Great analysis Manuel, it's been a pleasure to read it!
I think they are many good points raised there and the general argument of
why we better pursue a more technically 'pure' photo is very strong.
I'll just emphasise that It is indeed a very thin and blurred line between
'defect' and 'artistic intent', which is literally resolved only in the eyes
of the viewer and within particular canons -which of course are contested
and flexible, they do change socio-historically (both the viewer's way of
seeing and the art-canon or 'cultural fashion' let's say)
And I shall add, that maybe this is why, after some time photographing all
those strange contested realities around me, that I ended up to mostly
appreciate the subjective expressions of what others 'feel' (good or bad)
and how interact with a photo. I've actually lost interest to satisfy the
general public, or prove and follow allegedly 'good' ways of making
photography :)
And actually, to move to a relevant issue, how I also wish that one day I
will spend (should I say waste) no time at all deliberating about better
equipment in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc...
It is strange how much time we, the photographers, spend in these endless,
often empty discussions. Not only because the photographer is not made by a
camera, or that the criteria to judge are relevant as we said above, or that
by manifesting technical ability in however easily reproducible works -as
seen mostly around us- does not add any real interest or creativity... But
also because the communicative and expressive quality of a photograph, which
I think this can not really captured in neat arguments, (it is lived and
experienced), this is what matters!
It's a small miracle when it happens.. usually it affects few people each
time -(although some geniuses have made photos who communicate almost
universally)... and it makes me a believer when I can produce such
instances.. I'll keep trying :)
regards
Christos
n have found from experience that for some dinosaur After all we better not
forget that it's the subjective enjoyment
On 4/15/06, Manuel Viet <oly@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Le samedi 15 Avril 2006 09:14, Christos Stavrou a écrit:
>
> > For me, the starting premise is that photography is (and should be) not
> a
> > representation..
>
> I can't agree more with your philosophy. But personaly, now firstly I tend
> to
> avoid as much as possible any physical defect of the film. It's easy to
> simulate anything from vignetting to grain with a picture processing
> software, hence I like to keep open the field of possibilities. Secondly,
> I
> have a feeling that when an effect is to much akin to a defect, the
> artistic
> intention is not very clear to the public, and you're easily mistaken with
> a
> poor photograph. And finaly, I find that those easy tricks all have this
> "je
> ne sais quoi" of "déjà vu" that lessen the viewing experience. Why limit
> yourself to a simulacre of existing defect where you can, for instance,
> put
> the vignetting off-center to emphasize a particular spot ? Or have 2
> different zones in your picture ?
>
> > Of course opinions may differ in this inherently debated and always
> > subjective issue.
>
> Of course ; the most important consideration in a hobby should always be
> to
> please yourself first. But I noticed that exchanging with people who've
> been
> there, done that before me had a very positive impact on my work.
>
> --
> Manuel Viet
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|