Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Go down

Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  Admin on Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:19 pm

Please respond to the other persons posts, and be sure to reference something in the text.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 17
Join date : 2011-08-17

View user profile http://globalarthistory.forumth.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  anniet on Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:48 pm

From the given text I really like the fact how camera first generated and have been use as an art tool. Mo Ti, the Chinese philosopher, "determined that a shadow does not move of its own accord, but only if the object or the light that forms it moves." In another word, he was "the first to note the phenomenon of the camera obscura, in which light passing through a pinhole into a dark room will form on a surface behind the pinhole an inverted image of the scene outside." Many years later, in eighteenth century, camera becomes one the common tool for the painters. It is like they open their vision by looking through the camera, as the painters use it for paintings or even for illustrations. However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world.

anniet

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  Admin on Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:40 pm

"However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world."

Explain this statement please... Thanks.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 17
Join date : 2011-08-17

View user profile http://globalarthistory.forumth.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  anniet on Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:32 pm

What I mean for "However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world." is that because the technology make sense of the picture gone. For example Pinhole camera, as we could not predict what would the result be when we take the picture with those old style cameras, the result would be the random and i will give an interesting result that we couldn't expected. But when the digital camera become more popular i think the sense of randomness are gone, even though we still can get a good photo out from it.

anniet

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

THE END OF ART

Post  warut lek on Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:54 pm

I agree with ann's statement that "Development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world"
According to Szarkowski "The third great technical change in picture-making to occur during the fifteenth century was the introduction of the book with printed illustrations."
and "Produced in part by machines, these theoretically identical, mass-produced pictures greatly broadened society's understanding of the potential uses of art."

it means that change of technology created new trend of mass-production art because photography and printing technology give comfort to painters and artists to do an art and reproduce it again and again (which reduce the sense of art). That give me to think further if there is another change of technology, will the art will end?

Like Szarkowski said "...except to note that it constituted another demonstration that the ends of art were available to the science and technology of the new age."

That day will come and the end of art will happen.


Last edited by warut lek on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

warut lek

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

ART STILL EXIST

Post  VrTech on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:01 pm

I'm disagreed with Ann's statement which is "However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world." The art world cannot be end by the science and technology, not easy as that. This is like

"Leonardo, however; was so secretive a man that he wrote backward"

It's like something cannot be investigated by just looking at first place or we can misunderstanding. We need to search for the other side of that story, like the coin has two sides, research, and analyse more to make sure what we think and proof it.

In addition, art is already included with all design and even science design and technology design nowadays ,so we need to always think carefully.

Also "digital camera become more popular I think the sense of randomness are gone" for me I still insist about randomness still exists, even though you get a good picture or image with a high quality, you still mis-concept of art.

For example, you can set manual function mode to take a photo with focus and get an art image than you just use auto-function mode in digital camera.

Very Happy

VrTech

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  Dolhathai on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:24 pm

Respond to Ann, i think it interested not just because "camera first generated and have been use as an art tool" but as it have the "three stream of thought", "scientific disciplines called optics and chemistry" and "poetic idea, very air a picture formed by the forces of nature." They state chemistry to be the ancient craft, nature movement and "contemplation of stars". Which Leonardo da Vinci describe camera obscure "as an aid to drawing," but della Porta "who described it half a century later, and was long credited as its inventor," describe its more typical serious use was for astronomical observation, for it allowed people to watch solar eclipses, sun spots, and even (in 1639) the transit of Venus across the sun without damaging their eyes." Photography was never very took the appear of being art, "two centuries before the invention of photography, was apparently the first of a long line critics to say that the camera was fine for facts, but not really something with which one made art." Photography today have come a long way from being an observation and scientific used, it now can be express as art and function as visual.

Dolhathai

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

where is the end of art

Post  atom on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:28 pm

Referring to the previous post about "the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world", in my opinion i think it depends on the CONTEXT of how people think of art. In thai context people tend to take photographs saying this is a piece of art however, the artists in past might not agree with the pieces of art that the people from 20th century created.

As well as the period of time, in the past artists put their effort to develop their concept, meaning or interpretation through their art work. William Henry fox Talbot said about his idea "How charming it would be if it were possible to cause these natural images to imprint themselves durably and remain fixed upon the paper!" To me anything that takes time is going to have value in it.

atom

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  Dolhathai on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:31 pm

Respond to New
i Don't agree on "art is already included with all design and even science design and technology design," it more like Art is the Form of nature that already include in scince, because science is nature, so is Art. It just seem like Art and Science is alway by each other side only with different perspective and different purposes. Camera and Photography seem like a medium that stood on the line of both science and art.

