Comments on: Photography versus Art, Rinse, Repeat

By: Steve Allen

Steve Allen — Wed, 03 Jan 2024 19:06:48 +0000

In the 1970s Adams was my God, and I studied his books; Camera and Lens, The Negative, and The Print until the bindings wore out. He truly was a Master of vision, mechanics, and chemistry. I still have those cherished books in my library. Thanks for the great write-up on my favorite photographer.

By: ARTHUR W GOTTSCHALK

ARTHUR W GOTTSCHALK — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:30:52 +0000

Can’t believe you think what Crewdson goes is art. Yes, he calls himself an artist, and he has convinced others that his work is art. But I think he’s much more an illustrator. At the very least he should make movies, which have the potential to be entertaining. As it is, it’s just simply fake. More importantly, it fails the economy of means test. So much work, so much expense to achieve so little.

By: James PassmoreJames Passmore

James PassmoreJames Passmore — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:12:54 +0000

In reply to Craig Sinclair.

If your definition of “art” excludes Ansel Adams – because he didn’t construct the subjects of his photographs – then you have to leave out Cartier Bresson, Joseph Koudelka, Andre Kertesz and also painters like Caravagio, (who couldn’t paint a stroke without having the subject in front of him), and even Monet. You can also exclude Irving Penn with his found art. Or even Richard Avedon, with his portraits of the people in the West. (Ironically you would end up including all his fashion advertising instead.) Frankly, (and I don’t even really like Ansel Adams) this was a very silly post. Maybe you should leave the “what is art” argument alone. Just put it on the ground and slowly step away.

By: Enver Hoxha

Enver Hoxha — Sun, 14 Jul 2019 03:14:34 +0000

I didn’t read all of it, but you’re absolutely right. Photography cannot be art, no matter how impressive.

By: David

David — Mon, 27 May 2019 15:18:30 +0000

Good writing is Art. Thanks.

By: HeartShyCan'tHide

HeartShyCan'tHide — Wed, 22 May 2019 02:42:55 +0000

I’m a therapist by profession. I’ve seen the value and also the pain that comes with placing parameters around something. When I work with survivors of intimate partner violence, I have to be very precise and rigid around the definition of abuse so people can keep themselves safe. When I work with relationships where there is a male-identified partner, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard precise and rigid definitions of masculinity that have been given to these men. It sucks. What ends up happening is that they are unable to identify and name some pretty basic emotions. Or they disown all emotions, except maybe anger because that’s the “manly” one. Anger is the one that pushes our partners away, whereas vulnerability brings them closer, but they’ve never explored those vulnerable emotions or had the emotional safety to express that. It’s heartbreaking to see how that negatively impacts a relationship, how they see themselves, and how they see each other. So I’m weary about anyone putting parameters or giving specific and rigid definitions to art for this reason. I’m worried that we’re sending the message of, “If you don’t fit this, then you’re not worthy of an artist designation.” No one deserves to feel like they’re at the bottom of some imagined art hierarchy. But can a definition be helpful? Sure. Terry Richardson is a total pile of shit and has harmed a bunch of women. If a photographer coerces someone into doing anything sexual for the sake of a photograph, then calling it art is harmful. But is calling the landscape hanging in your general practitioners office “art” harmful? Nah. Because art is an expression of our humanity, defining art is really an attempt to define our humanity. So if you’re looking for a blanket definition, maybe that’s a good place to start. What makes us human? For years, I’ve been studying humans and joining with people in their process of healing and change and I still haven’t figured it out yet. We are emotional, relational, cultural, historical, cognitive, neurophysiological, behavioral, experiential, spiritual, representational, conceptual, story-telling, meaning-making, etc. If we can find a photograph that speaks to any one on any of our dimensions of humanness, then that’s enough.