not really... they're just opening themselves up to new mediums, which we have to "learn" how to respond to. I actually wonder how university art "classes" (yes that includes photography)are taught differently than they were even 20 years ago.
do we really need to define it, why cant we just enjoy it?
Forgive me for stating the obvious...we categorize stuff so we can find it later. It is not necessary to be cognizant of the category to enjoy it on its own terms, but it can be enlightening to enjoy it in the context of other works in the same category. Just sayin.
do we really need to define it, why cant we just enjoy it?
Forgive me for stating the obvious...we categorize stuff so we can find it later. It is not necessary to be cognizant of the category to enjoy it on its own terms, but it can be enlightening to enjoy it in the context of other works in the same category. Just sayin.
unless we just want to keep arguing over it. Every single one of us can look at a picture and say "photograpgh". but yet we still need to have this debate on whether it qualifies enough.
do we really need to define it, why cant we just enjoy it?
Forgive me for stating the obvious...we categorize stuff so we can find it later. It is not necessary to be cognizant of the category to enjoy it on its own terms, but it can be enlightening to enjoy it in the context of other works in the same category. Just sayin.
unless we just want to keep arguing over it. Every single one of us can look at a picture and say "photograpgh". but yet we still need to have this debate on whether it qualifies enough.
Yea, lets not have all this 'talking about stuff'. The last 100 years of art history can go fly out the window. Photo-theory? Blah! Forget about all those chaps like Sontag and Barthes. It's a photograph! All we need is a Strobist website, turn our brains off, and follow along with the instructions and we'll be ok! Personally i love all the theory and back and forth. As long as it doesn't get in the way of actually making photographs of course. I have to admit i haven't watched the clip yet though. Will do.
Just had a read of the article. Some interesting thoughts there. Photography obviously changes as technology and concepts do, just as it always has done.
As is often the case, the article understates the amount of experimentation that has already occurred. The boundary between art and photography has been blurry since Manet painted a candid of a woman and child waiting around for a train.
As is often the case, the article understates the amount of experimentation that has already occurred. The boundary between art and photography has been blurry since Manet painted a candid of a woman and child waiting around for a train.
Considering that photography essentially evolved from a tool used by painters and other artists for centuries prior to the development of a means to chemically "fix" the image, I'd say the line was blurry long before "photography" came into being.
