Opposing Conceptions of Photgraphy

LOL :hug::

Hug it out guys! You are never going to agree on this art stuff!:lmao:

Well the trouble is that discussions of the nature of art and beauty, etc. (aesthetics) belong to the field of philosophy and art criticism. Most photographers do not have this as part of their educational background. I bet not one in 100,000 photographers has had a theory of aesthetics class as a philosophy course. So, there is simply not enough understanding of the basic vocabulary and concepts. Photographers tend to talk to other photographers, not philosophers, and so the isolation is reinforced.
 
Some of youse needs to buy a new lens to clean.

You'd almost think that you were talking about Schrödinger's dead cat. :)





It's a shame Hertz had to move along, he would have loved this. :lmao:
 
Well the trouble is that discussions of the nature of art and beauty, etc. (aesthetics) belong to the field of philosophy and art criticism. Most photographers do not have this as part of their educational background. I bet not one in 100,000 photographers has had a theory of aesthetics class as a philosophy course. So, there is simply not enough understanding of the basic vocabulary and concepts. Photographers tend to talk to other photographers, not philosophers, and so the isolation is reinforced.


Gee, Imagine that. A forum with lots of people involved with art. Graphic Artist, Art History majors, Artists in other venues that expand their vision through the art of photography and just plain ole fashion people with the good common sense they were born with.

Yeah, who would have ever thunk that us simple folks could appreciate art. It's a good thing we got us some filosophers here abouts. Why I was pert-neer ready to go out and buy me a green and orange striped shirt till I heard about aesthetics. Shoot I thought them too colors were perty together. But now I knoed better. I am gonna go out and get me one of them there filosphical dictonaries that tell you what words really mean when they don't mean what them other dictionaries say they mean. Come in right handy. ( I got a table with one leg a bit shorter than the other three. Ought to level it right up real nice.)

Well I gots to go slop the hogs now so I'll let yall photographers go back to talking about photography, which apparently you ain't got no idea as to what it's all about, being photographers an all. Yall come back now-Ya here. :mrgreen:


[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]What is the first business of philosophy? To part with self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks that he already knows. ~Epictetus, Discourses
[/FONT]
 
:clap:

Yo, thank yous fo' sayin' wut I wuz thinkin', but I'swuz at work when I done read that, and I ain't got no tiaahm to respond to no phil-o-sophical boo-sheit when I gots 20 people writtin' applications fo' a job we ain't go fo' them.

You seems like a smart redneck gryph... us un-ED-ucated puerto ricans coul' prolly learn some'in from ya'll. We ain't got NO idea wish way is up irregardless to photography an' sheit.

But hell, I juss ass' you next tiaahm I ain't under-stAND-in wuttah do. You can buss out that DIctionary an' help me tah fig-ure iT. ouT.

bowing-down-emoticon.gif


Well like my old college philosophy professor used to tell us when asked why he became a philosophy professor:

"Those that can't do - Teach. Those that can't teach - become philosophers."

He also taught us the most important words any philosopher needs to know:

"You want fries with that???" :lmao:

emoticon-0159-music.gif

I like to be in America!
O.K. by me in America!
Ev'rything free in America
For a small fee in America!


Immigrant goes to America,
Many hellos in America;
Nobody knows in America
Puerto Rico's in America!
pr.png
 
Last edited:
I reckon you folk are gettin' all prideful-like in fronts of thems that ain't gots.
 
I reckon you folk are gettin' all prideful-like in fronts of thems that ain't gots.

I'm fixing to jump from the possum fat inta the fire here I reckon, but Iens just gots ta aske... "ain't gots" what????
Hillbilly_Emoticon_by_rainbowdesigns.gif


I duu gots ta admit, I am sume prideful of my nue Sunday go ta meeting overalls. They ain't hardlie got a hole in um or a patch on em.
hillbillyfh8.gif
 
The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

I would think its obvious that photography is both of these things.

Although perspective comes into it a little bit, photos are clearly capable of capturing moments in time.

To argue that it is not possible for a photograph to be a representation of reality would be flawed thinking. Remember all the camera does is record reflections of light, the same as what our eyes see.

An example of this is forensic photography. It’s a no nonsense "just the facts" approach to photography that can even be used to determine what happened in the past, definately "a moment captured in time".

Photography is also an art form, and between different techniques and post processing, the lines between fact and fiction are easily blurred.

As we all know Photoshop in the hands of the right person can be used to alter the images in ways that distort the truth of an image.

So in summary Photography can be both art, and a representation of a moment captured in time. It just depends on the goals of the photographer and the methods used.
 
Post processing can also restore the truth of an image. Hello? White balance, sharpening, etc?
 
:lol:

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

I don't think anyone is saying that a photo captures the entire reality of a given moment. For it to do that it would have to record everything in the universe in a given time period of time

Of course a photo can not capture all possible perspectives of a scene, but a person can't even do that.

In many ways a photo is far superior to a humans ability to "remember" a moment in time. This is because a persons own beliefs, perspectives, and all that are major factors in how that memory is recorded in their brain, and eventually recalled.

A photo can capture a moment in time(at least the visual aspect), as good or better than a person can. The camera just captures light much in the same way our own vision works.

For example this person is standing in this exact place, wearing these clothes, holding this object, in this type of weather. Are these not all reality for that moment(or moments) in time?

It canno't possibly capture ALL of reality, but I don't think thats what anyone is saying. It can however "capture" at least a perspective of things in a moment of time that are in fact reality.

Of course video is capable of capturing more moments in time, and thus telling more of a story. That is only because the frames are put together to create motion, its the same concept though.

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top