Comments on: Is digital finally emerging from its chrysalis? Quo vadis, photography?

By: eva

eva — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:15:15 +0000

That reminded me about Man Ray and what he said quite some times ago:
“There are purists in all forms of expression. There are photographers who maintain that this medium has no relation to painting. There are painters who despise photography, although in the last century have been inspired by it and used it. There are architects who refuse to hang a painting in their buildings maintaining that their own work is a complete expression. In the same spirit, when the automobile arrived, there were those that declared the horse to be the most perfect form of locomotion.

All these attitudes result from a fear that the one will replace the other. Nothing of the kind happened. We have simply increased our range, our vocabulary. I see no one trying to abolish the automobile because we have the airplane.

I was very fortunate in starting my career as a painter. When first confronted with a camera, I was very much intimidated. So I decided to investigate.
But I maintained the approach of a painter to such a degree that I have been accused of trying to make a photograph look like a painting. I did not have to try, it just turned out that way because of my background and training. Many years ago I had conceived the idea of making a painting look like a photograph! There was a valid reason for this. I wished to distract the attention from any manual dexterity, so that the basic idea stood out. Of course there will always be those who look at works with a magnifying glass and try to see “how”, instead of using their brains and figure out “why”. A book was once published of twenty photographs by twenty photographers, of the same model. They were as different as twenty paintings of the same model. Which was proof, once and for all, of the flexibility of the camera and its validity as an instrument of expression. There are many paintings and buildings that are not works of art. It is the man behind whatever instrument who determines the work of art.

Some of the most complete and satisfying works of art have been produced when their authors had no idea of creating a work of art, but were concerned with the expression of an idea. Nature does not create works of art. It is we, and the faculty of interpretation peculiar to the human mind, that see art.”

For me digital photography opened up new possibilities. I don’t have to take them, but I know they are there just waiting for me.

By: Otago Lad

Otago Lad — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:06:05 +0000

Surely the art-science of any form of photography is all about the final image that goes up on the wall, how it got there is totally irrelevant.
I have never found anyone that has looked at the Mona Lisa and instead of appreciating the beauty of the painting discussed the type and size of brush he used and followed this through to form their opinion on the art work. Did anyone ever question Lance Armstrong saying that to be a great he should have won the Tour De France on a Penny-farthing? But is he not still one of the greatest cyclists ever. When was the last time that you picked up a telephone and cranked the handle and talked to the operator? But we still call the portable devices we have today a telephone.
Would all the greats of the past have chosen film over digital or the other way around had when they made their first decision on purchase been able to choose from the finest film or digital camera.
We often forget that a camera is a tool not a lifestyle choice.

By: Tony Bridge

Tony Bridge — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:50:04 +0000

Hi Meg:
yes, I guess I could be saying that. Or not.
What I am saying is that it offers the opportunity t od this if we wish. Assuming that we accept that, because of the possibilities that it offers, picture making with a digital camera is a differnet and therefore unique process, we free ourselves to tak e it in new directions. Should we so choose.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:51:06 +0000

Maybe the question is really more related to the author than the output; are we photographers or artists?? (or maybe in your case Tony, interpreter….) Meg, looks like maybe that’s just what you do have and probably no differently than Man Ray or Alvin Langdon Coburn in his explorations… just more sophisticated. Begs the question still – are we photographers or artists, or interpreters?

By: meg

meg — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:33:04 +0000

Hmmmmm….. so you’re saying I’m assuming I have a camera? when actually it’s a big black plastic painbrush and my computer and programmes are the paint box/pastels/watercolour/different media?

By: BB

BB — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:54:51 +0000

Dear Tony
Well, your friend didn’t tell ME he now has a new Nikon when we talked yesterday! I will have to show him your post so he knows he is now famous in the bloggin world – and incognito!

This is a great post which questions where photography is and is not and where is it going!. We will not immediately see or know the answers but time will help ‘develop’ where this medium travels.

Hope the Easter Bunny comes to your place!

By: henry

henry — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:27:19 +0000

Tony, you’ve written an article that gets to the crux of how we make our pictures – emphasising the differences between film based picture taking and digital picture making – the penultimate paragraph needs banner headlines!