DannL.
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 617
- Format
- Large Format
Thanks for bringing attention to his article. I recall it from Photo Mosaics 1890.
In my opinion, Stieglitz was correct. And he still is. And sadly this phenomenon is no longer just an American thing. He has made a clear distinction between the photograph and a picture. "A Photograph of Artistic Value." And I must admit that I fully accept that definition, in this context. He was not referring to the definition that one might expect to find in a household dictionary. He also placed a finger directly on what I think is the cause. "These qualities can only be attained through cultivation and conscientious study of art in all its forms." How many people practicing photography today have any background or education in the arts? Without a background in the subject of endeavor, ie; producing "Photographs of Artistic Value", how does one produce such works? The occasional accidental? Hit and Miss? Random luck?
In my opinion, Stieglitz was correct. And he still is. And sadly this phenomenon is no longer just an American thing. He has made a clear distinction between the photograph and a picture. "A Photograph of Artistic Value." And I must admit that I fully accept that definition, in this context. He was not referring to the definition that one might expect to find in a household dictionary. He also placed a finger directly on what I think is the cause. "These qualities can only be attained through cultivation and conscientious study of art in all its forms." How many people practicing photography today have any background or education in the arts? Without a background in the subject of endeavor, ie; producing "Photographs of Artistic Value", how does one produce such works? The occasional accidental? Hit and Miss? Random luck?
Last edited by a moderator: