I came across an interesting
article today on how the digital age is changing photography as an art form. I
really liked it and it’s an interesting read if you have a few minutes: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/sean-ohagan-photography-art-form.
The article discusses the most expensive photograph in the world to date,
Andreas Gursky’s Rhein II. The image
is digitally manipulated, with a building and dog walkers removed by Photoshop.
The photo most recently sold for just over $4.3 Million dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs).
Honestly, I think the photo is pretty bland. But it’s interesting that it’s
basically a fictitious construction of a modern river, impossible to obtain via
photograph without digital editing.
Is this art? Photography has
switched (is switching?) from the kind of expertise Ansel Adams had into a more
digital type of expertise. Photography is more accessible than ever- most of us
can take a photo on our cell phone. In fact, all I have to do is shake my Moto
X phone twice and it’s instantly ready to snap a photo, so I don’t miss a shot
because I was wasting time unlocking the screen and navigating to the camera.
But has this overwhelming increase in photography hurt the art more than helped
it? Or has it just changed the way artists make photographic art? I think it’s
the latter. As the article I linked to states: “[N]o amount of technology will
turn a mediocre photographer into a great one. Nor, in conceptual terms, will
it transform a bad idea into a good one. For that you would still need to
possess a rare set of creative gifts that are still to do with seeing,
with deep looking.”
To be an artist, you must still
be artistic. Although the way photography as art is perceived has changed, and
is changing, good photographs still come from a good creative artist. I’m still
not sure what to make of the Rhein II
photograph, however!
Xoxo,
Diana
No comments:
Post a Comment