some of the "art" recently displayed in the Tate Modern? Or some of the recent winners of the Taylor Wessing portrait prize?
Apr 5, 2013 14:02:46 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
If you understand music you can recognize good music or a talented musician even though you may not care for the particular piece or style of music. If you dont understand music all you can do is offer an opinion as to whether or not you like it. I can appreciate the talent of musicians and yet really not care much at all for the music they create. The same is true in photography I can appreciate a good photo and yet not care much for it personally. Yes photography is a subjective art form but at the same time there are standards that are used to judge the photo beyond yes I like it or no I dont like it
As always JMHO.
Apr 5, 2013 14:06:03 #
I would have to TOTALLY agree with Ansel Adams! A true craftsman, fantastic photographer and visual artist!
Apr 5, 2013 14:27:46 #
Reminds me of a nameless, probably worthless, politician who said of pornography:
"I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
"I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
Apr 5, 2013 14:42:02 #
Look at this http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772 then tell me he isn't wrong.
Apr 5, 2013 15:01:50 #
St3v3M wrote:
Look at this http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772 then tell me he isn't wrong.
Steve, I think this illustrates Adams' point perfectly. Sorry, I missed your point. Tell you he isn't wrong? I hope this means tell you he's right.
Apr 5, 2013 15:13:29 #
Try to write down a set of standards. I think that you'll find it's impossible and therefore all subjective.
Apr 5, 2013 15:16:07 #
mdorn wrote:
Steve, I think this illustrates Adams' point perfectly. Sorry, I missed your point. Tell you he isn't wrong? I hope this means tell you he's right.
I don't get it - grass, sidewalk, grass, water, grass, grey sky...?
Apr 5, 2013 15:33:53 #
St3v3M wrote:
I don't get it - grass, sidewalk, grass, water, grass, grey sky...?
Well... technically the horizon is straight. LOL.
Apr 5, 2013 15:51:40 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
In my opinion any kind of art has to have soul. A musician friend of mine is the best technician with a saxophone that Ive ever personally seen/heard. She never misses a note, her timing is impeccable, perfect pitch and she can play anything you put in front of her. The problem is she plays the notes and everything as its written, just as its written and it sounds like it. Shes a wonderful musician but not much of an artist. In my mind an artist will take that same piece of music and it will sound a little different every time its played because of the mood the artist is in. The mood or emotion of the artist will be reflected in the music and thats what I mean by soul. As stated above you cant explain it but youll know it when you see it applies to photography as well. Theres an intangible force in all art that reaches out and touches you and without that it just isnt art no matter how technically sound it might be
.as always JMHO.
Apr 5, 2013 16:49:39 #
Apr 5, 2013 17:31:14 #
Pepper wrote:
In my opinion any kind of art has to have soul. ... (show quote)
Maybe your musician friend's "mood" is pretty even and emotionally stable? Wish my wife were a little more "technical" and had a little less "soul". <joke> :-)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.