On 25/05/12 00:59, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> I think we actually see*with intent* in a way no machine can (yet anyway). So there's some overtone of the seen that shifts& changes minutely as we look that a shot doesnt get. Do the photo is often really beautiful but still isnt quite what i 'saw'...?
The above to me, rather well, describes photography failing as an art
and simply being a static documentation. Most, if not all the photos I
found simply illustrated. Sure, I could read the light, so to speak, but
this did not convince me they were good art photos, in my expectations.
An art photo, however, does shift and change. It needs to do this, so as
to give a photo that something extra that makes it poetry and art. The
dynamics and movement is not perceived or is an imperceptible becoming.
An art photo constantly changes, despite the camera and film, or
electronics being used. This becoming is also preserved; more essential
poetics. But here I am putting demands on photography that I wouldn't
expect most others to follow. For me, using a large format monorail
camera with B&W film, or a cheap point and shoot digital and image
manipulation on a cheap netbook and gimp should both be able to do this.
So the machine or mechanism itself cannot make it or is independent of
the medium, making an art photo a miracle. Hence the difficulty of using
a camera to make art, which is still considered a minor art... but then
writing poetry is just as demanding.
anyway, just an extra comment on what is becoming more and more the link
between poetry and art photography, again for me. (Always this dread off
imposing my poetics...)
|