Brian suggests that... >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". You may be right. I was dangerously close to saying that photography should do This and shouldn't do That. >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. And on reflection, I'd agree with you, if I didn't have a soft spot for photorealistic paintings. As I've mentioned, my thoughts were stimulated by the astonishment and delight that I've experienced working with the photographic record of South Africa in the '50s and early '60s. So different from the very scanty visual record of the early 19th century, with which I've previously worked. Alan says: >I believe Bosch (or any other artist) is a more >reliable witnesses to his times than photographs >could be. Both photography and art are valuable tools. As an historian, I've worked with both. Although I don't believe that one can simply say that photographs record objective truth, selfconscious documentary photography and completely unselfconsicious snapshots are usually more relible records of the material world than other forms of visual evidence, as you say. Documentary photograpy is also, however, just as much a record of the artist's consciousness as a painting by, say, Bosch. Both snaps and documentary photos reflect the zeitgeist as much as a painting by Bosch. A photo by Bob Gosani (or Walker Evans) tells us a hell of a lot about the place, the period, and the man. Another thing that makes historians happy about photography is that there is so damn much of it. --John ===== J. Mason Charlottesville, Virginia Cool snaps: http://wtju.radio.virginia.edu/mason/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
