What's up with the blur and grain?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How about these classic photos by Robert Capa?

http://www.mcdigitalphotography.com/...otography.html

[Michael R 1974]

I don't think art has to "say" anything. A great work of art can be highly communicative, evocative etc, or it can be nothing more than pure aesthetics, and anything in between. I consider everything I see on its own merits. I might just love looking at something, even if it has no other "levels" to it. That's good enough to be great art in my opinion. It can be a blurry, grainy print, or a technical photographic masterpiece, or an office building, or Guernica, or a carpet pattern. If it excites me, it's great. If it doesn't, I don't care what it says or doesn't say. That's all there is to it. Only my opinion, of course. Many would disagree. Picasso certainly would, as he differentiated between what he considered true art and decoration. I don't care.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't think art has to "say" anything.

I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[horacekenneth]

I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I almost think this is the definition of bad art. If five people look at my work and each comes away with something that is totally different than what I was trying to communicate then I didn't do a good job. I think technique is subservient even to this. The merits of the sample truck picture to me are not whether or not the camera was on a tripod and developed so as to minimize grain, the merits are in first does it communicate what the author intended, and then second, is it a good message.

[Michael R 1974]

What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?

By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?

[horacekenneth]

What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?

By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?

I don't understand, you say that every photograph says something and then you turn around ask does there always have to be a message. It seems like you answered that one for yourself. There always is a message.

Showing people the world as you see it IS a message. You can't not communicate something, and trying not to is a message in itself. Therefore, I would say that good art is art that communicates a good message well, and bad art communicates poorly or communicates something wrong.

[Michael R 1974]

I probably didn't explain myself very well and confused the issue. When I say "seeing" I'm just refering to visual perception. I'm saying there doesn't have to be a conscious message or statement, that different viewers might therefore easily come away with entirely different interpretations and thoughts, and that this doesn't mean it is bad art.

[rwreich]

One makes an image to show, but to whom? Is a photographer simply providing an alibi, proving one's own existence? On APUG, I've heard people say, "It's all about the print." If this is true, then photography is the tangible expression of perspective in moments past. A photograph doesn't have to 'say' something, rather, it only needs to encounter a viewer. It is during this event, the simultaneous existence between viewer and photograph, that the artist is able to communicate from the first person.

That sounds wicked cheesy, but it's how I feel about photography right now.

[jnanian]

maybe whats up with the blur and the grain is
that the photographer<s> in question are tired
of making clinical looking photographs.
tired of HCB, tired of atget, tired of weston and adams
and he/<they> want to use other aspects of photography
that the hcb, atget, weston, adams &al. group might have overlooked?


at least whoever it might be who "you don't want to out" has you and others talking about aspects of photography that might
not be in your comfort zone. and that is always a good thing ... i think it is laughable when people refer to people
who do things they don't understand or like as "idiots"




----

Oh please!

my thoughts exactly

[markbarendt]

I react more on the bad exposure/development than the actual blur, even a blurry picture can indeed tell a story, but why make things worse....

One effect of sharp visible grain is that it gives our eyes something sharp to latch onto.