Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
Well I'm more in agreement with Studio25.
There's good, and bad photography, and some of it can be artistic.
It all comes down to how we define 'art'.
Art is subjective.
I do think some of the surrealist photographers in the thirties onwards, used the medium to produce work that could have the label 'art' attached to their output. Using it in ways other than to record in two dimensions what existed in reality.
Flash, bang, wallop.
I am a camera.
But am I a living work of art?
|
I shy away from the surreal -find it a bit alarming somehow.
I like more realistic photography which captures the feel of a place or time.
I know that you are artistic, having seen some of your creations on paper and with textiles - the art is in the creation and originality I think. That is something you're born with and can be developed through learning techniques and expressing your own style.
I know I don't have an artistic bone in my body but I have always liked taking photographs and I think about one in every 50 or so of mine could be considered to be artistic perhaps. I have also discovered that when I write I can describe things well so I think I'm probably descriptive in the pictures I take too.
Have just spent an hour hunting out two photos from my "Reflex" days which had got put away in the cellar! they used to be on the walls till we moved here 7 yrs ago -they were still wrapped in newspaper!
Both taken in Brittany in 1997 -i like them and think they are artistic -but perhaps I'm unobjective as it was a particularly memorable holiday!
The portrait is my husband on a beach. The landscape you will recognise, it was taken at 11-30pm just before sunset -no tripod or posing, just flash, bang, wallop!
I'd just taken a series of pictures of my sons flying kites which also have a nice feel to them for the light i think. As I say perhaps I'm blinded by the memories.
