Tuesdays Class
Review of Why People Photograph… an article by Robert Adams.
Adams believes there is no purpose to add text to art as it is a self-explanatory medium. He also talks about the straight forwardness of pictures and photography. In contrast to what Adams says, the class reached the conclusion that context can help enrich audience’s experience with art, especially if they are unfamiliar with the piece and the artist.
Adams tends to use sweeping generalizations and seems to speak a bit hypocritically judging from the fact that he is criticizing writing about art, through writing. In some ways he is claiming that text and writing cannot co-exist and if one is not successful alone, than there must be some sort of flaw in the original work. He says that work should be strong without the addition of writing or explanation.
He believes that photographs should have clarity and should not use text as a crutch. However it is more probable that, as Colby put it, “the visual rhetoric and the textual rhetoric add to the piece as a whole instead of taking away.” Lazy pictures depend purely on text to be successful is what Adams maybe arguing about more specifically rather than claiming that all photographs which include text should be considered lesser works or art.
Episode 6 documentary notes:
Variability of photography
Digital age brings about new types of photography and snapshots, however still maintains the “more than meets the eye” back idea.
Asks: What is a photograph really worth these days?
Staging behind photography, almost similar to a theatrical production
Gregory Crixon, brining cinematic materials to photography- Lots of labor intensive work for photographs.
Priced at 60,000. With a list of potential buyers – “Hollywood values” with photography
Crixon is looking for the “perfect photograph.”
Photography is a very different experience for modern photographers than it was for previous generations.
Robert adams (author of the article we read earlier in class)- lived on the line of poverty – photography was a different world then
Now collecting photography has become “a lot of fun… baby boomers are collecting photographs,” which is pushing price of photographs up at auctions- but how do you assess the worth of a photograph. Higher priced photographs are made by the photographer himself. “Vintage” means the print was produced closer to the time it was taken.
Aesthetics do not necessarily come into play
“trying to make photographs like works of art”
history matters (like what I mentioned about vintage above)
the market has changed photographers
photography has become both a commodity and a medium
in 1970- a photographer tried to get listing in NY times and they said photography “wasn’t art” however in 2000 photographs are going for millions!
81 billion photographs taken this year
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Writing and the Popularization of Photography
It was provocative for me to read the Adams piece as someone who is interested in combining poetry/other forms of text with photography in book form. Adams seems to see text as secondary to photography, and not something that can stand on its own, although he has gone to great lengths to create this standalone book with no images in it. He describes mostly the effect of text that serves to describe the intent or content of images. Adams does not discuss text that branches off of photography to create a new art form, or serves to expand on the photograph in a creative manner.
It is strange to me that he discusses creating text as mainly an act of “saying something worse,” or being used because the picture doesn’t say enough on its own, but then also discusses the writing process as “opening a vein,” which is very personal, intimate, and expressive. Adams seems to have ambiguous feelings about text, but writes mainly to say that words are inferior to images. However, it seems that he has much more to say, and that his actual experience with text and photography is more complex. I would have appreciated it if he had gone into a deeper and more philosophical argument about text and its relationship to photography, rather than discounting text so outright. This is good for prompting debate on the subject, but it also seems like he is a very intellectual person sidestepping the challenge of delving into the relationship deeper. I would have been more interested in reading a more complex evaluation of the different ways text and photography have been used in conjunction with each other.
I found the “Genius of Photography” video that we watched to be incredibly interesting – mostly, seeing how high-end photography and the business of auctioning works. I didn’t know that this was so organized and expensive a business, and this film clarified a lot for me. I liked that it discussed the differences in value between images printed through an actual piece of film by the photographer (“vintage prints”) and images copied from other prints. I also found the part where the photograph from the early 20th century sold for 2.6 million to be fascinating – due to the rarity of this print, as well as the rarity of photographs using this early technique.
I thought it was interesting that this very recent increase in the value of photography is largely attributable to the baby boomer generation that grew up with the explosion in photography, who have now become adults involved in the purchasing of famous and valuable photographs. The technological boom and commercialization of photography caused more widespread appreciation for the medium. The baby boomers grew up in this age of appreciation, and really allowed photography to become accepted as an art. Even photographs that had been taken much earlier on and were not considered art are now deemed not just valuable art, but incredibly important from a cultural and historical perspective.
