life in pictures # 16 ~ good questions
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:11PM 
1st Ave & E 4th Street (work-in-progress) ~ NY, NY • click to embiggenOn the entry civilized ku # 947, John Linn wrote:
Many fine artists (painters) use photography as a tool to work out subject and composition ... many painters WOULD selectively use the bits and pieces they find work best for their art ... they are creating a vision that is an interpretation of the scene. I have a artist friend who talks about seeing with his "minds-eye" which is different that his in-fact eyes.
In your opinion is this the essential difference between a painter and a photographer? A photographer should be responsible for interpreting reality without distortion?
... is there a place in the world for the photo illustrator who can pick and choose his/her images as long as there is no intent of misrepresentation?
Re: "the essential difference between a painter and a photographer" - as I have stated many times, the unique and defining difference between painting (and other non-photo visual arts) and photography is photography's relationship to / characteristic as a cohort of the real. No other visual medium / art possesses photography's ability to capture a moment in time with such precision and accuracy.
While painters may base their art on the real, photographers have the ability to instantly, directly, and accurately depict the real. In both instances, the resultant picture is a representation of the thing pictured inasmuch as neither picture is the thing itself. However, that said, a painting is a much more "interpretive" representation of the thing than is a "straight" photograph of the thing.
And, while a painter gets to select (what they "see" with their "minds-eye") which elements of the real he/she wishes to include in their interpretation of a thing/scene, a "straight" photographer only gets to select what part of the real (what they "see" with their "in fact-eye") he/she wishes to include within the frame. It should go without stating that these 2 acts of selecting are entirely different disciplines.
Re: "...should (photographers) be responsible for interpreting reality without distortion? ... is there a place in the world for the photo illustrator who can pick and choose his/her images as long as there is no intent of misrepresentation?" - there is no licensing authority for photographers which gets to state what a photographer may picture or how they may picture it.
One could argue that, in the Fine Art World, there are picture police - critics, academics, gallery owners, museum curators, et al - who try to enforce picture making strictures. However, with the exception of those who make pictures with the picture police as their primary audience, most picture makers follow their own vision and let the chips fall where they may. However, in the Fine Art World (as opposed to the anything-goes Decorative Art World), most picture makers are acutely aware of the medium's relationship to / with the real.
With that defining characteristic firmly embedded in their "in fact-eye", they (photographers who are artists) set out to depict the real in a realistic, yet interesting and engaging, fashion or, in some cases (artists who use photography - akin to Linn's "photo illustrators"), use that characteristic to realistically depict what is in their "minds-eye" (staged pictures, as an example). In either case, the medium's readily apparent visual ability to accurately record the real is one of the major hallmarks of successful picture making / photo pictures.
Add to all of that blather, the fact that I consider the making of good/great/interesting pictures without resorting to "distortions" - cheap tricks, gear gimmicks, fanciful effects and manipulations, et al (aka, "misrepresentation", intentional or not) - to be the most difficult thing to accomplish in the picture making world. And, FYI, I do not consider doing so a "responsibility" but rather an act of respect for "what is", aka - the real, instead of a fanciful interpretation of what I wish it to be.
That challenge and respect in picture making is why I hold those who resort to picture making "distortions" in such low picture making esteem. They are aesthetic simpletons (OK, that's a bit harsh but ...), no matter how technically challenging or difficult the making of their pictures may be. But, that said, what they make is art and there is "a place in the world" for them. That place is in the world of Decorative Art (looks nice on the wall above the sofa, matches the colors in the room, makes one feel "good", and so on) but rarely in the world of Fine Art.
Reader Comments (5)
Hey Mark,
If you happen to see a group of about 15-20 college women from Ball State University trundling around NY city today, say hi to my daughter Suzanne! Last I heard via text was that Tommy Hilfiger's sister just told her that she liked her shoes. Glad to see she has had nice weather! Remember when you were in Italy and my brother was apparently there at the same time? The world seems small at times doesn't it?
I'm curious how the use of the pinwide fits into your heirarchy of photographic syles.
I'm curious how your use of Photoshop composites fit into pictures "without resorting to "distortions" - cheap tricks, gear gimmicks, fanciful effects and manipulations.."
First of all, thanks for your posting... good food for thought.
While others are asking about "cheap tricks, gear gimmicks", I would like to add...
Where do you stand on the use of polarizer and gradient filters?
Oh, and meant to mention, I like the picture with this post. The colors seem more vibrant than usual (work-in-process?) and you were able to capture a nice moment between the two people. Even the dog is in good pose.