The Art World is Afraid of Photography

Here is a link to an article that made me think of the title to this thread. There are many other links to the same.

http://www.petapixel.c​om …-that-painting-possesses/


My take on this subject is rather simple.

1. Painting and Photography are not the same, hence maybe should not be compared in such a manner.

2. Photographers and others making photographs are not looking to surpass painting. They are simply expressing their own thoughts and feelings.


My father used to tell me that people who denigrate others are unsure of themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, painters could grab a camera and make photographs, learning how photographers exhilarate in the experience, while suffering through the process trying to capture exactly what they felt.

pbelarge wrote in post #15412411
...
My take on this subject is rather simple.

1. Painting and Photography are not the same, hence maybe should not be compared in such a manner.

2. Photographers and others making photographs are not looking to surpass painting. They are simply expressing their own thoughts and feelings.


My father used to tell me that people who denigrate others are unsure of themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, painters could grab a camera and make photographs, learning how photographers exhilarate in the experience, while suffering through the process trying to capture exactly what they felt.

If they should not be compared then maybe they should not do both ..
Digital 21st century photo is greatly reduced in art form and sensitivity from previous photo generations.
Mainly due to "21st Century Machine Gun Shooters with fully automatic cameras - a gear head mentality."
Kinda like the mass shooters today with automatic weapons and this forum and world is full of them.
Much more a mass commodity today.
So if any comparisons are made it should prob be modern day photos to previous and so for paintings.
Let each stand or fall on their own merrits ..

Oh great, the mega hub of the art world London.... They are idiots. Don't they know that today's artists, painters, rarely paint anything realistically. Is post modern. These idiots are comparing painting done over 100 years ago, possibility nothing new of that genres would ever be produced by today's generation of painters, to photography. A art discipline that can still produce some sense of realism. There is a difference between a dead art form style versus a living one.

You can spend your entire life admiring a dead art form or style. It is another to know how to appreciate a living, breathing art form.

The truth is that very few photographers have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings.

That is a patently silly statement.

There are many thousands, perhaps millions, more "photographers" than there ever hav ebeen painters (whether we categorize "amateurs" and "professionals" or not), so it's probably true that "few" of those millions of photographers "have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings."

But it's also true that few of the painters that have ever lived "have ever produced images with the weight of thought and feeling found in the greatest paintings. "

Once you create the category of "greatest," you've already put them into the category of "few."

The camera is certainly an artistic tool, and photos can certainly be works of art. But can they be works of art of the same order as paintings? Modern critical orthodoxy would say yes. But the real answer is no. Photography lacks the depth and heft, the thinking sense of touch, that painting possesses.

So the author disagrees with "modern critical orthodoxy." Big woop. I think there will be many photographers whose work will persist long after he and his article are long forgotten.

OTOH, most salable paintings do sell for more than photographs, even at the "retail" level.

Even painters discuss the phenomenon with regard to different other mediums: Why does an oil painting fetch more money than a watercolor, and that more money than a pencil sketch?

It boils down more to the consumer attaching value to "sweat" than to "depth and heft, the thinking sense of touch, that painting possesses."

That is why the greatest images of the last 150 years– the images people argue about, contest, return to again and again – are not photographs but paintings.

Umm, no. Certainly not all people, not beyond those who deliberately confine their interests to paintings.

It goes even deeper than that into the subject matter of what you draw, let alone the medium, landscape painting is considered the lowest form of art, followed by still life, portraiture, composition and gallery composition at the top. The latter is especially hard, because how many artists can turn out masterpieces consisting of complex subject matter, on a regular and consistent basis? Maybe a couple in this day and age.

In comparison, photography generally requires the same amount of time and energy investment regardless of the subject matter: Landscape photographers need to travel, but don't need extravagant equipment besides a good camera and lens; studio photographers don't need to travel, but need a good studio space with equipment; sports photographers need expensive gear and the rights to shoot from the front row, and so on. It always requires an investment of some kind, just different kinds to suit different people, but rarely is one kind of photography dramatically more taxing than another; except maybe wedding photography, though the payoff is also so much greater to make it potentially worth it to some.

Oh, and the art world is not afraid of photography, in fact, without it a lot of artists would be in quite a fix you see... I shoot art reproductions professionally, which means I essentially create a perfect digital copy of an artist's work that they can use for everything including magazines and catalogs, to creating full-on copies of the art work. It would quite daunting for any artist, even a master, to actually paint their pieces from scratch if someone wanted a copy.

pbelarge wrote in post #15412411
Here is a link to an article that made me think of the title to this thread. There are many other links to the same.

http://www.petapixel.c​om …-that-painting-possesses/


My take on this subject is rather simple.

