Straight up stupid thread.

craig · Oct 19, 2005

I was not kidding with the title of the thread. What is the relationship between 2d and 3d art may be a better way to put it.

I would also like to argue that some rap is like Shakespeare. Rap is very lyrical and there is a different word for everything.

Marctwo · Oct 19, 2005

I don't think theatre is about the third dimension. Is a 3D film the same as theatre to you? No, theatre has an atmosphere of it's own.

Booming footsteps accross the stage, dodgy caked on makeup and wig mesh, the clatter of stage hands in the wings, the nervous tension of a live show, the pomp and ceremony of the tabs, the magic of the transformation scene, the mystique of the flies, the shifting bellows on the back-clothe...

deb · Oct 19, 2005

I don't subscribe to the notion that the main element of a live performance is the 3d nature of the set, Instead, the art is in the ability and presentation of the director and cast.

However, what constitutes the art is irrelevant. In the case of a live performance, each moment is a fleeting event, only presented once in a given form. The 2d art (photography) is a way to stop the action and capture a given moment forever.

'Daniel' · Oct 19, 2005

As photographers do we consider that live is a thousand times more brilliant then film.

Yes life is better, however hptographs can serve as pieces that help you rmeember an event or gives evveryone lese a chance to experience that event through the interpretation of film.

Photographs don't caputure everything in the moment but sometimes that is a good thing. Just like in theatre or film you don't have to see people go to the toilet. Not everything is neccesary or even wanted to convey something.

Real Life is good, capturing a part of real life allows other peoplet o experience although not in it's entirety sometimes that is a bad thing sometiems a good.

panzershreck · Oct 19, 2005

just different crafts that achieve different things

same as arguing which is better - B&W film or color film, well color film would be better for X number of things... and B&W film would be better for X number of things... some may be the same, many are not...

there is no absolute, they're all equally superior and inferior

DocFrankenstein · Oct 19, 2005

craig said:
As I work with actors and incredible sets I see that film is pointless in capturing moments that are truly three dimensional

1) Take the on-camera flash off
2) Position it at an angle to the subject

I apologize for the banality of the answer, but you feel it yourself - your argument is invalid.

craig · Oct 20, 2005

Excellent replies! Definetly a tough deal to understand. Let us say that you go to this incredible show. Sensory over load for close to an hour and a half. As photographers is that something we consider? (hence the title of the thread) Of course you could go to a great opening for 5 hours or see a building size photo. Is photography limited in the sensory overload department? No is the imediate answer, but some how I am not sure.