Reproductions or photography

Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by The_Traveler, Jun 15, 2007.

  1. The_Traveler

    The_Traveler Completely Counter-dependent Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    18,105
    Likes Received:
    7,454
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic US
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I went to a gallery opening a couple of nights ago and there was photographer in the show. She was a very traditional 4 x5 B&W image kind of person and about half of her pictures were essentially straight on pictures of rather boring statuary. The rest were sort of standard 4x5 fare - technically excellent pictures of buildings or storefronts reproduced in exquisite detail.

    I must admit that the incredible reception, almost awe, these pictures evoked puzzled me.

    Is perfect reproduction, without necessarily added meaning, an artistic end in itself? (you know, swings, tilts, platinum prints etc.)

    And how does this apply to pictures of existing art?
     
  2. DigitalDiva

    DigitalDiva TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    4x5 is all about the detail. It's not always so easy to do and if she went through the process of taking the photos, developing the negs and prints and THOSE are worthy of showing, then I say good for her.

    I do not find most subjective photos interesting. I want something more from photos. Composition and technical perfection (or close to it). A photo of a building is fine...but I want something that is going to make me want to look again and again. There must be something in the photo that forces me to remember it. Otherwise it's like thousands of other bits of information I see in a day and handily discard in my memory banks' rubbish bin.
     
  3. Mike_E

    Mike_E No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,327
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    The Upper West Side of Mississippi (you have no i
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Have you ever been to a comedy club and not felt the least bit obligated to laugh? I went to an opening for a sculptor once and everyone was standing near the bar looking -enraptured even- at a fountain he had done. I wanted to see the rest of it so I walked around behind it. Sure enough, everyone walked around to where I had been and stood there looking. I laughed at them that night but I should have thanked them, they were performing for me and didn't know it.

    The expertise shown in the process is worthy of respect but I would not call it art unless the processing was done as a performance.

    In my estimation a copy of something is only a copy. I don't own a Monet but if I had a copy of one of his works it would remind me of his life, times and trials in preparation for viewing the image, all in an instant perhaps but none the less the copy for me would represent more than just the image.

    The original oils that I do own have a presence all their own and need no further reason for their existence.

    If, however, the copy had some other bit of information that caused the original to be a part of an artistic statement then I would consider the copy to be a work of art. Work being the key here I think, if there is no work then there is no honor.

    $.02

    mike
     
  4. craig

    craig TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,600
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Hermosa Beach, CA U.S.A
    Could you post a link to the show or images of the women's work. I think all to often our personal perception of the way the image should be shot clouds an honest critique. Maybe all the images work together? Maybe the work relates to the theme of the show? Maybe these images have a historical context?

    Personally a technically good reproduction (no such thing as perfect) is only half the battle. Sometimes it is not even needed. Not saying that the shot has to "wow" me. I mostly need a sense that some thought and feeling went into the final print.

    For me photos of existing art is a no no. I mean if I got a shot of a Rodin in amazing light I still think the shot is about Rodin's piece and not my perception of it. This is not a great theory, but one I stick to none the less.

    Love & Bass
     

Share This Page