1. Painting and Photography are not the same, hence maybe should not be compared in such a manner.

2. Photographers and others making photographs are not looking to surpass painting. They are simply expressing their own thoughts and feelings.


My father used to tell me that people who denigrate others are unsure of themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, painters could grab a camera and make photographs, learning how photographers exhilarate in the experience, while suffering through the process trying to capture exactly what they felt.

This argument was settled almost a century ago and it was called straight photography. Its when photography moved away from pictorial photography which was trying to imitate paintings of the time (impressionism/post impressionism). Photography had to find its own voice and do the things that only it could do that painting or other art forms couldn't do. Many painters did do just that and became photographers. Bresson being one of the more notable.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15413471
This argument was settled almost a century ago and it was called straight photography. Its when photography moved away from pictorial photography which was trying to imitate paintings of the time (impressionism/post impressionism). Photography had to find its own voice and do the things that only it could do that painting or other art forms couldn't do. Many painters did do just that and became photographers. Bresson being one of the more notable.

The article writer is saying as much, except that he doesn't consider "the things that only [photography] could do that painting or other art forms couldn't do" ever to be "art."

RDKirk wrote in post #15413563
The article writer is saying as much, except that he doesn't consider "the things that only [photography] could do that painting or other art forms couldn't do" ever to be "art."

He would be wrong and history would be on my side of this argument.

Three words: "Warhol's Campbell's Soup"

Well I guess I'm just naive, but as a painter and a photographer, photography is just as much art to me as painting is. I love the feeling of running that paint brush over canvas. For me personally, there is something deeply relaxing about the act of painting, far more than photography. I love taking pictures, but painting just does something entirely different for me that I can't even put words to.

Norman Rockwell photographed most of his iconic scenes before he painted them.

Next Issue Please...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #15415051
Norman Rockwell photographed most of his iconic scenes before he painted them.

Next Issue Please...

I suspect that guy would say that Norman Rockwell was merely an "illustrator," not a "painter."

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15413471
This argument was settled almost a century ago and it was called straight photography. Its when photography moved away from pictorial photography which was trying to imitate paintings of the time (impressionism/post impressionism). Photography had to find its own voice and do the things that only it could do that painting or other art forms couldn't do. Many painters did do just that and became photographers. Bresson being one of the more notable.

I found a great video on youtube on Alfred Stieglitz, it's the best hour and a half a photographer could spend on youtube IMO.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=PNn6H4SEgQc

All I've read about him came to life in this video, the interview with Georgia O'Keefe is worth the watch alone. He was not only a genius but also very human, with all that comes with that.

For those who don't know he was, as much as anyone, responsible for elevating photography to be accepted as art. He also introduced modern expressionist art, among other forms, to America. Just to top it off he was one of the first to recognize the genius of a young Ansel Adams.

I think the subject of this post - The Art World is Afraid of Photography - misses the point of the linked article in which the author, Andrew Graham-Dixon, clearly expresses his feelings when he writes:

"But can they be works of art of the same order as paintings? ... the real answer is no. Photography lacks the depth and heft, the thinking sense of touch, that painting possesses."

In my daily interactions with "painters" I have not experienced fear as much as a loathing, a disdain, an arrogance.

In the brick and mortar gallery environment, there are many painters who treat the presence of photographs in the same room with their "works of art" as one would feel after being raped and taking multiple showers to rid oneself of the filth and disgust.

Seriously - some react that strongly. Others (painters) go along with the flow, allowing photography to be called "art" because it's politically-correct, but digging deep reveals the same loathing.

The same holds true with buyers. There are those who will buy a work, painting or photograph, because they like it. But the so-called "art enthusiasts" (i.e. "collectors") would hardly be caught dead with a photograph hanging in their houses. Doing so would bring them shame and embarrassment. To them, photographs are for commoners, painting are for aristocrats.

But no, it's not all driven by fear. It's driven by arrogance.

pbelarge wrote in post #15412411
Here is a link to an article that made me think of the title to this thread. There are many other links to the same.

http://www.petapixel.c​om …-that-painting-possesses/


My take on this subject is rather simple.

1. Painting and Photography are not the same, hence maybe should not be compared in such a manner.

2. Photographers and others making photographs are not looking to surpass painting. They are simply expressing their own thoughts and feelings.


My father used to tell me that people who denigrate others are unsure of themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, painters could grab a camera and make photographs, learning how photographers exhilarate in the experience, while suffering through the process trying to capture exactly what they felt.

I agree, or consider the new art paradigm of Photoshop where photography and painting merge together in one happy digital medium