After Kodak made the camera available to consumers, artists were worried it was a threat to their ambition that photography be taken as a serious art. "The placing in the hands of the general public as a means of making pictures with little labor and requiring less knowledge has of necessity been allowed by the production of millions of photographs," wrote Alfred Stieglitz in 1899. "It is due to this fatal facility that photography as a picture-making medium has fallen into disrepute."
Is this true? How have digital cameras come into this line of argument? Digital technology now permits people to delete mistakes before they are printed and to preserve images in computers rather than deal with deteriorating prints; posterity is being deprived of who knows how many similar examples of creative artlessness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that cameras becoming available to the larger public is great. Now more people can explore photography and have the ability to capture their own images. Combined with the use of the internet it allows them to portray their work to many people. I believe it also forces professional photographers to take a more inventive aproach to photography, leading to more original forms of photgraphy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Blake. Digital photography allows more people to attempt the art of photography. But, taking more photos doesn't make you a better photographer. You still need to apply yourself, and learn various techniques. It's not as if you instantly become a better photographer because of your gear. While there are probably billions of digital photographs out there, how many of them are actually good?
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very valid question. As for me, I believe that editing photos with photoshop or illustrator is an art, there are classes for this type of training. however, for people like grandma and Aunt Kathy, photography has been somewhat degraded to make photography a hobby instead of an art. I believe that there is still an art to photography and digital cameras, if used correctly
ReplyDeleteyes i think this is bad for the art work in general because that blurry image that you deleted off of your camera could be a work of art to someone, or they could relate it to there life some how-- like i live my life everyday and its a blur what is the repetition of life for. BUt i also think that it is a good thing because as an artiest usually you are struggling until you have made a name for you self and still then thing financially might not be where you would like them. A starving artiest might really benefit from being able to delete so that that amazing piece of art can be created. With out digital a lot of materials go to waste and thats just money out of there pocket. Do you think art can be created with out that creative struggle? or do you think the art is as meaning full with out that Economic problem?
ReplyDeletephotography is better now because when kodak made cameras open to the larger public it was for to remember certain moments which go with their solgan "a kodak moment" digital just made it so those moments never fade away which is good because it's keeps advancing with time and technology
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that a lot of art is accidental?
ReplyDeleteI'm also interested in Robert's idea of the starving artist--what other archetypes are there for aritsts? I know that, as a poet, I get away with being confusing and a little loopy becuase, well, that's the poet-prophet stereotype. But a lot of artists pretend to be poor and try to live that "starving artist" mold. Ray Johnson pretended he lived on rice only, but was found (suicide) with over $1000 in his pocket and $46,000 in his account.
So, is struggle sometimes a put on?
I also believe that having cameras available to the general public is a good thing. Art doesnt have to be done by an "artist" Thats such a snobby word to me! When my Goddaughter drew me a picture with a bunch of scribbles on it, i considered that art, her art. So is a one year old an "artist" now? We shouldn't limit creativity to a title. Having cameras to the public is a form of art. General Public art.
ReplyDeleteDoes art have to have a "title"? Do you have to be an "artist" to have have art? Are we, as freshman in a arts college, considered "artists" yet?
Jimi/bobby- Sometimes it takes struggle to bring out the "stuff' in you. That "stuff" that makes you better, more creative. Struggle is what makes life interesting and thus, our art.
OOO, today we'll be talking about outsider artists and art brute, so keep Lindsey's questions in mind.
ReplyDeleteArt and elitism have long been associated. Plato and our early art theorists even wanted to kick artists out of their utopias because art was dangerous and could cause riots, thinking that was against the system, etc.
What kinds of art theories or philosophies do you hold?
This question about freshman as "artists" just because they are in an art school is HUGE!
yea, ive never thought of it that way but it is true kodak did take away the beautie of art and made it more easer for everyone.
ReplyDeleteKristen- For struggle to be a put on they obviously wanted to bring out that thing that would make them that much better. Ray might have wanted something more in his art, because as im learning, we are the biggest critics of our own work.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned in my last paper, that the wrestlers in Stranger Than Fiction were never "perfect" in their minds, something could always change. Be better than before.
So do we do what we can to bring out the "better" in us?
Althea, but what about the beauty of accidents? What about the beauty of the untrained eye.
ReplyDeletelike noah was saying i aggree.. it dosent matter how taking photos dosent make your a better photographer. its how you apply your se;lf and go about doing it.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of makes me feel shitty that I don't own a film camera. I've always enjoyed photography. I've always had a passion for it. Since the first time my grandmother gave me her camera and told me to go take pictures of my family at reunions and barbeques. But I've never had the means to use dark rooms and things like that because since I realized how passionate I was we were already in the digital age. So I hoped that I could learn all of that here without being too late. I know that developing pictures by hand is kind of old fashioned but I still want to learn everything I can about photography.
ReplyDeleteKRIS - now because he did not spend his money is that why continued to make amazing art. when i said that i meant not starving for ever but in order to find you nitch in art you have to have that drive to not just want to make it but you also need to make it.
ReplyDeleteTexas- i completely agree what you are talking about i just feel i was not clear enough in my response.
I dont see how alowing more people to create their own images takes the beauty from art?????? I believe that it allows more beauty in the world to be captured. I think that too many people take an elitist view on art. I agree with texas everyone is an artist in their own way. You dont have to have the title of an artist to make art.
ReplyDelete