When Grayson Perry was exploring the 'parameters of Art', in his recent Reith Lecture, he touched upon the thorny subject of Photography.
Photography has always been reluctantly included in what we consider to be the 'Arts' (capital A). The image already exists, the photographer uses a machine to record it, and the final result can be reproduced as many times as one wishes. At first glance it seems impossible to include it's activity along with that of either painting or sculpture.
Yet photography occasionally climbs to great heights. One only has to mention the names Capa, Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, or Liebovitz, to know that it is a serious business.
I was amused at Grayson Perry's attempt to explain the difference between 'Art' photography, and 'non-Art' photography. He claims that you know when it's 'Art', if no-one in a picture is smiling; and you also know it's 'Art', if the photograph is very BIG.
So, take note; if you wish your snaps to be taken seriously, no smiling. And get your high street store 'Pix-u-Like' to enlarge them to at least 200 cms by 180 cms. Then, hey presto, according to Mr Perry you'll be an 'Artist', and not just a photographer like the rest of us.
As far as I'm concerned it is art if it has no utilitarian use and someone will pay you money for it.
ReplyDeleteIf I pay for it, it is art.
ReplyDeleteI'll stick my head above the parapet and say that I believe photography can be Art.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is as 'black and white ' { haha } as that ..... I have always loved art and did art a-level in the lower sixth and really wanted to pursue it but, the academic school that I went to wasn't interested and I went a different route.....but, I have, in the last 10 years become interested in photography and think that you definitely have to have an 'eye ' for it although, I wouldn't say it was anywhere near the same as drawing, painting, sculpting etc..... there is definitely an ' Art ' to those mediums..... but, I think that photography does have it's place, be it 'Art ' or ' art ' !! XXXX
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that a good grasp of 'composition' is essential in photography; and that's something that is difficult to 'teach'.
DeleteI think Grayson Perry was just having a bit of fun at the expense of photographers.
And then of course there is the argument is it 'art' -- or is it 'artistic' and that will open another whole can of worms...!
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming he got PAID for that 'advice'????? Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteThe only photographic art I ever bought came in magazine form from the top shelves of seedy newsagents...
ReplyDeleteInteresting Cro - just shows how careful one has to be with one's words when aiming to described something as complicated and controversial as this. I can say this for sure - I point my digital camera and click and I know for certain that it is definitly not art.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Some subjects that are captured by other mediums already exist and they are reproducible by machines.....maybe another argument would work?
ReplyDeleteI've seem some works considered art for which i wouldn't pay a farthing, and others that are not considered Art, yet there's something arresting about it. Photography can be either, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who heard Grayson Perry's lecture will know that he makes his points through humour; a method with which I approve. Of course photography can be considered an 'Art', but I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why don't we just refer to photography as 'photography', painting as 'painting, and sculpture as 'sculpture'. Voila, QED.
ReplyDelete