I agree with the portion of the first reading that says photography doesn’t require highly trained skill, expensive lighting, or props it just takes dedication to always having your camera with you and around you. A lot of my work is done this way. I don’t really like working with a lot of props I just do my thing. Sometimes I find symmetry in my photography but most of the time i find asymmetry because I think it tends be more interesting. I find pictures with subtle framing nice but nothing in your face. A subtle frame can lead the eye down a path which is nice especially if you are trying to get the audience to feel a certain way. This reading brought up some interesting ideas and observations about being close up, continuous mode, exploration, and movement, but I really live in serendipitous photography. I love finding those little things that just work and are just in the moment. I need to be able to translate this into my everyday photography not just small occurrences.
-------------------------------
I found this second reading really boring. I think that it is still photography even if the person taking the pic didn’t mean for it to be used as art or anything like that. It doesn’t mean it isn’t a picture. Reynolds’s argument “art and work stand as mutually determining terms: art is noble and elevated, while work is vulgar and base; the artist is a free subject in contrast to the subjected worker” is what I used to think. I thought that work always had to be a cubical. There seemed to be nothing else out there that would give me a creative outlet other than being an artist but not everyone can be creative and original enough to make a living off of it. There has to be a balance of work and creativity. Ansel Adams was committed to art photography, he said it was a form of self-expression. Lady Elizabeth Eastlake said photography did best what “was beneath the doing of a real artist” photography made exact copies of things: it saved artists’ effort, labor, and time, and it freed them to concentrate on imaginative or creative work. But that isn’t true. Like the first article said anyone can take pictures but it takes a photographer to think about what they are shooting, this is the imaginative and creative works that Lady Eastlake talked about. Back on topic i still feel that even if the person taking the picture didn’t mean for it to be used as art doesn’t mean it isn’t a photo. There is a lot of talk about photos being documents like and analytical paper. They talk about documentary style photography a lot I figure this has to do with us having to document everything like our blogs and process books. They also look at photos as records rather than an interpretation or presentation of information. This article got more interesting as it went on but I don’t really like reading about photography I would rather look at the images.
No comments:
Post a Comment