Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,741   Posts: 1,515,562   Online: 969
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 75
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,780
    i dunno what school she got her degree at, but i went to college and studied art history in the 1980s and photography was included in the coursebook "art through the ages" which i think is a pretty standard art history text.

    maybe she is a person who believes that framing and composition of something that already exists isn't "art" or making a photographic print isn't "art" ... i'm wondering what she believes art is ...

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    284
    "Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image."

  3. #43
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt
    I just visited the Louvre in Paris and there where not photographs there. I also visited the Orsay and no photographs there. I ask where there were photographs in Paris and was directed to an show hung on a fence.

    Art?
    Not sure if I have understood it correctly, after this personal experience in the Louvre and the Musee d' Orsay what is your conclusion now exactly?

    bertram
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  4. #44
    Struan Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lund, Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    914
    I think the Paris photographic galleries were probably all sleeping off their hangovers

    http://www.parisphoto.fr/

  5. #45
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    378
    Is Photography Art? If someone looks at a photograph and accepts it as art, then it is art ...at least for that one person.

    I don't think that any "art" exists before that first instant. If an "art work" is produced for one's own pleasure and never shown, then it is simply mental masturbation. If a caveman creates a drawing of a deer on a cave wall, and it stays undiscovered for thousands of years, to me, it only becomes "art" upon its discovery and it's appreciation as a piece of art.

    Which brings to mind the point that, being in a museum doesn't necessarily qualify something as being art. Some very ugly , questionably pretty or fairly ordinary things are kept in museums for historic value, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curt
    Not any more, now it's a business that failed the test of time. Imagine if someone took canvas or paint out of the hands of the master painters. Why are the contact printers putting up with the lack of supply of contact printing paper.

    I just visited the Louvre in Paris and there where not photographs there. I also visited the Orsay and no photographs there. I ask where there were photographs in Paris and was directed to an show hung on a fence.

    Art?
    Curt, I'm surprised you couldn't find any photography museums here, especially since last month was "Photography Month" in Paris, and many of the exhibits haven't closed yet, even as I write this.

    The main photography museums here are the Centre National de la Photographie, the Maison Europeen de la Photographie, the Hotel de Sully (not forgetting that "hotel" in French can mean a mansion), The Foundation Cartier-Bresson. Also, there are often exhibitions at city hall (currently hosting a major Willy Ronis show), The George Pompidou Center (which is the principal museum of contemporary art in Paris and which currently hosts an exhibit by William Klein), The Bibliotheque National (which last year had a great Capa exhibit). Not to mention lots of galleries and smaller exhibitions. Sorry you missed out.

    On the other hand, you're right to insinuate that France is a little slow on the uptake regarding the consideration of photography as art. It seems to me that it is still mainly considered to be a means of documentation rather than expression. A French viewer who looks at an Oliver Gagliani close-up photo of dripping white paint on dark wood might ask, "what is it?", while never thinking to ask the same question of a Jackson Pollack painting. Anyway, someone who asks, "is photography art?" tends to automatically label themself as being incapable of making the mental leap from real/3D to abstract/2D. (ie: "That's not a man. That's a photograph of a man".)
    By the way, the first photo gallery in France was the late Jean Dieuzide's "Chateau d'Eau" in Toulouse. Dieuzaide caused scandal when he "dared" to display Robert Doisneau's photographs in frames in a small Paris exhibition. That was in the 1950's, when photographs were only relegated to the same 'art' level as a Xerox, thus deemed not worthy of more than thumbtacks to be put unto a wall. Many viewers actually laughed at the framed pictures! (Dieuzaide told me this).

    And don't forget the famous quote attributed to Cartier-Bresson, regarding his attitude toward the West Coast photographers: "I don't understand these guys. The world is falling apart and all they call photograph is rocks and trees". Ostensibly, he was an observant photographer. That's why it's ironic to me that he could be wearing blinders to that extent. His comment insinuates that beauty is not worth recording or interpreting, but war and misery are. As though there is some sort of unspoken contest for "Most Legitimate Use of Photography". While I respect Cartier-Bresson for his contributions, this attitude is completely idiotic! (don't tell me to speak no ill of the dead, as I more-or-less said this to his face in 1999). I'm afraid that his influence has founded an attitude which still prevails here in France. Many French people I've met (and some Americans, too!) just don't seem to "get" that photography is good for more than just one thing, just as a pencil might be used to either write with, draw, or poke somebody if they ask "Is photography art?" !
    Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 12-17-2005 at 01:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #46
    rfshootist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Old Europe
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    387
    Images
    51
    Hi Christopher

