civilized ku # 120 ~ it ain't what you eat, it's the way how you chew it

Reflected light • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry, Mark Meyer parried my basic premise (and most of my past stuff as well) with the idea of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" who managed to "get it (art & beauty) right" and that most of my critical approach is based on the idea that "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" got it wrong.

Well, I must admit that Mark is part right. When it comes to the medium of photography, I do think that "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" have got it wrong.

Why? Let's start with this (sorry Mark, another quote):

Let us first say what photography is not. A photograph is not a painting, a poem, a symphony, a dance. It is not just a pretty picture, not an exercise in contortionist techniques and sheer print quality ... ~ Bernice Abbott

It always amuses me (when it doesn't annoy me) that so many practitioners of the act of picture making seem to think that photography is basically painting done with a machine. Their aesthetics come straight from the school of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics". They faithfully mimics both their ideas and ideals.

[CAVEAT let me once again be clear on this point - if your muse is predisposed to head in the direction of "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics", have at it. Enjoy yourself. Have fun. Be the best that you can be. My thoughts on the matter should not give you one single moment's pause].

However, my ideas about the possibilities of medium of photography go far beyond that of pursuing /picturing "ideals". The single paradigm-changing (art-wise) characteristic of the medium of photography is its intrinsic and inimitable relationship with the real. Not idealized forms, but rather, the real.

Language (and photography is a visual language) is said to be composed of 2 inseparable parts, words and the manner in which words are used to communicate ideas, AKA, Content (words) and Form (the way the words are used).

The visual language of photography is no different. It utilizes Content (the subject of the camera's gaze) and Form (the manner in which the content is pictured and presented) in order to communicate ideas and meanings.

It goes without saying that in either case - the spoken/written word and visual language - how you "say it" goes a long way in determining / influencing how the idea(s) and meaning(s) you wish to express are received and understood. So, Content must be mated to the appropriate Form in order to effectively communicate the author's intent.

That is why so many current (and a fair number of previous) practitioners of the act of making pictures (photography-wise) who are interested in pursuing the possibilities of the medium with respect to the real, utilize distinctly different types of Form from those "neoclassicists looking back to Aristotle's Poetics" utilize.

Many current practitioners believe that a "new" type of Content - the real - demands a "new" type of Form in order to communicate their ideas and meanings.

So, IMO, it's not so much that the ancient Greeks got it "wrong" as it is that they simply weren't photographers.

Let me close with this:

... The assumption that (Ansel) Adams and his kind are the only "real" photographers usually indicates an aversion to the dissonant and playful spirit of modern art ... - John Rosenthal

Comments

[Mark M]

It always amuses me (when it doesn't annoy me) that so many practitioners of the act of picture making seem to think that photography is basically painting done with a machine.

This really gets to the crux of photography criticism for me because you are correct that many people do think this way and I often catch myself thinking this way.

Clearly there must be some overlap in vocabulary since they both attempt to communicate visually in a two dimensional medium. How much? Beats me. We find this kind of critical overlap in other genres, for instance between poetry and music; it would be absurd to apply music theory to a sonnet, but you can talk about rhythm and cadence in both. You can apply theories of narrative to both film and novels, but again they are clearly different and one could easily make too much of the similarities.

The critical distinction between painting and photography is interesting from the perspective of the viewer when you examine the fringe case where we as viewers cannot tell if what we are looking at is a photograph or a painting. If we looked at both media in the same way, we shouldn't really care if it is a painting or photo, but that is not what happens. Instead when we see a well made photo-realistic painting for the first time we find ourselves with a sort of cognitive dissonance. The first thing we want to know is which it is, a photo or a painting. I think this is a common reaction and the immediate desire to determine which medium one is looking at illustrates the strong differences in how we are prepared to approach the two.