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:
Hello Chesil,
Indeed I found your blog looking at your photos on Flickr. As I am a fan of Spencer Tunick's I am forever talking to folks about whether it is art or not, and if not what? One criticism by an art critic had the same basic idea, that because Spencer sets up his installations and the takes his photos that he is only documenting what he see, Now as I know how much time Spencer spends in picking his locations and his lighting, and tries to vary the texture of his models I see each photo as a creation, therefore art. If a photo is for the news or to document for insurance purposes, ID photo, etc. then no manipulation is expected-the best news photos are often the unexpected, candid shots. But as you pointed out photographers have worked with their images, over and under exposing, double exposing, forced perspective tricks, etc since the camera was invented. Art is the creation and interpretation of what the artist sees, hears, feels and senses, using what ever medium he deems fit to convey that creation to the rest of the world. Sometimes it works and the bridge between artist and audience is crossed. But the audience does not determine the art, only whether or not that viewer(listener, reader) likes the art.
Roger
Post a Comment
<< Home