Thursday, January 3, 2013

Tell Me How You Think of Photography

A new year – a good time for a new direction: 
While I read ideas, opinions and technique daily I’m never settled about what photography is, or should be. This is odd in the respect that a gallerist is expected to make statements – but I search, observe and wonder.  Please tell me how you view photography. Do you believe in the journalistic perspective and/or in craft? Do you see, or appreciate  value in the artist-made print? Is pictorialism really a hundred years dead, or just represented with contemporary images? Do we need to make prints with all the screens around us? What about film? What about The Impossible Project?

Through This Lens has shown many variations of photography, and that has been part of my exploration of the medium. Please share your opinions and ideas, and ask your friends to post their ideas here too. If you have an idea for an exhibition please tell me. I’m always looking for something more, something different, or something new.

1 comment:

  1. Roylee, I am not sure that this will help you, as you already know my thoughts on this, but maybe it will be useful for the visitors of this blog.

    I have been in photography for more than forty years, and I discover with pleasure that forty years later, photography is the most modern form of emotional visual arts. "Emotional" refers to the ability to move the heart or the soul, which is what art is about for most people.

    Photography is especially good at that when it uses its tie with reality, and even more so, although not exclusively, when that reality seems ephemeral, and therefore the photograph seems to capture an elusive moment.

    The photography that bores me is the one that wants to be spectacular, or exotic, yet is deprived of real emotional content, striking composition. Sports illustrated and National geographic comes to mind. In general that would also be defined as the photography that thinks that it accomplishes much by merely documenting, showing. In a world saturated with images, I don't need that extra visual burden. Even the paper should have photographs that are pleasant to look at, with good light and composition, and then something of interest happening.

    Finally, in an art gallery, a museum or the like, I expect very good prints, no exception. This also means that the author has to do her/his own printing, otherwise it is not serious, best case scenario a printer is going to be the run of the mill, and that is not enough, a photographer's vision is only fulfilled by thoughtful and thorough printing, managing all the details. Anything less truly takes the audience for granted, it is insulting, like showing up in jeans at a reception.

    Oh, and I was going to forget, a generic one style fits all framing, typically a black or white one, does not reflect well on one's artistic ambitions either. Eventually if a photograph is framed, the frame is the ultimate artistic touch and should be treated as such. One would not expect a jewel from Tiffani's in a Target box.

    What I am trying to express here is "Please. don't cheapen photography."