 |
 |
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...)