MattKing
Moderator
As do I.
But the grain and blur are important to the result, and at least appear to be the result of conscious choice.
For the record, I like the image of the truck...
Things come in and out of style and if anything, the more recent pictorialist popularity is probably a backlash against the 'perfect' digital images that aren't strewn with what some consider defects.
Print quality? Nobody sees that or cares, besides perhaps other photographers/printers. In that context, from a marketing perspective, it might be easier to sell photographs that are blurry or grainy or under/overexposed because they are further removed from what the public would normally view as simple photographs. Potential buyers may see them as more than just pictures, and perhaps have a sense of the work the artist put in. A blurry or very grainy print might give the impression the photographer made the picture rather than simply took the picture.
As do I.
But the grain and blur are important to the result, and at least appear to be the result of conscious choice.
I'm with these guys - I like the picture. Maybe this sounds like a load of wank, but to me, these portrays some emotion, some feeling.
Put it this way, lets imagine that this picture was indeed very sharp and shot on a grainless film, or heavens forbid, digital. What would we have? A truck on a highway. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, it might be a technically adequate picture, but I'd say it wouldn't capture the imagination of the average viewer.
Where's with this picture - the added grain, the blurriness - it adds tension. The way I am interpreting this picture is that either a violent storm is on us or approaching. I am not sure if this is what the photographer intended, but that is the feeling I get.
Galleries need to sell stuff. Generally, photography is a tough sell. Unlike drawing, painting etc, it is difficult to get the public to see the monetary value in a photograph, because the "hand of the artist" is not obvious.
[...]
Please note this post is not meant to imply blurry, grainy or "badly" exposed pictures are inherently any better or worse than straight work. I'm just trying to put forth a possible explanation for why we might find more of this type of work in galleries.
If exposed, developed and printed with best current technique, this image would be without merit and most likely ignored by most people. But if deficient technique can turn a pointless snapshot into fine art, something else has gone awry.Put it this way, lets imagine that this picture was indeed very sharp and shot on a grainless film, or heavens forbid, digital. What would we have? A truck on a highway. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, it might be a technically adequate picture, but I'd say it wouldn't capture the imagination of the average viewer.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) might have created fine art by chasing a chicken with paint on its feet across a canvas, but in this case he did invent a new technique to achieve a certain aesthetic. Blurry&grainy prints and the mood created by these defects are not exactly novel, though.
Galleries need to sell stuff. Generally, photography is a tough sell. Unlike drawing, painting etc, it is difficult to get the public to see the monetary value in a photograph, because the "hand of the artist" is not obvious. People often ascribe value to things they don't think they can do, or things that look as though a lot of work went into them. If they see a drawing, they see a special skill. When people look at sharp, well exposed, grainless photographs, they think they can do it. After all, the film/sensor records the image, the lens focuses etc. The photographer just has to see what already exists and take the picture, right? Print quality? Nobody sees that or cares, besides perhaps other photographers/printers. In that context, from a marketing perspective, it might be easier to sell photographs that are blurry or grainy or under/overexposed because they are further removed from what the public would normally view as simple photographs. Potential buyers may see them as more than just pictures, and perhaps have a sense of the work the artist put in. A blurry or very grainy print might give the impression the photographer made the picture rather than simply took the picture.
Please note this post is not meant to imply blurry, grainy or "badly" exposed pictures are inherently any better or worse than straight work. I'm just trying to put forth a possible explanation for why we might find more of this type of work in galleries.
Few artists have the technical skills to develop a new technique by themselves. Van Gogh didn't come up with Chromium yellow, some unknown chemist did. Van Gogh also didn't invent still life paintings or sunflowers, but the way he presented sunflowers was certainly novel and intriguing. The term innovation goes far beyond technical advances. Expressing something new or in a new way with common means is also a form of innovation.You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.
You're very intent on whether they are innovating or not but I don't think innovation is what makes an artist an artist. Inventing HDR or Instagram doesn't make that person an artist, but if they do something really good with it, then they are an artist and an innovator.
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?
Now I have a questions for all those that responded to this post. Is art always supposed to be well technically executed and pretty? Or is art supposed to be challenging also?
As far as the 'famous' photographers go, it seems to me that such work is often treated like 'the emperors new clothes'.
Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.
Art is supposed to 'say something' to the viewer. To me, the truck photo only says 'accidental exposure while the camera was hanging over my shoulder'; your milage may vary.
I don't think art has to "say" anything.
I agree. Art should help us escape our dull daily existence for a little while at least. Possibly transformative. There's some art that "say" something different to every viewer. And there's nothing wrong with that.
What if all a photographer intends to do is show a place (for example) as he sees it, and allow people to react (or not) in any way they see fit? Why does the photographer have to be "communicating" something specific through the photograph?
By virtue of our own unique personalities, any honestly made photograph automatically says something about how a photographer sees the world around him, be it subtly or obviously. Does there always have to be some message people are supposed to "get"?
Oh please!
I react more on the bad exposure/development than the actual blur, even a blurry picture can indeed tell a story, but why make things worse....
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?