4 ms·
From the article: > Photography Liberated Art Well, yes and no. But (IMHO) mostly no. Certainly it impacted art to the point where art was obliged to redefine
by Daub 4y ago
From the article:
> Photography Liberated Art
Well, yes and no. But (IMHO) mostly no. Certainly it impacted art to the point where art was obliged to redefine its very function, but I am not sure I would call this a liberation.
My first introduction to this was as a student walking through an exhibition of portraits at the National Gallery London. It had been arranged chronologically, room by room.
The room which featured post-photography painting presented as a punch in the stomach to art. It seemed to lose its confidence, its swagger, it verve. Replacing this was the impression that artists were now huddling in corners, drinking absinth, having deep conversations about art. The paintings were smaller, more self-aware, more experimental (experiments which seemed to work for a while, but which aged very quickly).
Was this a good thing? Some years ago I had one of my eyes removed due to an accident. It changed the way I walk, think and look. I like what I have done with myself since then, how I have developed as an artist, but I wish I still had two eyes.
- nbzso 4y agoAs an artist, I can attest to your point of view. I don't see "liberal" arts as an art form at all. The moment in which knowledge and craftsmanship are removed from painting, things are just another form of "wishful" thinking. One of my teachers had a very nice comment on our "modern" artistic endeavors: It's good, but what is it really? My choice for artistic expression is focused on traditional painting. I study the old masters techniques and have no doubt in my mind, that people will rediscover classical arts in a big way in the next decade.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- makeitdouble 4y ago> The room which featured post-photography painting presented as a punch in the stomach to art. I am surprised by the “art” = “paintings” association. Photography is also art, and by its addition as a tool to the toolbox, the possibilities definitely increased. Same goes for audio recordings and music, more techniques definitely broadened the field and we got so much more than what we had before.
- Daub 4y agoWell... I was speaking from the point of view of art as it was made before photography. Though we use the term `art' to describe both that which came before and after photography, functionally they are different. The same can be said of folk art and salon art. This causes heaps of confusion when discussing the two. I believe (though I may be wrong) that you are using the term as a signifier of esteem (kinda 'this is so good it is art'). I have taught fine art photographers, some of the best in Asia. I have seen no problem calling it art. I have worked in art schools for 1,000,000 years. Believe me when I say that I have seen just about everything presented as an art work (off the top of my head, public sex performance, vandalism of other people's art, playing football, covering your studio space with excrement etc). The real question then is: `art or not, is it any good? Does it have value?'