Through
the Lens:
|
--Is Photography Art?
--Final Reminisce:
the Enduring Beauty of a Mid-Winter Sunset
I have heard from way too many people that photography is not art, that
it is no more than a craft. After all, all a photograph can capture is
reality, right? That is a naive and foolish assumption. The creative path
of a photographer is in some ways, indeed, more limited than the path of
a sculptor or a painter. And, it is much easier to take a decent or even
good photograph than it is to paint a good picture or make a good sculpture.
However, photographs do not capture reality. Those of you who think they do are foolish. They show us a view of life that we cannot see without the photograph; in other words, they are a creation, not bound to reality. Even before digital editing came into vogue, photographs could be manipulated to show a particular effect. For an example, take a look at some of Ansel Adams' photographs; if you take a careful look, you will realize that the vast majority differ quite vastly from even a black and white perception of reality. Even without digital editing software, a photographer can lighten or darken a picture, or change the contrast. With digital photo-editing software, an artist can do anything, from changing to brightness or darkness to lengthening legs or enhancing breasts (for those of you who are unaware, these techniques are used quite often--the beautiful women who exist on the covers of Vogue or even Playboy exist only on a piece of paper).
Another thing is that the photographer is not even capturing reality with her lens. The photographer decides what goes into the photo, how things are lined up, and (the horror!) may even move things in reality to get a particular effect on film, or change the lighting.
Even if we assume that a photographer has to capture a specific event in a specific way, let us consider how the photograph will differ from reality. If the photo is in black and white, it will lack the color information that is so important to our conception of reality. Even if in color, the saturation, hue, and color balance will all be changed by the photograph--even without the photographer's intent. The photograph will also be a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional world. It will be flat; in that, it is distinctly not real. Also, and maybe most importantly, the photograph captures an instant in time, whereas reality is a continuum of time. If you see this as unimportant, take a look at snapshots that you have of a friend or family member. Now, ask yourself, what makes this snapshot good or bad? Most of the time, if the snapshot seems 'wrong' it is because the expression on the person's face is frozen into something that seems 'unnatural.' However, we may see that expression often, and not see it as unnatural in real life. But, we see it in flux--to capture and recognize at the time an expression that will look good frozen in time is tough. And that just goes to show how-unlifelike photography is.
Now, the main question arises again: is photography an art? I will ask another question instead: is every painting art? The answer to that would have to be no. Paintings are not necessarily art--we do not buy a child's finger painting for huge sums of money even though it may show more apparent skill than a Jackson Polick painting. Why do we not? The answer is because the art is missing from the child's painting--there is no clear intention, no meaning.
When we recognize that photographers have ways to change a photograph,
we can see that they thus have ways to make art. Just because it is much
easier to take a decent photograph than it is to paint even a bad watercolor
does not mean that photography is not an art. Truly great photographs are
just as rare as truly great paintings. Those of us who are serious about
photography should not be punished just because any fool can pick up an
instant camera and call himself a photographer.
Maybe I am not the one to be writing about the nature of art. I am,
after all, unpublished, have never sold a single photographic print, and
cannot play an instrument (though I can carry a tune, although again, not
very well).
However, I'll give it a try anyway. I feel that I have a special qualification that is quite rare, in that I have some talent and experience in all forms of art, if my talents are only minor.
My other prime qualification is that this is my website, and I can say what I damn well please.
I think that there is something at the core of all that we would call art, something that connects every form of art. Something that connects and relates every objet d'art, whether it be music, a novel, or a painting (or photograph!).
Kafka said that every good story must shock the reader. I think in this, he was getting close to what the meaning and purpose, if not the nature, of art is. Art exists not for beauty's sake, nor for the sake of money (though I myself would appreciate some money now and again . . . ). Art exists to send a message to the viewer, the listener, the reader. That message, however, can be 'beauty.' There is a difference, however small, between a painting that is beautiful and a painting that conveys a message of beauty; just ask Michel Foucault.
That message can be just about anything. The message could be good, could be evil, could be beautiful. It can be inspirational, and it can be horrible. But what connects all art is that every artwork sends a message to a receiver, and that message, to be effective, to be artful, must penetrate the receiver's mind directly to the unconscious. Therefore, a piece of artwork must be subtle. The more subtle, the more artful. However, this is not always true, as sometimes those pieces of art (I am thinking of a few photographs in particular, such as one from the Vietnam War of a little girl, naked, running away from her burning village) are quite direct, but the directivity only adds to their power.
Whoever it was who said, "Let me control the music, and I will control the people's minds" was quite right. Rather than, say, giving a logical argument for stopping war, sing a song. People will enjoy the melody and their conscious minds will not be able to obstruct the memes engendered by the song from burrowing deep into their unconscious personality.
"So if you take my hand, my son . . . "
What Kafka was referring to when he said a good story must shock the reader is that good stories, and I may add, good artwork, uses its power to slip past the guards of the conscious mind for effect, to change the receiver's mind in some way; that way need not be monumental, such as a person's views on war or women or blacks; that way can be so simply subtle as to be beyond description by my crass means.
References:
Claxton, Guy. Hair Brain, Tortoise Mind. New Jersey, Ecco Press: 1997.
-a great book for laypeople on the workings of the unconscious mindback to top
I've always wondered: why art? What is it in artwork that excites us so? Is it
because it is creative? In creating art are we mirroring God's act of Creation,
and achieving some minor form of godliness? When I see a work of art (whether a
painting, a photograph, a novel, etc.) that excites me, I feel something
indescribable. Is it because in creating art we create beauty that can almost
rival the beauty of God's green earth?
Where does beauty come from, anyway? Why are autumn leaves beautiful? Why is a spectacular sunset so beautiful? Why do we so love pretty flowers? Is beauty, in itself, a virtue?
Is there some common element that runs through everything that we find beautiful? Is there something linking a sunset to a loved one's visage to a flower to a painting by Monet? I think there is. Only those things that are most pleasing to our souls can be truly beautiful, whether they are pleasing through love, love of life, or love of creation.
So how does one create a beautiful work of
art? The only way that one can create beauty is by forgetting our conscious
minds and letting the art flow from our unconscious selves, our soul. Only by
forgetting about logic and thought can we transcend them by creating something
truly beautiful.
Navigate GodotWeb