Camera Arts?!
Camera Arts?!
The James Frey saga continues almost unabated and he is vilified in some unusual publications. For example, the May/June issue of Camera Arts includes an article by Jim Hughes who spends several pages complaining about Frey, the so called writer and recovering addict. Frey’s addiction might be so called but I think, having sold so many books and still being just outside Amazon’s top 100 best sellers, there can be little doubt that he is a writer.
Mr. Hughes’ wrath with Frey is a warm up to his main target; the “third rate hucksters that can call themselves artists and go unchallenged. Remember, this is the era of look-at-me websites, listen-to-what-I-have-to-say blogs, and anyone-can-be-creative podcasts. Call it the democratic impulse gone mad.”
Apparently, the term artist is to be reserved for those that are so adjudged by Mr. Hughes and his ilk. It is going to be a disappointing time for them. Creativity is an industry in America, but why not? Nobody has to read the blogs, view the websites or listen to the podcasts. As an example, it isn’t necessary to go very far on flickr.com to understand just how many great photographers there are out there both amateur and professional. The fact that it is easy to find and admire their work is one of the amazing benefits of the internet.
The final vitriol is saved for image manipulation and Hughes provides a lengthy explanation of an image of his that accompanies the article. His is a straight shot but “Looking at a print now, I realize that some Joe Schmoe with an image manipulation program…” and you can guess where that heads. I suggest Mr. Hughes goes back to look at some of the giants of his art. Does he really believe that what Ansel Adams printed was what he saw through the viewfinder? Of course not, but that sort of manipulation apparently is fine. Photography has been full of manipulation from its very early days, consider how a couple of girls hoodwinked the great Conan Doyle with their photographs of fairies at the end of their garden.
The inference, of course, is that anything manipulated is not art. That’s just facile. The image should be judged for what it is. Sure, if it is for news then it should not be manipulated to include things that were not there at the time of the shot. If it is for art, then anything goes and if Mr. Hughes has a problem with that, too bad because digital art and image manipulation is here to stay. Might as well get with the program, Jim.
The James Frey saga continues almost unabated and he is vilified in some unusual publications. For example, the May/June issue of Camera Arts includes an article by Jim Hughes who spends several pages complaining about Frey, the so called writer and recovering addict. Frey’s addiction might be so called but I think, having sold so many books and still being just outside Amazon’s top 100 best sellers, there can be little doubt that he is a writer.
Mr. Hughes’ wrath with Frey is a warm up to his main target; the “third rate hucksters that can call themselves artists and go unchallenged. Remember, this is the era of look-at-me websites, listen-to-what-I-have-to-say blogs, and anyone-can-be-creative podcasts. Call it the democratic impulse gone mad.”
Apparently, the term artist is to be reserved for those that are so adjudged by Mr. Hughes and his ilk. It is going to be a disappointing time for them. Creativity is an industry in America, but why not? Nobody has to read the blogs, view the websites or listen to the podcasts. As an example, it isn’t necessary to go very far on flickr.com to understand just how many great photographers there are out there both amateur and professional. The fact that it is easy to find and admire their work is one of the amazing benefits of the internet.
The final vitriol is saved for image manipulation and Hughes provides a lengthy explanation of an image of his that accompanies the article. His is a straight shot but “Looking at a print now, I realize that some Joe Schmoe with an image manipulation program…” and you can guess where that heads. I suggest Mr. Hughes goes back to look at some of the giants of his art. Does he really believe that what Ansel Adams printed was what he saw through the viewfinder? Of course not, but that sort of manipulation apparently is fine. Photography has been full of manipulation from its very early days, consider how a couple of girls hoodwinked the great Conan Doyle with their photographs of fairies at the end of their garden.
The inference, of course, is that anything manipulated is not art. That’s just facile. The image should be judged for what it is. Sure, if it is for news then it should not be manipulated to include things that were not there at the time of the shot. If it is for art, then anything goes and if Mr. Hughes has a problem with that, too bad because digital art and image manipulation is here to stay. Might as well get with the program, Jim.
posted by Paul | Monday, July 03, 2006
|
1 comments
