It's interesting how aged, opinionated farts can pass judgement over an entire industry which is doing rather well. (Because of the internet, sales of fine art photography have never been higher.)
Art is simply the action of selecting an object for persual outside its original context. As long as man chooses to do this with a camera photographic art can never die.
The idea that the camera never lies is false (and has always been false)
so any pretence of greater 'truth' in photography over other art is also false. I'd say that is pretty accurate.
So - if you throw away photography's one redeming feature - that of showing the 'truth' then what do you have left ? Painting can always go further in to the imaginative world than photography ever can - so photography is a more constrained so less interesting medium, just by the narrower horizons. The one advantage or at least percieved advantage of truth (which I believe was never true) is just being erroded in the popular conciousness by the various applications of maniupulation for images.
I think photography's other "redeeming feature" is that it allows those of us with an esthetic vision, but limited hand-eye coordination or mobility, to create a tangible representation of that vision to share with others.
This of course is a "bug" and not a feature to those who make their living selling "art," and oppose any dilution of the market or devaluing of their talent.
The idea that the camera never lies is false (and has always been false)
so any pretence of greater 'truth' in photography over other art is also false. I'd say that is pretty accurate.
So - if you throw away photography's one redeming feature - that of showing the 'truth' then what do you have left ? Painting can always go further in to the imaginative world than photography ever can - so photography is a more constrained so less interesting medium, just by the narrower horizons. The one advantage or at least percieved advantage of truth (which I believe was never true) is just being erroded in the popular conciousness by the various applications of maniupulation for images.
You do a better job in making a summary of the article then the journalist did. I think the heading of the article making the statements about the truth in paintings versus photographs is not a good representation of what Hockney ment, yours is better.
By the way : Did you know that Hockney was involved (or even initiating) the theory that the classic master painters used a lens to project an image of their subjects on the canvas and then paint the outlines in order to get a accurate representation of their subject ? And that he used the same technique himself ?
Isn't that a great mix of photography and painting ?
Hockney certianly has contributed to the world of art, that is undeniable. His most recent theory which seems to get reduced to which is better - photography or painting - is to me unanswerable, hardly worth considering because the mixture of the two is so pervasive. I don't really see it as part of his basic proposal, which to me is that the lens is more significant to art history than most assume. Definitely an idea worth discussing. He has shown examples from the past, but also from his own work. He obviously is promoting the idea that his preference as an artist is to focus on a visual result rather than a set of tools. I see his statement as his view of how the two media interact. Hockney is a painter, he draws, and he uses every tool available to him, but mostly his mind.
I think photography's other "redeeming feature" is that it allows those of us with an esthetic vision, but limited hand-eye coordination or mobility, to create a tangible representation of that vision to share with others.
Agreed, and it's perfect for those of us that can see what we like, but can't draw it. My painting skills are on a 1st grade level at best but I'm really good at pressing a button!
