Site Feed Here
The Death of Photography?
| If you believe Sebastian Smee in his article ‘Image Fatigue’ in the Weekend Australian, ‘Photography is an art form on the wane’. According to Smee, the general public is losing interest in photography. To Smee, the overabundance of images in our visual culture and the ease with which photographers can now post–edit is waring thin the magic of this medium. On the contrary, I would argue that photography as a popular art form is on the rise. Perhaps photographs aren’ t fetching as much in the auction houses at the moment or attracting huge audiences, but the groundswell of photography as a popular art form is pretty hard to miss. A good example is a recent exhibition called ‘Emerge’ at Trinity Church Hall, in the Perth CBD. The exhibition displayed the work of ‘same-sex’ and ‘gender diverse’ youth. Around the perimeter of the exhibition were large black and white photographs. Whilst not technically brilliant, many photos were captivating and lured me into their world, if only for a brief moment. The photos allowed a young, often vulnerable, group to express themselves to the world to explore their identity in a celebratory manner in the photographic medium. As one young participant said: ‘We all brought dress-ups and accessories and donned on some outfits that meant something for us. One of the most common ways for youth to express their identities is through what they wear, so this was important. It was also a chance to ham it up, let loose and have some fun – and we all definitely did!’ Just as in the phenomenon that is the photo–sharing site Flickr, the magic of these photos was in the sharing with others. In this case, young people learning about themselves through dressing up and then proudly showing themselves off as they want themselves to be seen by the world – invincible instead of vulnerable. Is photgraphy a declining art form? Tell me what you think? |
Posted by Lisa at 9:47 PM
16 Comments:
Is dressing up and taking a photo an art form or is it the contexturalisation of the photo in a gallery that makes it art? We all take picture/ oops photos and now at an alarming rate (for those who want to maintain the art), with the increased use of camera phones etc. We can argue both ways - it's an art form, a reflection of cultural change and new use of technology but is a picture art? Is painting art? Is anything art until an artist comes along, or a curator for that matter and says it is. Is it sufficient these days for a picture (photographic or other) to speak for itself/stand alone without curatorial or the artist’s interpretation? When does it or anything become art? Duchamp redefined the modern world of art but is the modern world of art now defining the art/artist? Is any of it good enough for the gallery any longer and have we seen enough stuff thrown into a gallery context called art when it really doesn’t belong there? How do we know when it does or doesn’t belong? Is there sufficient intervention between the camera and the artist to warrant the title 'art'? There is a push/pull taking place between the Modernism vs Postmodernism in both the design and art worlds. We get tired of the same thing over and over so perhaps it's high time for a change or not. I’m guessing it is now time for a new 'Art Order' along with many other things in culture currently under review.
Rita, you make some great points. My view is that the photos in this exhibition are artworks, not because they were placed in the context of a gallery, or because a curator deemed them artworks, but because of the context in which they were created. In this case, the photos weren’t taken as snap shots or commercial photos but were purely explorative and self-expressive.
I guess photography is a good example of the merging boundaries between high and low culture, so often talked about, especially with snapshot style photography so popular at the moment. Boring when everything starts to look the same – as you mentioned - but I guess it depends whether you see the collapsing boundaries between high and low culture as being corrosive.
I agree with Lisa - I think a photo can be called art not smply because of who looks at it and judges it, but because of the thought and creativity that the photographer has put into framing and contextualising the picture. Are photographers artists? Of course they are! Instead of a paintbrush or a block of clay, they use a camera. Traditional elements of artistic production such as lighting, framing and narrative are as carefully considered in the production of an excellent photograph as they are by a painter who painstakingly dabs in shades of sunlight in a painting.
I'm not saying that some guy running around taking snapshots with his mobile phone is an artist, because he isn't looking at his environment or considering the technical elements that constitute an artistic photograph.
Although photography has become an almost ubiquitious part of our culture, only those who expressly seek to create a photograph of high quality could be called artists, and I believe their work is definitely art.
Well done!
[url=http://cudzjyig.com/fpet/tvhw.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ourdaovh.com/vckt/tsez.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
Great work!
http://cudzjyig.com/fpet/tvhw.html | http://qvpnqexk.com/luau/dbex.html
60886906
http://www.496641233.com
175576995
[url=http://www.793033125.com]793033125[/url]
Great article! Thanks.
Nice Blog!
Thanks for interesting article.
Thank You! Very interesting article. Do you can write anything else about it?
Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment
<< Home