Photography in the 21st century can be described in many different ways just as it was described incessantly in the 19th & 20th century. In the three part series of Genius of Photography, the main idea that was discussed was what photography actually means to us. In the first part entitled “Fixing the shadows” many prominent photographers were highlighted such as Abelardo Morell, Henry Fox Talbot and Mark Ostermann. As early as 1802, people have been experiencing photography and by the 20th century people had realized that photography was actually an art form. By this I mean that at first photography was looked at as something outside of the art realm, something that was far different from drawing or painting. It wasn’t until people realized that photography showed just as much detail and life as a painting could, that photography started to become the “hot” topic of the century. Even the art historians and curators on the video describe how photography always transforms what it describes, and to control that transformation is the art of photography. I believe that photography has always been able to transform one thing into another, such as images of ridden landscapes that look beautiful; but I wouldn’t go as far as to saying that it’s the “art” of photography. The art of photography could be anything that the photographer wants it to be, as long as it’s their own. The video also described various modern techniques that were used as photographic methods such as daguerreotypes and camera obscura photographs. Surprisingly, daguerreotypes in the 19th century were described as a “mirror with a memory” since it was simply light reflected back through an image, when the image looks like nothing but a glass mirror. The photographs seem to be on the edge of being present but not to the complete brink. This is due to the fact that the silver grains “sit up” on the glass unlike they do in a paper photograph, where the grains seem to sink in. Interestingly enough daguerreotypist Jerry Spagnoli even stated that the “photographs produce a visual experience that’s unique.” One other interesting point that was brought up in the video though was that photography can’t be talked about without talking about money. For me I find this to be really true with not only photography but with every aspect of art in general. It seems as though now in this century everyone wants to make money off of their work, by either selling their works or getting them into an exhibition or museum gallery. I’d like to think that there was a time when photography had more simplicity and wasn’t looked at as another form of capitalism, but it’s extremely difficult in our time to tear away from that mold. From this the video explained how photography was becoming an industry, where accidental photographs can become masterpieces; much unlike painting or drawing. This is very true in our current century because of the accessibility and wide range of availability that people have with cameras. Cameras are everywhere and can be purchased, have film developed and printed for less than $10. This gives people the chance to make beautiful prints that could easily be seen as a million dollar worthy artwork.
The second part of the video series is entitled We are Family and documents the work of photographers such as Richard Avedon, Sally Mann, Nan Goldin and Noboyoshi Araki. In this series the main idea discussed was that photography has always searched out for the vulnerable, exposed people, such as the photos of the migrants out in the Midwest; people who were extremely vulnerable to the camera lens, and just waiting to be photographed. I believe that this is still true today because of all the hardships and bad circumstances we have in our community today. For example, we still have poverty which leads to homelessness, which is one of the most documented global issues to date, but is it because of the accessibility of the homeless? The fact that they are on the streets and simply available at will to be photographed? I’d say yes, but not that it’s the right thing to do; that’s what model release statements are for. One point in this series that I found interesting was when photographer Tony Vacarro stated that “photography is a way of placing the person you’re photographing on a pedestal, but the pedestal has to be the right size…” To me this means that the person has to have the right personality and character traits that the particular photographer is looking for. For photography in the 21st century, I want to relate back to what Noboyoshi Araki said about his photographic work; “I only photograph things that I want to remember…” This is very true with my work and I believe it’s true with others work as well. To photograph anything is a way to capture the essence and beauty of the object and/or being, but why does it have that essence and beauty in the first place? The person photographing has to have some interest in wanting to document, or actually remember the event. This is where the video started to go into the “very private versus the very public” which to me was an instant shot at work like Sally Mann’s Immediate Family which exhibits a series of photographs of her children, some of which are very personal, private photographs that one would usually see in a photo album and not in a gallery exhibition opening. This makes me wonder if photography will change us in this current century. As photographers do we really need to make a transition from one realm of simplicity to the other?
In the reading I found that one recurrent theme that interested me was the topic of digital photography and film, and how “the new media that will surface with or without intervention, will transform us…because media wants us to and we want them to…” I found this pretty fascinating to think about because I struggle with this everyday with my photography. To go from digital, something that everyone has such accessibility to, and something that is fairly easy to operate and understand, compared to film/35mm cameras, where everything is hands on and really almost on a personal level with the photographer it’s self. I find that the film camera is a lot more intriguing to capture essential photographs, but I also feel like this can be achieved with digital photography, just as long as the idea is still there and pushed just as hard. The end product is what I think justifies the photograph as transformative. Another issue that I found interesting was the topic of privacy and the public availability of certain photographs. Private photographs of war camps and governmental repression can easily be put onto the internet, which allows for everyone, including those photographed, to see the picture. This becomes an issue when safety and privacy become involved. As far as photography in the 21st century, I found it quite interesting that the reading stated how “photography became a way for young people in the 20th century to create an eyewitness testimony that might help to better society…” I feel like this is still occurring today because young people everywhere are able to take photographs. With social media websites like Flickr and Facebook, people can post their photographs almost anywhere, which allows for people to comment and give feedback. To me this is just like photo-journalism where the photographer presents a photograph initially to get across a main idea and instigate an emotional response in the viewer. Although, I agree with the end of the reading’s discussion on how digital photography is simply just another way of approaching photography as a whole for its beauty and aesthetic qualities.
No comments:
Post a Comment