Anyone who wants to look at something that is primarily aimed at the esthetic/emotional side of photography, then I can strongly recommend 'The Tao of Photography' by Gross and Shapiro. Don't confuse this with the Tom Ang book with a similar title, which doesn't go into any depth on anything.
Susan Sonntag's 'On Photography' is also worth a look, although I never got on with it.
Any other suggestions?
Visit COLORRIGHT to get the colors right in your digital slr.
I value the technical discussions because it is critical to how I spend money and how I accomplish lighting and solve practical issues. I also look at websites of posters and bookmark sites with impresive compelling photographs: those that cause an eruptive emotional experience.
Strangely I have seen harsh criticism of photographers that show there photgraphs. Still, some of Michale Reichman's pictures from Bangledesh on Luminous-Landscape.com are stunning. He often compromizes on lens raz-ma-taz specs for lightweight simplicity. He has produced a lot of special artworks, in my opinion.
I know of guys that write essays on art and phototography and one in particular shares work that to me falls short!
To me it is simple. If the photgraph evokes a set of emotions to make you want to revisit it time and again and treasure it, that is a work of art. It is not more complicated than that!
It does't require lack of pixelation, vignetting normal color or great resolution, the rule of 2/3 rds or any such!
It is just whether or not your heart is set on fire, frozen or disturbed such that you are strangely drawn to it and value it to give it a special place in your world. That is art!
A girl that models for me just shared some of her self-taken pictures of herself taken with an older 1.2 MB Sony. Lighting was just from a bedside or room tungsten light. There was a lot of color noise and some pictures were blown in the highights.
However, several of those pictures took my breath away.
Here, I believe, you will find very little technical discussion on photography. Actually, you'll find very little actual discussion at all, but you will find a lot of fascinating photography by some very young, obscenely talented individuals from around the world. If they only knew the value of their work!
Oh, BTW there's a ton of crap there too, but the gems you find are wonderful.
part of the problem is that we lack a good common language to discuss these matters and those languages which have been developed tend to be jargon laden and confusing to people new to those discussions. Additionally those of us outside of art and philosophic discussions think of those who are in those circles as elitist. the discussions of these subjects tend to be closely argued and abstruse to outsiders and have philosophic, and often political assumptions which are largely misunderstood by photographers (and nearly everyone else) because they are based in literary criticism.
here are three good books and their authors who don't fit this description (Sontag's "On Photography definitely does fit it to a "t" it is still worth reading. Later she concluded that many of the points she argued in "On Photography" were simply wrong. see her book "on the suffering of others".) :
"mirrors and windows" john swarkowski
"the nature of photographs" stephen shore
"beauty in photography: in defense of traditional values" robert adams
my belief is that we see three photographs on 3 levels: emotional aesthetic and then intellectual --almost simultaneously. It first must have an emotional appeal, th n appeal to a sense of order and then we allow ourselves the luxury of thinking about the content and formal qualities of the photograph.
[ QUOTE ]
part of the problem is that we lack a good common language to discuss these matters and those languages which have been developed tend to be jargon laden and confusing to people new to those discussions. .......
My belief is that we see three photographs on 3 levels: emotional aesthetic and then intellectual --almost simultaneously. It first must have an emotional appeal, th n appeal to a sense of order and then we allow ourselves the luxury of thinking about the content and formal qualities of the photograph.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ellis,
You three categories are pretty correct, it seems to me.
However each is dependant on so many other factors.
1. Emotional: this can be basic, those emotions directly wired into human brains: family/beauty/sexual, danger/fear, digust
Here there is no thought. The reactions are erruptive, visceral and often constrained and repressed by our culture. "Art" uses this as the easiest route to our attention.
2. Order: Here there is a combination of complex wired circuits recognizing faces, threats, mountains, sky, rivers up and down and so forth. "Art" exploits this. Again, by ading imprints from familiar faces, myths and religion (the most common is the crucifixion) a vast array of symbology is is programmed into our brains.
3. Intellectual: what are the motivations and consequences of what is shown in this "art"? How does this react with my view of society, logic, right and wrong interests and needs.
Still, the common fundamental emotional patterns and formsyield common currencies of art, albeit with different exchange rates.
Few in an Amazon peoples would find the Mona Lisa to be any better to Epson K3 prints of a monkey! Their precious art would be collected by us, but with perhaps more of a souvenir or trophy value than from their inherent worth as great "art".
Much of our view of art is like religion: memes (i.e. culturally infectious, self-propagating ideas.)
Is the Mona Lisa wonderful? Well yes. However, without telling me, I would never know it is so very very special!
Linear Mode