Dolhathai

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  OhBigz on Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:47 pm

I agree with VrTech statement "It's like something cannot be investigated by just looking at first place or we can misunderstanding. We need to search for the other side of that story, like the coin has two sides, research, and analyse more to make sure what we think and proof it"

It's important that you have to prove by yourself for the truth and know the real information like if you want to improve social of art and you think technology is bad like ann's statement said "However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world" that wrong, you have to learn and know about technology to judge that it is good or bad for social of art, maybe you can develop social of art by use technology or mass-media for make comfortable for human life.As the quote"it constituted another demonstration that the ends of art were available to the science and technology of the new age.

OhBigz

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  OhBigz on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:00 am

This is Tem

I agree with ann's statement that "Development of the science and technology of today’s world
would have ended the art world"

In my view, It's true that there're more advantages in digital camera than the past. For example, A digital camera doesn't require a roll of film, or it can preview your photos right on the camera or on your computer screen. But, comfortable doesn't give you the true concept and ideas of taking art pictures. Compared with the past, like Pinhole camera, To take one photo use a long time and still can't predict or look at your pictures after you finish taking like nowadays. the artish who use that kind of cameras would know the basic of the elements of design or feeling more than digital cameras.

OhBigz

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  tempuraa on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:03 am

Tem again

I agree with ann's statement that "Development of the science and technology of today’s world
would have ended the art world"

In my view, It's true that there're more advantages in digital camera than the past. For example, A digital camera doesn't require a roll of film, or it can preview your photos right on the camera or on your computer screen. But, comfortable doesn't give you the true concept and ideas of taking art pictures. Compared with the past, like Pinhole camera, To take one photo use a long time and still can't predict or look at your pictures after you finish taking like nowadays. the artish who use that kind of cameras would know the basic of the elements of design or feeling more than digital cameras.

tempuraa

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  Dolhathai on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:07 am

but wasn't it purpose of taking a photos thru pin hole are documenting natures and historical events, not an art forms?

Dolhathai

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  ItthichadP on Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:06 am

It’s interesting that everybody just argue about Ann's statement that "Development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world"

I feel like cameras have not much relation to do with art at the beginning. They are more like tools for science like as stated in this book that camera was just a tool for astronomical observation, aid for drawing or like Ploy said about pinhole on her third post.

Compare with today’s world, images from digital camera can be more free to be edited by computer software like photoshop for example you can place something from other picture onto this picture or apply some effects/filter to give them some senses of art. Compare with the past it just like you draft image by using camera and painting/drawing something on it.

I feel more like development of science and technology supported the art world more than in the past.

ItthichadP

Posts : 1
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

home work :Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  golfcommde on Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:32 am

I'm disagree with ann's qoute that said

"However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world.".

i do believe that Mo Ti (chinese philosopher) had said that " a shadow does not move of its own accord, but only if the object or the light that forms its move".

according to this quote, the photo of the thing will be what it will be according to the light and object. this disprove that science and technology of today world would end the art world, because what u capture or feeling of the artist will show in the photo no matter what media you used. on the other hand, the technology might be another tools that will give artist more ability and comfortability to create the photo.


Last edited by golfcommde on Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : wrong first sentence)

golfcommde

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography After Modernism: Response to Szarkowski

Post  onwaraj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:16 am

Well I disagreed with the statement that said "Development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world"

In my opinion, people using camera as a tool to capture the moment. No matter what moment it is, it's still a caption of a time. No matter how the camera has been developed (from first pin hole to the super digital) it's still just a tool. What actually defines the meaning of the photo, whether it's art or just a caption is the intention of the photographer himself. Therefore, I think art is not going to be ended, people still have feelings to be express, and it will be shown in the photograph still.

onwaraj

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Art will never ended

Post  giff.tizzada on Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:37 am

I am disagreed with ann's statement "However, the development of the science and technology of today’s world would have ended the art world."

Refers to last page of a sheet stated that "the ends of art were available to the science and techonology of the new age" I think it means that the ends of art were available for science and technology -only-.

This is supported by Abbott Payson Usher who points out that is was futile to try to identify the inventor of mechanical printing, or the steam engine, or the airplane, since "cultural achievement is a social accomplishment based on the accumalation of many small acts of insight by individuels." Mr. Usher surely did not mean to suggest that each of these acts was of equal importance, but rather that the most imaginative and thrilling of them stood on the shoulders of a thousand earlier contribution.

Like Baudelaire said: "Photograph industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art's most mortal enemy." and in John Szarkowski's own terms of reference Baudelaire was half right; certainly the new medium could not satisfy old standards. The photographer must find new ways to make his meaning clear.

This means that art is still important in their own way as they are not on the same way with science and techonology.

giff.tizzada

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Confuse

Post  Dolhathai on Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:00 am

so which text do we have to talk about, and do we still do it here in this topic?

Dolhathai

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-09-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum