In the end, photography is all about enjoyment — immersing yourself in the images, seeing the world through the photographer's eyes, and feeling uplifted by the experience. I can’t resist sharing another text from my teacher that speaks to that very sense of enjoyment. Apologies once again,
@koraks, for the length — and please feel free to let me know if these posts aren’t relevant to you.
What I hope is that Eugene Atget might enhance that enjoyment if you give his work a chance and dive into his world. If not, that’s perfectly fine — he may not resonate with you, or perhaps the timing isn’t right. My intention has never been to sound 'innately superior,' as was suggested, but simply to share the joy of looking at his photographs and connect through that experience.
Here is the text:
"
Platon Rivellis
My relationship with art, and in particular with photography and cinema, began with my desire to increase the joy and pleasure I could derive from discovering the work of creators. My subsequent involvement in teaching these arts started from my intention to expand the circle of people with whom I could exchange ideas and, above all, share my joy.
As a teacher, my aim was to attempt to teach a method of approaching artists' works — primarily photographers and filmmakers in this context — with the goal of drawing greater intellectual enjoyment. However, I never tried to "explain" or "decipher" works of art, as I believe the charm of art lies in the fact that everything is both apparent and simultaneously mysterious. The viewer does not need to discover or interpret something. The approach is the challenge, not the interpretation. This is achieved through familiarity with the artistic language, both generally regarding each art form and specifically regarding each creator. Consequently, my teaching was not based on history (in general) or the history of each art form (in particular), especially given that the histories of photography and cinema span only a very brief period. My objective was, and remains, to become acquainted with the works of significant creators and to recognize and appreciate their personal artistic language.
Of course, I do not disregard the value that a historical approach to the evolution of each art form can offer. However, what interests me most is the inexplicable presence of artistic genius in the world of art. It is true that a historian can trace, analyze, and perhaps even justify the paths of art over the centuries, but they will not succeed, armed with history, facts, economics, or politics, in explaining the emergence of the greatest creators. I acknowledge and respect historians' need to segment periods and, for the sake of thorough study, to seek connections and attempt to discern common characteristics that, over time and across regions, mark artistic evolution. However, I believe that in the case of photography (and cinema, which emerged from it), there are some more specialized characteristics that do not favor the search for specific directions. Even if certain categories are hastily identified, invented, and articulated, I do not think they contribute to the enjoyment of art.
The unique aspects of photography compared to earlier art forms are numerous and distinctive. First and foremost, it is the only art form that does not owe its origin to religion. Although it has inherited the metaphysical religious influence of other arts, it has never had nor has any direct connection with the religious roots of civilizations or the practice of worship. Additionally, although it produces images, these images have neither materiality nor uniqueness. Every photograph is merely a trace. Its content is essentially an intangible transformation of images that the artist (through a technique common to all) draws from the real world surrounding them. Consequently, what matters is the artist's gaze and the personal world it expresses. One could even argue that photography, the most "objective" art form — using an extremely precise mechanical recording and reproduction of already living images — ultimately becomes the most personal, as the only intervention by the artist is the selection driven by their gaze.
The only version of photographic art that might lend itself to classification into schools and trends reminiscent of those known from the world of painting is photography that seeks to identify with a visual approach, thus shifting the focus from the gaze and transformation to its material surface and the external management of its messages. It is no wonder, then, that the art historian and the exhibition curator sometimes carry greater weight than the creator.
However, most groupings that art history has established for studying the visual arts are related to technique. Such luxury does not exist in the case of photography. Its technique is given and follows technological advancements that affect everyone. Yet this is also part of its strength. A photograph taken a century ago and printed with today's means appears completely contemporary. What is depicted could result from careful staging, as the photograph itself is always true and always (through the gaze) staged. On the other hand, categorizing photographs based on their subject matter constitutes an easy classification, but a completely useless one, as what matters is never the "what" but the "how."
Moreover, any adjectives one might use to group photographers and photographs would, by definition, negate the artistic quality and value of the medium. Labeling a photographic work as activist, political, travel-related, sports-focused, erotic, advertising, commercial (or anything else one might imagine) obliterates the artistic value of the photograph under the heavy weight of motives or objectives.
I believe that the only distinction that could aid the understanding of photography is the one that seeks its intentions: whether the aim is information or poetry, documentation or transformation. The boundaries may not always be clear, but the effort to discern them aids in approaching the medium with the goal of enjoyment.
"
