Is Photography Dead?

[fran reisner]

Thought some of you might be interested in this article from Newsweek Magazine. (12/10/07 edition)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349

[johnastovall]

"The last art form to be tethered to realism, its factual validity has lately been manipulated and pixelated to the point of extinction."

Photography has never been tethered to realism. The image and the content have always been manipulated.

"Art and truth used to be fast friends. Until the beginning of modernism, the most admired quality in Western art was mimesis—objects in painting and sculpture closely resembling things in real life."

More nonsense, he needs to look at the ways the old masters maninpulted the image. Proportions changed, prespective altered all to communicate a greater meaning rather than realism.

Today we do the same things in photoshop the artist did in the studio. We create the message we wish to communicate.

I would answer him as Renoir did a woman who upon looking at one of his lovely flora paintings, "I've never seen flowers that looked like that." To which Renoir said, "But don't you wish you had."

I for one embrase a future that lets me have greater ways to show things as the are not as they appear to be, essense transcending the accidental.

[JPalmer]

Apparently this article forgot that Alexander Gardner, one of Mathew Brady's photogs. during the civil war, literally drug corpses around a scene to "document" the war.

John is right... it's never been about "realism"

It's about whatever story we want to tell.

[kenw]

ditto.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by JPalmer

Apparently this article forgot that Alexander Gardner, one of Mathew Brady's photogs. during the civil war, literally drug corpses around a scene to "document" the war.

John is right... it's never been about "realism"

It's about whatever story we want to tell.

Even before that we have Roger Fenton, the cannon balls and the "Valley of Death."

[Joe_Lorenzini]

After reading the article I would tend to agree with some of the conclusions but I think the last sentence says it best:

"The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

I think the title of the article is a pathetic attempt to draw attention to itself (even if it was successful).

_/oe

[Jake]

Actually, photography is dead.
I accidentally shot it in the back of the head when I thought I saw it breaking in to my neighbors house.
Sorry guys, my bad........

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

Actually, photography is dead.
I accidentally shot it in the back of the head when I thought I saw it breaking in to my neighbors house.
Sorry guys, my bad........

Jake is the man!

[fran reisner]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

After reading the article I would tend to agree with some of the conclusions but I think the last sentence says it best:

"The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

I think the title of the article is a pathetic attempt to draw attention to itself (even if it was successful).

_/oe

I agree with you Joe. My Dad mentioned the article in a recent email to me, and in my reply to him (after reading it) I wrote, "I like to think I'm one of those reclaiming that special link to reality in a brand new way." I don't think I'd consider myself on of the "next generation of photographers", but I am making every effort to evolve while still holding on some of the purity of my roots.

[brad]

Interesting statements in a magazine that prides itself on its photojournalism.

You can go back to the media and movies before 1970 and find examples of people not believing what they see in photographs... including some rather famous examples of staged photos in Vietnam... that's not a new concept.

This author seems to have a rather rose colored glasses view of the past when it comes to photography... but really, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Bill]

He won't be the last art critic who is less informed than he should be or who ignores that which he knows in promoting a story. My hunch is the latter. He's never heard of Man Ray? Any decent art history course would have long ago straightened out folks about equating a photograph with reality. As a critic and painter of abstracts, he knows that he is parroting what was said of painting 100+ years ago.

It is not a serious piece, just something to pay the bills.

[xseption]

Originally Posted by fran reisner

I agree with you Joe. My Dad mentioned the article in a recent email to me, and in my reply to him (after reading it) I wrote, "I like to think I'm one of those reclaiming that special link to reality in a brand new way." I don't think I'd consider myself on of the "next generation of photographers", but I am making every effort to evolve while still holding on some of the purity of my roots.

I am more like grass ... I have my original roots, then I branch out and extend more roots, and as the sun and rain cause me to grow, I branch out and extend more roots, and on and on. This I do until I run into the weed-eater ...



I agree with the others that photography is "perceived truth" and nothing less. I do still look to the past to shoot my future, but I always bring my own "truth" to the venue since my bias is always with me.

Thanks for the read, Fran!

[Jim Victory]

Although a digital photograph can probably be manipulated more than film, and alot easier, it is up to the photographer to limit such manipulation by trying to get it right in camera.

Thats what I like about Nature and Wildlife photography. It is as real as it gets as long as you limit your manipulation of the shot. That means not only digital manipulation but also staging shots using baits and other means.

Its all up to the photographer but I would rather have a good shot that represented a real scene in nature than a great shot I got baiting a location or cloning, dodging, and burning an image.

[lhdvies]

The "reality" of what is in front of the lens is what makes this a sport for me of trying to capture the image exactly as it is. Crops and USM are used to make up for my inadequate skills. The skills of the pros on this forum with the camera and computer are amazing to me and I'm quite envious of all of you. Actually I don't think Photography is dead as much as I think the definition and scope of the work is evolving and changing to stay up with the times (good or bad). Thks for the thread Fran.

While I was typing this, Jim said it pretty well for me.

[barP]

the real problem is an overabundance of quick and usually bad digital manipulation. photoshop should not be a verb. the average viewer should be saying "oh.....did you use photoshop to do that?" rather than "oh, you photoshopped that!" while there may be lots more "good" photography out because of technology, there is still only so much great photography, and it typically doesn't depend on a computer to achieve it.

wp.