    [QUOTE
    On the other hand, you're right to insinuate that France is a little slow on the uptake regarding the consideration of photography as art.
    B Dieuzaide caused scandal when he "dared" to display Robert Doisneau's photographs in frames in a small Paris exhibition. That was in the 1950's, when photographs were only relegated to the same 'art' level as a Xerox, thus deemed not worthy of more than thumbtacks to be put unto a wall. Many viewers actually laughed at the framed pictures! (Dieuzaide told me this)
    .

    I am honestly surprised, did not know that this attitude still existed 1950, after all these years, since the days of Nadar !! A french once told me that France is a country where people are used to think in hierarchies , and if something got it's place it is hard get it off there. Sounded plausible to me, I know that hierarchy very well.

    [/QUOTE]
    And don't forget the famous quote attributed to Cartier-Bresson, regarding his attitude toward the West Coast photographers: "I don't understand these guys. The world is falling apart and all they call photograph is rocks and trees". Ostensibly, he was an observant photographer. That's why it's ironic to me that he could be wearing blinders to that extent. His comment insinuates that beauty is not worth recording or interpreting, but war and misery are.

    I always suspected him to be one of those who kept photography as no-art !! :-))

    [/QUOTE]
    While I respect Cartier-Bresson for his contributions, this attitude is completely idiotic! (don't tell me to speak no ill of the dead, as I more-or-less said this to his face in 1999).


    Ah you met him personally ! Great, I would have been so very interested in talking to him personally, too late. :-(
    I know one could meet him in the Rue Rivoli where he lived and where he took frequently a walk, even when he was in his late 80s.
    Somebody told me he had been in Paris in the 80s and took some potos on the Pont Neuf when an elder gentlemen stopped and started a conversation in English about photography. He said , yes, in former times he had shot many many photos too in Paris and elsewhere, with his Leica.
    The tourist at home detected some months later this had been HCB !!!
    A missed opportunity which willl bother him 'til the end of his days !!!

    Regards,
    Bertram
    How long runs the Ronis exposition ? Any links ? Thanks in advance !
    A la recherche du temps perdu: www. bersac.de

  7. #47
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS
    I found myself engaged in a conversation with somebody in the Administrative side of the company at lunch today. Her educational background was in Art History. The conversation turned from the usual topics to my interest in Photogrpahy....anyway, at some point she asserted that Photography is not art. She said that it is not considered art because, in essence, there is no artist. The final result was simply a matter of chemisty and physics.

    Now, I am no artist. I don't even aspire to be an artist...but, try as I might to convice her otherwise, she steadfastly maintained that Photography is not art...in some kind of academic sense, I guess.

    Thoughts?
    Yeah. Don't waste your time discussing the issue. She is an obvious dolt.

    Don Bryant

  8. #48
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by donbga
    Yeah. Don't waste your time discussing the issue. She is an obvious dolt.

    Don Bryant
    A little harsh.

  9. #49
    esanford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hertford North Carolina
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    637
    Images
    16
    Thomas Hoving, former Director of Metropolitan Museum of Art had this to say about photography in 'Art for Dummies'....." "I have severely neglected photography, which I believe to be certainly one of the fine arts...(I changed the name of the Prints Department at the Metropolitan to that of Prints and photographs)....Very roughly speaking, photography has experienced the following very general periods in the development of its own styles: 1865 to 1867 , the early period of experimentation; around the beginning of WWI until the mid-1920s, a time of photographic intensity; 1929 to 1938, when perspective was supreme; from 1952 until the 1990s onward, period of introspection. Finally, today photography exhibits the same diversity of styles as other media fine arts." Art for Dummies pp. 173
    Often wrong, but never in doubt!

  10. #50
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,527
    Images
    15
    Graphic Arts is a process, Graphic Design is creative.

    I know a guy who is an Artist with drywall.

    Ansel Adams had a photograph of a tree stump. Minor White saw it and said: "What does it mean?" Ansel said: "mean?, It's just a tree stump".

    I wish I had Ansel in my crit classes back in college. It would have eliminated hundreds of hours in useless discussion.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin