4 ms·
I just said 'philosphical question' so I wouldn't get downvoted for sounding cynical. Are you saying it is impossible to verbalize the 'point' of photography?
by Tycho 16y ago
I just said 'philosphical question' so I wouldn't get downvoted for sounding cynical.
Are you saying it is impossible to verbalize the 'point' of photography?
Regardless, sometimes photographs capture remarkable events or spectacular scenes, in which cases the point could be easily understood as 'seeing things you would have liked to have seen but didn't get the chance'
Now in this here collection, almost all the photos are just of strangers on the street. Something you can see everyday with your own eyes. So what is the point?
- mechanical_fish 16y agoThere are ten thousand answers to your question, but here's the most drab and pedantic of them: No, I absolutely cannot walk out onto the street and see a scene from the 1960s. There was a fun essay once where someone pointed out the value of photographing everyday objects. Tools, cars, clothes. These are the things that you'll most wish you'd photographed, because they are the most ephemeral. The Grand Canyon looks much as it did in Ansel Adams' day. People look only a bit different than they used to. But the objects are gone. The streets and the buildings are gone.
- reneherse 16y agoMovies that capture the essence of a time and place are great for this too. Just re-watched Hitchcock's Vertigo last night and wished I could have stepped back into the San Francisco of fifty years ago...
- thrdOriginal 16y agoSo really you're asking "what's the point of art?" You could do worse than starting by reading "Art" by Clive Bell.
- Tycho 16y agoI don't think it comes to that. My working definition of art is 'human creativity in matters beyond functional necessity' - and the point (ideally) would be to selectively present phenomena/experience for the betterment of the audience. Here black and white images of everyday urban life have been selected as subject matter. Why? (obviously the images are well framed, but is that all there is to this art? Mechanical_Fish's answer above is reasonable, though)
- thrdOriginal 16y agoThis is why I recommended Clive Bell: for him the subject matter is irrelevant and what matters is significant form - that combination of colors and shapes that gives rise to an aesthetic experience. Many would say that achieving this aesthetic experience itself is the point. Alternatively, others argue that the subject of art (in this case urban life) allow one to get at the capital-t Truth and meaning of a thing or culture. Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art" examines this with regards to Van Gogh's "A Pair of Shoes," also an interesting read. Of course the real point for anyone is deeply personal, and if you're questioning what that point is, for you there probably isn't one. And that's ok too.
- Tycho 16y agoThat's why I asked the question - I genuinely wanted to know what other people valued in this collection. Just because I asked doesn't mean I don't have my own reasons for valuing/not-valuing it. I encourage anyone reading to say what they liked about it. Even just a poll of 'do you like them for the content' vs 'do you like them for the prettyness' would be interesting: sometimes it's just good to know what other people are thinking.