In thinking about the reading and the film together, prior to the 60’s or 70’s, photography generally was not considered a higher art form than writing. It is only after the rather recent popularization of photography that an argument like Adams would even be considered. If the argument was between painting/other older visual art forms and writing, there might have been more of an argument, but an argument weighing photography over writing would not have had much force. Recent trends and societal patterns have a huge influence on how we view different art forms, alone and in combination.
I don’t think that writing will ever be “replaced” with photography and film, even though I have heard some people say this. Despite the growing popularity in photography and film, writing is such an integral force even in images (Facebook, for example) and things such as television advertisements. Written language is such an important way of communicating information that it should not be undervalued. Photography can often stand alone, and there is great value to the individual’s own interpretation of a photograph without added textual information. However, text allows us to talk about photographs from a historical and cultural perspective, as well as enabling us to discus where photographs lie theoretically in the arena of art. Without text and verbal discussion, I think that art just wouldn’t be as interesting, and art theory wouldn’t exist. The appreciation of art would be something that people never discussed, but experienced only in isolation. We could never branch out of our own interpretations and learn through others, thus limited in the knowledge we could gain.
It is strange to me that he discusses creating text as mainly an act of “saying something worse,” or being used because the picture doesn’t say enough on its own, but then also discusses the writing process as “opening a vein,” which is very personal, intimate, and expressive. Adams seems to have ambiguous feelings about text, but writes mainly to say that words are inferior to images. However, it seems that he has much more to say, and that his actual experience with text and photography is more complex. I would have appreciated it if he had gone into a deeper and more philosophical argument about text and its relationship to photography, rather than discounting text so outright. This is good for prompting debate on the subject, but it also seems like he is a very intellectual person sidestepping the challenge of delving into the relationship deeper. I would have been more interested in reading a more complex evaluation of the different ways text and photography have been used in conjunction with each other.
I found the “Genius of Photography” video that we watched to be incredibly interesting – mostly, seeing how high-end photography and the business of auctioning works. I didn’t know that this was so organized and expensive a business, and this film clarified a lot for me. I liked that it discussed the differences in value between images printed through an actual piece of film by the photographer (“vintage prints”) and images copied from other prints. I also found the part where the photograph from the early 20th century sold for 2.6 million to be fascinating – due to the rarity of this print, as well as the rarity of photographs using this early technique.
I thought it was interesting that this very recent increase in the value of photography is largely attributable to the baby boomer generation that grew up with the explosion in photography, who have now become adults involved in the purchasing of famous and valuable photographs. The technological boom and commercialization of photography caused more widespread appreciation for the medium. The baby boomers grew up in this age of appreciation, and really allowed photography to become accepted as an art. Even photographs that had been taken much earlier on and were not considered art are now deemed not just valuable art, but incredibly important from a cultural and historical perspective.
In thinking about the reading and the film together, prior to the 60’s or 70’s, photography generally was not considered a higher art form than writing. It is only after the rather recent popularization of photography that an argument like Adams would even be considered. If the argument was between painting/other older visual art forms and writing, there might have been more of an argument, but an argument weighing photography over writing would not have had much force. Recent trends and societal patterns have a huge influence on how we view different art forms, alone and in combination.
I don’t think that writing will ever be “replaced” with photography and film, even though I have heard some people say this. Despite the growing popularity in photography and film, writing is such an integral force even in images (Facebook, for example) and things such as television advertisements. Written language is such an important way of communicating information that it should not be undervalued. Photography can often stand alone, and there is great value to the individual’s own interpretation of a photograph without added textual information. However, text allows us to talk about photographs from a historical and cultural perspective, as well as enabling us to discus where photographs lie theoretically in the arena of art. Without text and verbal discussion, I think that art just wouldn’t be as interesting, and art theory wouldn’t exist. The appreciation of art would be something that people never discussed, but experienced only in isolation. We could never branch out of our own interpretations and learn through others, thus limited in the knowledge we could gain.
After reading and discussing the Robert Adam's "Why People Photograph?" I am still undecided on what I believe about text and photography. Adam's seemed to believe and would possibly agree with the statement that text does not belong with photography. He believes that the text takes away from the photo and that the photo should speak for itself.
