Photography Moving Forward

[c6h6o3]

by Joerg Colberg

[mrred]

Should you be posting some content instead of a link?

[hoffy]

Another interesting read - there are some thought provoking comments made.

The thing that troubles me is the link to the artists - Firstly, the Gerhard Richter works I clicked on were Oils - is that photography? The Marco Bruer work - apart from the medium, what makes them a photograph?

The Matthew Brandt work was the only thing that I saw that looked like photography. Is it artistic? That is open to interpretation.

[Greg Davis]

I think that was brilliant. Hoffy, the Richter work was being mentioned as a type pf abstract painting that is similar in style as the first photographer linked to, not as a photographer himself.

[hoffy]

OK, Maybe I need to slow down when I read!

[MattKing]

I too thought that it was an interesting read.

And especially worthwhile for "No artistic risk, not art (just ask William Wegman’s dog)."

[Two23]

Interesting article, but he doesn't seem to offer any solutions.


Kent in SD

[c6h6o3]

Interesting article, but he doesn't seem to offer any solutions.


Kent in SD

The links to the photographers are his suggested directions we can move in to find a solution. I found it most interesting that he suggests that it's the analogue photographers who are leading the way into an innovatively creative future, not the digital ones.

[blansky]

Angst and navel gazing.

Writing for the sole purpose of writing something.


Firstly, painting didn't flourish because it no longer had the burden of being the record keeper since photography had taken up that task.

Total nonsense and the timeline is all wrong.

Next, photography originally developed not as an art medium but as a tool. To record something. Later, people begin to play with it's artistic potential.

Digitals first and foremost hurdle was to emulate/copy/perfect/advance/??? analog photography. If it was to replace the tools of the analog photographer, then it had to perform in much the same manner only with advantages. If there were no advantages it would have died. Only recently have people begun to play with the artistic elements of it. It's still a very young technology and changing and evolving every day.

The same minds that take analog into new and "exciting" directions, can/will/do take digital into the same realms, mainly because most photographers use both and essentially in the same manner: the brain, to the recording device, to the printed medium. Photography didn't REALLY change, only the tools changed. It is first and foremost a recording device, always was and will be. It is not a paint brush and a blank canvas. People that desire that type of medium pick up a paint brush and not a camera. You can't make riding a bicycle and driving a car the same experience. When you choose which experience you want, you choose the appropriate vehicle.

What is his bitch with archiving. Museums archive. Photographers archive. What has this got to do with creativity. That's like saying when you are sleeping you are not out shooting. Okay. But if you don't sleep you don't have the energy to go out shooting. If you don't save your work, you have no library of your work. Is archiving stopping you from being creative?

WTF has google got to do with any of this? That's like saying the artistic merit of security cameras is stagnant and lacking.

Is his thesis that Mathew Brandts work is something to aspire to? This pseudo abstract trashed negative, botched printing job, is where photography should be headed. This is progress? This is breaking the mold? This is breaking out?

Maybe his problem is that we actually like our stagnation, we like what we consider art, and what he considers an evolution is simply crap.

As for the abstract paintings, this is what photographer use for backgrounds now....http://www.silverlakephoto.com/seniors/

At least there is a use for abstract paintings he admires...http://www.gerhard-richter.com/exhib...n.php?exID=572


As for abstract digital photography, there are people doing it now, just as they did it with analog, although to be truthful, nobody really cares
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...CMme2wWno5XaCQ

[M Stat]

Blansky has written a perfect response to the meaningless blather, which for some reason I was directed to by the OP. Noone should concern themselves with these ridiculous assertions. As far as the state of art is concerned, who cares?! I do what I do because I enjoy doing it, not because it somehow advances the "Art" or craft of photography. I agree with Mr. Blansky that this article is total nonsense. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go develop some film.