Photography is something that was debated for a long time of whether or not it should be considered as a major art form. We're simply taking 'real life' and processing it through film, so how could it be considered an art? The question continued throughout the progression of photography and then through motion picture and we had to ask ourselves, if the digital fabrication of real life was something that we could consider art. For example with painting- something that has been considered an art for hundreds of years- we can paint something that exists in real life, but it will always be OUR perception of that image in real life. A painting of an apple, no matter how realistic, is our interpretation of that apple, our own image of an apple projected through paint, water, and canvas. We can never get the exact look of that apple because throughout the course of the painting, shadows change, apple's rot and the painters eyes and perspective shift. You can create a painting of an apple that doesn't even come close to resembling an apple, but was inspired by one and therefore we take the painting as a representation of that apple.
So how does this relate to photography? The main argument for photography not being an art was that it simply produced an image of one moment in time, a single snap shot with no room for creativity or inspiration. However, when photography started to be used to unveil the horrors of poverty on the streets of the cities or to capture the beauty of a sunset, people started to realize that photography, even though it is 'real life' can be shown in a way that evokes emotion and create controversy around those who are being photographed and those who are doing the photography. We can't fake a photo because it's taken at one instance in time, however we can stage a photo, which is something that shows we can have creative control over the outcome of a photograph.
This comes to our discussion of what photography is and can anybody be a photographer? If a photographer is described as someone who takes pictures, then yes, of course everyone can be a photographer- assuming that you have the means to push a button. But how has digital technology effected our view of what is 'good' and 'effective' photography? Anyone who can get their hands on a good camera can point and shoot and eventually a photograph will come out that is beautiful, inspiring, even breath-taking, but if it took you 300 pictures to get to that point, should you be considered a great photographer? The idea of using new technology to take pictures as art- not for scientific reasons, not for discovery, but for simply the inspiration of art- in my opinion takes away from the raw talent that it takes to get the angle and the lighting and the time of day just right so that the image is just how you want it. The same theory applies to our projects that we're working on right now. When taking a photograph, without the use of digital technology, there is a design process you must come up with. Where do you want the light, will it be natural or artificial? Will there be shadows if your subject is at a certain angle? What are you trying to get out of this photograph? When you are presented with a limitation, just like we talked about in class today, whether it's a time limit or a limit in the amount of frames you can take, limitations force us to think before we act. In photography and in Digital design, when we have limitations we think about what we want our outcome to be before we start designing.
So I guess the question I'm trying to get at is... in some cases does technology allow us to be lazy? Has technology gotten to the point where creativeness doesn't matter because we can so easily create something that would normally be considered a creative task? What are the repercussions of technology when it comes to something that used to be considered an art? Are we becoming less creative or are we simply putting our creative energies in technological art and design?