In the reading he states" the main reason that artists don't willingly describe or explain what they produce is, however, that the minute they do so they've admitted failure. Words are proof that the vision they had is not, in the opinion of some at least, fully there in the picture. Charactering in words what they thought they'd shown is an acknowledgement that the photograph is unclear-that it is not art." This statement basically shows that Adams feels as if the text supplied with the photograph makes the photo no longer art because it had to be explained and the picture could not speak for itself.
I understand what Adams is saying because I think photos should be perceived in the eye of the viewer. I don't feel like the picture should make someone feel one exact way or about it and they should have the right to interpret and take away from the picture whatever they please. However, I do believe that text can help explain a photo in some cases. It can get across the message that the photographer wanted to portray in his/her photo. As discussed in class yesterday, the text in the photos about Kareem Abdul-Jabar and snow white played a vital role in the understanding of them as well as the Paul Fusco RFK image. Too much text can take away from the photo or make it see as if the photographer is creating fluff or unnecessary detail but in many cases it enriches the viewers experience with the photograph.
Also the documentary we viewed in class yesterday showed me just how far photography has come. The fact that it could not get into the New York Times newspaper in its early stages to it now being the catalyst of photos selling for millions of dollars amazes me. It makes me wonder how far photography will grow in the future if these changes happened in the matter of 30 years.
Robert Adams Photographs and Wirtings
Robert Adams perspective is that Photographs and writings do not go together. He believes this because he feels that writing takes away from what the reader should actually get from looking at the photograph along with their imagination.
However, from my perspective I believe that a Photograph can be more benefitial from the writing. I believe this because the writing helps the reader understand what the photograph is about as the reader is looking at the photograph.
Also after watching the docmentary in class yesterday, I acquired an understanding into the history of photography. I also learned that duplicated photographs are not vaued as much as the original photograph.
This is my perspective on both the documentary and Robert Adams perspective on photographs and writings.
However, from my perspective I believe that a Photograph can be more benefitial from the writing. I believe this because the writing helps the reader understand what the photograph is about as the reader is looking at the photograph.
Also after watching the docmentary in class yesterday, I acquired an understanding into the history of photography. I also learned that duplicated photographs are not vaued as much as the original photograph.
This is my perspective on both the documentary and Robert Adams perspective on photographs and writings.
Yesterdays Class
I found it very interesting the views Robert Adams had towards text and photography. In the sense that its either one or the other instead of both of them combined. I really believe that the fact that there is text in a photograph apart from helping describe the photo it gives it more meaning to it. It maybe tries to prove a stronger point on emphasize the photograph on some specific thing.
Text and Photography: Never the twain shall meet?
Reading the Adams piece was a rather visceral experience for me, as an artist myself who has had to write about my own work for public perusal. Writing about your own artwork is a chore. Often, you aren't sure what your original intention was, or if it even has any relevance to the work you produced. Perhaps you did not start out with an intention and developed content in the production process. Or you may want to leave a piece vague and ambiguous so that the audience can read into it what they will.
And this is fine. Artwork does not always require text - magazines, newspapers, and other mass media flood us with images that very well speak for themselves, and the text only serves to fill in the details or tell what is happening outside the scene. However, art sometimes does require text - either to enlarge its content or to provide a context so that the viewer can locate themselves within a piece. This text does not need to be entirely explicit about the artist's intentions - it can meerly state where the piece, who or what it is of, or how the artist came across the particular subject. As mundane as this information may seem, it can completely explode what a piece of artwork is, while still allowing a viewer to read their own narrative into the work.
Additionally, I have been trained to find visual cues in an image and read meaning into them. I can develop elaborate stories about images I know nothing about. But, for the general public, this activity may not come so easily. A person that is not familiar with artist motifs or art history may find an image powerful, but still be at a loss as to why they are drawn to it and are thus denied the full experience of appreciating an image. By denying context to these viewers, and insisting that art can only be appreciated by artists, is a disappointingly elitist stance and one that I am vehemently opposed to.
Adams may not entirely devalue text, but it seems as if he has not fully explored the manner in which it can be utilized to enrich an image. Perhaps he should go talk to someone who is not an artist once in a while.
