Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT?) art and photography

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT?) art and photography
From: W Shumaker <om4t@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:25:12 -0400
This is an important subject for me at the moment. I have never
considered myself very artistic, I'm sure that comes from
self-judgements that I placed on myself early on by being overly
sensitive to criticism. And being overly critical of my own work. I doubt
that I am alone in this. If you look at a famous photograph, as a
photographer, do you wonder how you would have rendered the situation,
or even if you could enter into the possibility of that situation and
made something of it? I think I do more nature photography simply
because it doesn't require me to engage as much of the world of
'others', I can take my time and be alone... Ok, I'm a bit
self-conscious. So I'm caught up in 'what is art?' maybe to figure out
if I am doing art or can I see art?

Today I went to the local PolyArts festival in Hopkinton. I met two
interesting people, at the same time, one a local photographer, another
a watercolor artist. The artist was a retired gentleman who took up
painting late in life. His advice was that "success has more to do with
persistence than anything else. Just keep at it." The photographer
reminded me of the typical in-your-face intrusive kind of photographer
(with a press badge on, local, homemade??). The artist mentioned to the
photographer, that I was also a photographer, and when he found out I
shot film, he sort of gave me this, "well how romantic, but digital
cameras today are better than film." He had a Canon 10D. I had no real
response, it is a decent camera. But all I could think about was 'art'
and just said, "well I like film." And "I do have a C-5050." A mere toy
in his eyes and he said good day and moved on. I knew it was pointless
to say I was interested in art, in vision and seeing, and moments, in
somehow penetrating to some deeper understanding. Ok, I'm a dreamer,
but I really have been trying to understand this 'art' thing, and just
what it is that pushes me to go out and photograph forms, shape, light,
people, expression with a camera. If someone put a blank canvas in
front of me and said to paint something, I'm at a loss. But when the
situation arises, whatever camera is in my hands, I try to use it as
best I can with what I can see. And maybe I'll never be able to paint,
photography is so quick. Impatience, persistence...

Here is a link to some stuff I just threw together. A sample of what
catches my eye. (Enter user and password, just to filter extraneous
hits.) Some shots look better larger, but I used PS to save time.

<http://www.zuik.net/om/artlight/>
user: zuiko
pswd: om4ti

I understand that nothing can be seen without light. My original
revelation was more that I did not relate to a painting when it was
just paint on a canvas (except for artists like Jackson Pollock),
that I needed the element of light, whether implied or the object of
the painting for there to be some response in me.

Boris thinks I am 'biased as a photographer', which is fine. If so, is
there something I should explore further with regard to the
photographer's bias? or leave it as is? And it's OK to have hair in the
wrong places some days.

John Lind's amazing photos I can clearly relate to. And maybe
photography will always be more closely allied to the expression of
light than other art forms because of the camera's direct dependence on
light.

Ken brings up an interesting points. There are different forms of light,
like directional light or diffuse light. Diffuse light on a cloudy day
is great when using higher contrast films, but even diffuse light has a
bit of direction, just no strong shadows. So, thanks for the comment
on 'light as a compositional element,' I can take that into account
when editing my photos and see how I use light in composition in the
field. That was illuminating...

> Maintaining a luminiscy to our photographs is important. This is
> difficult to achieve with most color photography--much easier and
> more important in B&W where the full tonal scale must be represented
> to define the visual boundaries in a decidedly abstract artform.

And maybe this is it, and what I react to in paintings - contrast and
luminosity. I will ponder this... Maybe I should do more B&W. Nubar
Alexanian, a photographer I admire, likes the way B&W abstracts one
level more than color. See his book "Stones in the Road" or check:
<http://www.nubar.com/booksprints/stones/SLIDE_1.HTM> He comments that
had he shot the people in Peru in color, we would be distracted by
there colorful clothing and not see the people as much.

And maybe in the end the exploration is how one relates to the world of
form. And I should just go take some more pictures and find out. Thanks
for listening.

Wayne
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz