Guys, I believe Bosch (or any other artist) is a more reliable witnesses to his times than photographs could be. Photographs provide mostly data about the material world. The other arts provide a picture of the minds that were living in it. We could know relatively little about 15th C. Holland or anywhere else or time looking at photographs. At any given time in human history artists have depicted the world with great naturalism but only when it was thought important to the message. Photography has been given way too much credibility. We need to be reminded about conflating medium and message :-) Darn, just when we get a really interesting topic going my "Garden of Weedy Delights" demands attention! AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: What photography does, was Pulitzers > From: "Brian van den Broek" <bvande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, April 17, 2004 10:54 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > John Mason said unto the world upon 17/04/2004 23:58: > > Me, talking about what all sorts of visual artists can > > do: > > > > > >>>wonderful nudes, portraits, landscapes, still > >>>lifes (lives?), street scenes, charming vistas, > > > > cats, > > > >>>babies > > > > > > Howard questioning: > > > > > >>to my mind exceptionally well and I believe we do > > > > need > > > >>photography to do them! > > > > > > Oh, I don't deny that photography can do these things > > well. But photography has no monopoly on them, and > > other visual arts do them just as well. > > > > Photography does have a near monopoly on visual > > journalism and visual documentation. > > > <SNIP> > > --John > > > > > > ===== > > J. Mason > > Charlottesville, Virginia > > Cool snaps: http://wtju.radio.virginia.edu/mason/ > > > > John, > > I find your point of view on these issues interesting, and pushing in > the > opposite direction of my own. > > It seems to me that photography's strength in "realistic" > representation, > as you quite rightly say, makes it (with video) much better for > journalism > than other visual art forms. ("Sculpture-journalism" anyone?) But there > is a > current in your comments that reads like "sure, photography can do > those > things that the other visual art forms have been doing, but that seems > to > misuse its strengths". (I do understand that you are not saying > portraiture, > etc. is somehow illegitimate or wrong in photography.) > > I think that photography's strengths in "realistic" depiction in some > sense > liberates the other visual arts from the business of visual realism. > The > story is obviously much more complicated than any one explanatory > factor, > but it also seems no accident that painting and sculpture were much > more > dominated and driven by the aims of realism before the advent of > photography. Sure, one can point to Bosch or almost all medieval > painting as > examples of pre-photographic painting with less regard for realism than > the > traditions in painting that emerged from eh Renaissance. But it does > seem > that the story from Impressionism through the various forms of 20th c. > > abstraction in painting could more easily get started when the painter > was > no longer the best, or only, person in town to go see for a realistic > depiction of a person or a place. > > So, for me, the story runs the opposite way than you seem to see it. > I'd be > more inclined to ask a painter what was the point of painting realistic > > scenics than I would a photographer the point of taking scenic > photographs. > Photography liberated painting from the tyranny of the real. (Of > course, > none of this is to say that abstraction cannot, or ought not, be done > in > photography. That is where my own interests lie, so I certainly > wouldn't > want to say that!) > > Anyway, just some thoughts at 2am on a Saturday. > > Best to all, > > Brian vdB