Concerning the small portion of the documentary that we viewed last night, I was most struck by the comodification of artists and their photographs, particularly in the way that some images can sell for elaborate sums but during the artist's time their work was completely undervalued. It seems as if antiquity and distance give photographs their value, displacing them from their context and elevating mediocre images into expensive masterpieces (not to say any of the images in the film were mediocre). It was also strange to see the artist at the end of the film, who created his style and intention in his native land, but was then appropriated to a high class New York audience, completely removed from the people he was photographing, and in the end turned into a fashion trend. Once again, it seems the distance and exotic nature of the artist was what gave his images such appeal.
And this is fine. Artwork does not always require text - magazines, newspapers, and other mass media flood us with images that very well speak for themselves, and the text only serves to fill in the details or tell what is happening outside the scene. However, art sometimes does require text - either to enlarge its content or to provide a context so that the viewer can locate themselves within a piece. This text does not need to be entirely explicit about the artist's intentions - it can meerly state where the piece, who or what it is of, or how the artist came across the particular subject. As mundane as this information may seem, it can completely explode what a piece of artwork is, while still allowing a viewer to read their own narrative into the work.
Additionally, I have been trained to find visual cues in an image and read meaning into them. I can develop elaborate stories about images I know nothing about. But, for the general public, this activity may not come so easily. A person that is not familiar with artist motifs or art history may find an image powerful, but still be at a loss as to why they are drawn to it and are thus denied the full experience of appreciating an image. By denying context to these viewers, and insisting that art can only be appreciated by artists, is a disappointingly elitist stance and one that I am vehemently opposed to.
Adams may not entirely devalue text, but it seems as if he has not fully explored the manner in which it can be utilized to enrich an image. Perhaps he should go talk to someone who is not an artist once in a while.
Concerning the small portion of the documentary that we viewed last night, I was most struck by the comodification of artists and their photographs, particularly in the way that some images can sell for elaborate sums but during the artist's time their work was completely undervalued. It seems as if antiquity and distance give photographs their value, displacing them from their context and elevating mediocre images into expensive masterpieces (not to say any of the images in the film were mediocre). It was also strange to see the artist at the end of the film, who created his style and intention in his native land, but was then appropriated to a high class New York audience, completely removed from the people he was photographing, and in the end turned into a fashion trend. Once again, it seems the distance and exotic nature of the artist was what gave his images such appeal.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Collaboration has always been my favorite method of production - work always turns out so much more enriching and fulfilling when it is drawn together from the consciousness of more than one individual. I loved hearing the interplay between Colby's photographic investigations and Bernard's literary ones. I've been creating graphics for nearly a decade now, so I have delved into issues of text as decoration, visual stimuli, and commentary on the image. However, I loved working hands on with these two media and seeing the way that they could collage together to create an entirely different message. I look forward to completing the photomontages tonight.
I have always been, and will always be, an enormous fan of Dadaism and Surrealism. They were the two movements that pushed me into entirely new realms in my own artisitic process. One of the major facets of both movements that I am drawn to is the spontenaity and subconcious decision making involved in creating a work, and these two issues were highlighted in the exquist corpse exercise. I've participated in the game through drawing before, but never through text, but I am still deligted at the way in which meaning and connotations appear from entirely seperate agendas. In high school I would spend ages with my friends passing around a sketchbook where each person could only add one element into the picture, and the results always became far more imaginative and entertaining than anything any one person could create. I am also pleased that we are engaging in these creative acts in class, because it will provide a much richer perspective through which to view the work we are analyzing and studying.
I have always been, and will always be, an enormous fan of Dadaism and Surrealism. They were the two movements that pushed me into entirely new realms in my own artisitic process. One of the major facets of both movements that I am drawn to is the spontenaity and subconcious decision making involved in creating a work, and these two issues were highlighted in the exquist corpse exercise. I've participated in the game through drawing before, but never through text, but I am still deligted at the way in which meaning and connotations appear from entirely seperate agendas. In high school I would spend ages with my friends passing around a sketchbook where each person could only add one element into the picture, and the results always became far more imaginative and entertaining than anything any one person could create. I am also pleased that we are engaging in these creative acts in class, because it will provide a much richer perspective through which to view the work we are analyzing and studying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)