Jan Faul:
For thousands of years, the definition of ‘art’ was simply painting,
murals, and sculpture as photography had yet to be invented. For I don’t
know how long photography had to fight for its place at the art table, even
though painters in particular used the camera as a way to help with
accurately depicting perspective and lighting and certain painters like
Warhol, Close, and Hockney come to mind. Their work makes liberal use of
the camera plus a good dollop of imitation.
Not sure where you're reading that Jan, from my reading I see that for
thousands of years 'art' was considered skill while paintings were called
paintings - and among the Greeks and Romans (where the word comes from),
predominantly 'Grammar, rhetoric, and logic were deemed lesser or low
arts, while arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy ' were
the high arts. Of course any skill was art, and the product was
whatever - a picture, music, a pleasantly shaped chair, a mural, perfume,
well made rope, cloth, a kettle that didn't leak, a sword, the tendings of a
doctor or a delightful meal.
As to photography, I have the Punch book 'A century of Punch' which
commented way back in 1851 that the main reason photography was not added to
the arts category of the world fair, or Great Exhibition as it was called
then, was because there was confusion and the aparatus used for photography
was accidentally added into the technology section along with other advanced
machinery of the day. (Where the images to show the capabilities of the
camera.. or were the cameras to show off the tools used to make the images?
umm. let's stick them, both images and cameras with the machines.. ) This
caused photography in the mind of attenders to the Exhibition to review
their perception of photography, which up to this point was accepted
wholeheartedly as not 'mechanical reproduction' at all, but as another
medium, a very exciting one at that, but one which stood along with
painting, allowing people to express themselves.
A simple oversight was all it took for the perception of photographers to
falter and photographers found themselves relegated to technicians akin to
mechanics. Few viewed those who drove plows as 'skilled' - and here were
the cameras, right beside the plows. One simple miscommunication so many
years ago.
FWIW, photographs are almost always art
I would not call them that, I would call them photographs or pictures. The
art is not the product, but the skill in making it . And I would add that
I've seen many photographic images which dislay a distinct lack of skill. *
You may well disagree as you are entitled to, modern language mas mangled
many meanings so who am I to dictate terminology to anyone. After all,
gross is not large any more but offensive, sick is cool now and not unwell,
and cool is admirable and not a sensation at all. Art may as well be ugly
dresses, discordant noise and unusable kitchen appliances if society so
desires to call them that.
k
*As to my perception of the skill, I don't dare assume I know what every
photographer is trying to create so I try to avoid judging their intent,
however, it is easier to accept a picture as skilled when the intent is
clear to the observer - just as I'd expect a chair to be comfortable and
not have a honking great lump in the middle of it.. Any image which has
obvious discord such as a wonky hoizon, a washed out tonal range or a
discordant crop would lead me to deduce a lack of skill over a deliberate
choice.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
