Read Marius De Zayas essay Photography and Photography and Artistic Photography and summarise De Zayas key points. Write your responses and consider if they are still relevant today.
"The photographer, the true photographer, is he who has become able, through a state of perfect consciousness, to possess such a clear view of things as to enable him to understand and feel the beauty of the reality of the form"
I think this is such as important and straight to the point view of "A Photographer". It's such a powerful quote. So many people in this age define themselves as a photographer. On social networking sites, everyone who has a camera thinks that they can be defined as a photographer. And yes, everyone has to start somewhere, but even after years of practicing photography and three years to date of studying photography, I still question whether I am actually classed as 'a photographer'.
I didn't find this as difficult to read as Krauss's essay but it was still slightly out of my academic comfort zone. I think De Zayas is deciphering the difference between art and photography and whether photography is an art in its own right.
"Photography is not art" De Zayas explains how art is derived from the imagination and the views of the form from the artists point of view. How artists work is not factual, as such, just the represented form or the interesting bits as decided by the artist. The photographer is the only one who can capture the factual beauty of the form.
"Art presents to us what we may call the emotional or intellectual truth; photography the material form"
"Art has taught us to feel emotions in the presence of a work that represents the emotions experienced by the artist. Photography teaches us to realise and feel our own emotions"
I completely agree with this statement. When looking at a piece of art/ a painting/ a sculpture, you as the viewer feel and see what the artist/ sculptor wants you to see. You see the view of the artists representation, as you know that it has been created from their imagination. Even if it is a representation of something factual, details can be altered to adjust to the genre/mood of the artist.
When we see a photograph, you know that what you are seeing is factual. It's not a representation, it IS the actual form. Any beauty in the photograph has been seen by the photographer to capture it and not created by an artist to make it appear more beautiful.
"Photography comes to supply the material truth of form"
"Photography is not Art, but photographs can be made to be art"
This explore De Zayas view on how, although photography is not art in the form of being imaginative, but the photographs can be seen as art as in the eye of the photographer. The photographer can create 'artistic photography' to get across his emotions to the viewer the same as an artist does in his art.
I feel that De Zayas points are relevant today. I think Krauss and De Zayas points merge in this digital age. As I stated before, so many people nowadays will label themselves as a photographer by merely taking a few shots at the beach, or at a gig and then turn them to sepia or black and white and say 'hey, look i'm a photographer'. Some of the 'photographer' pages I've had a look at are nothing more than snapshots. Krauss explored what constitutes someone to be labelled a photographer where De Zayas has explored how photographs can be labelled as art. Others label me as a photographer and yet, I'm still weary as to whether I am actually at the level where I can consider myself as one, or as whether my photos are 'good' enough to be declared art. Maybe it is down to the viewer to label us as opposed to us labelling ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment