We should keep in mind that the translation of "photograph" is something like "drawing with light".
So in the absence of light, no photograph can be taken.
Last edited by a moderator:
But this one guy at my last show tried to convince me that if someone shoots an image of a completely dark room, I mean completely dark, like my color darkroom, that the resulting image should be considered a "photograph." He argured because the print would be all black, and since B&W is still around, that makes it a photograph.
You must be thinking of Hiroshi Sugimoto?? He's a LF black and white master. Though he's doing color work now.
You make it sound gimmicky, but it's all gorgeous work.
His seascapes are wonderful too.
Link: http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/theaters/
What is the gimmick?The "Conceptual" part of it is gimmicky because he could arrive at the same result if there was no film in the projector. But the result, on purely aesthetics ground is very beautiful. Which of course is the downfall of a conceptual approach.
What is the gimmick?
I guess I don't see that as gimmicky. To me it is an interesting exploration of the nature of time as expressed in photography. Instead of the very thin slice of time normally captured in a photo, he gives us a full two hours and it changes entirely the focus of the picture- the part of the scene the audince would have focused on- the screen- is completely devoid of information, and what they might have hardly noticed- the architecture of the theatre- is rich with detail. It is the opposite end of the same spectrum as, say, sports photography, where the capture of a very brief period of time, rather than a long one, sets the focus for the image. I think that some of the images in your gallery are also part of an exploration of the relationship between time and the photographic medium, although yours also add elements of spatial location.That he "recorded" an entire movie (or its idea) by letting the shutter open during the entire duration of said movie.
The "Conceptual" part of it is gimmicky because he could arrive at the same result if there was no film in the projector. But the result, on purely aesthetics ground is very beautiful. Which of course is the downfall of a conceptual approach.
Great, we decend into the usual shit about artists being charlatans.
I guess I don't see that as gimmicky. To me it is an interesting exploration of the nature of time as expressed in photography. Instead of the very thin slice of time normally captured in a photo, he gives us a full two hours and it changes entirely the focus of the picture- the part of the scene the audince would have focused on- the screen- is completely devoid of information, and what they might have hardly noticed- the architecture of the theatre- is rich with detail. It is the opposite end of the same spectrum as, say, sports photography, where the capture of a very brief period of time, rather than a long one, sets the focus for the image. I think that some of the images in your gallery are also part of an exploration of the relationship between time and the photographic medium, although yours also add elements of spatial location.
Excuse me but I did not speak of artists in general. I was speaking about this particular instance, and yes, I was also extending my critique to conceptualism.
In the present case, the premise and the process are interesting, but they do not create exceptional results that can be obtained only from this very process. Frankly, if there had been just a few spots of shadow on the screen, it could have revealed something instead of nothing. If it would have revealed a "dark spot" in the composition of the movie, then yes there would be something interesting to know about time and pictorial space. Here, it just revealed nothing.
Don't have such knee-jerk reactions. There has been a dearth of aesthetics discussion on APUG according to recent threads, so if you have a more elaborate point, then belabor it, please.
Really, I can't be bothered; some one who says that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasing needs to learn about conceptual art, or even art. And aesthetics.
This and this may be illustrative of what you are thinking of?In the present case, the premise and the process are interesting, but they do not create exceptional results that can be obtained only from this very process. Frankly, if there had been just a few spots of shadow on the screen, it could have revealed something instead of nothing. If it would have revealed a "dark spot" in the composition of the movie, then yes there would be something interesting to know about time and pictorial space. Here, it just revealed nothing.
I never said that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasant (in fact look at what I'm saying about the Internet faces project), I said that when it fails to do so, it also often fails to be interesting at all.
Is it your view that aesthetically pleasant art is more likely to be interesting than art that is not aethetically pleasant?
Almost, yes. My view is that art should have an aesthetic effect: it doesn't have to be beauty, it can be ugliness. But it should have a perceptually engaging aspect.
Well, I can agree with that wholeheartedly.
So "pleasant" is a word you give a lot of latitude, then. Ugly can be pleasant, so long as it is engaging?
It think it was more of a brain fart from typing too quickly; the first thing that comes to mind when regarding aesthetics I suppose is "pleasantness" because we're (I am?) conditioned to see aesthtetics as "beautiful."
Look buddy, you can't even read correctly what I'm writing so don't even bother yourself giving lessons on aesthetics and art.
I never said that conceptual art can't be aesthetically pleasant (in fact look at what I'm saying about the Internet faces project), I said that when it fails to do so, it also often fails to be interesting at all. I never said either that Sugimoto was bad because he was Japanese, so give me a break, dufus! You're just a thread bully and an illiterate one at that.
Rocks, trees, time-exposed rushing water... what more could one want to photograph?And the conceptual artists who get their best ideas with their heads in dark places could borrow the necessary equipment from their proctologist and photograph what they haven't been able to see.
If Schrodinger had a camera...............
OK, let us start again, and I can assure you I am not illiterate. Dyslexic yes, tired and grumpy, often, prone to getting things wrong, on occasion I do it really well. To give you background I took offence to the word "gimmick" which I think belittles what Sugimoto did with these works.
Maybe I would have used "vehicle". I like the bright screen, the overwhelming evidence of information. I also think, on a technical level, that Sugimoto has talked about how different movies gave a different final image in the same movie theater. Have tried to find the quote but can not as yet.
And I will assume you are not trying to insult me by calling me gay which is what buddy means hereDufus is a new word for me, I assume it is not flattering, like shrimp here. (Chinese is a great language, full of homonyms and puns)
And I promise not to post late at night when I am in a bad mood.
Hey, I just found out what dufus means:
Anti folk emissaries, microgiants of the New York squatter trash art variety.
vaguely appropriate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?