INDA Art History Response #3

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Photography Response

Post  chanaporn sutharoj on Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:14 pm

The invention of photography in the past is very interesting as it became integral part of the modern world. The camera obscura by Henry Fox Tabolt had a remarkable achievement as it simple to make but the solution is remarkable and natural. He captured an image and using paper coat with salt to create a reverse photo. Later Louis Daguerre invented another process called daguerreotype, different from Tabolt as a dialogue, “...unlike Tabolt’s negative-positive, Daguerre produced one-off images”. Daguerre didn’t use paper-based process but he uses a mirrored metal plate instead. At that time it’s called ‘the mirror with a memory’ and likely ‘Polaroid’ in a modern world.
The invention of a roll of film is also remarkable. George Eastmans invented a revolution amataer camera called Kodak. It is an amazing industrialize camera that first came out in masses. “You press the button, we do the rest”, is a slogan for Kodak factory which shows how simple the camera works. This convenience process changes the use of the camera from empire to republic and also changes the purpose of the camera. People took photo with fun and joy as dialogue, “The idea was take as many as you can because there’s always more to be had”, and let it collected memories. People then no need to care for the printing and the process, the joy of having a photo came in and smile appears on their faces. Now, this is also the purpose of the camera in a modern world.

chanaporn sutharoj

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INDA Art History Response #3

Post  onchanok on Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:21 pm

It is fascinating to see how photography has developed throughout times. In the BBC documentary, The Genius of Photograph, I enjoyed looking at different ways photographs can be produced, such as the use of photosensitivity of silver salts. Also, I was amazed to see the amount of experiments performed before we achieve today’s photography technique. One remarkable question asked in the video was that whether photography considered as art. As explained by Chuck Close, the difficulty of photography is how to make a photograph that “everybody immediately knows is the work of a particular artist” since the process of taking photograph is mainly the same. After the release of the Kodak camera with reasonable price, more people are exposed to photography. According to Peter Galassi, “the art of photography is created without theories and without a continuous artistic tradition but by amateurs who are making pictures discovering in the process,” I think the process of discovering new techniques and making a difference in each photograph is one factor that makes photography a form of art.

Photography has also influenced fine arts in many ways. One example is when a part of figures on the painting is cut off as if someone put a frame over it. As mentioned in The Search for Truth: Early Photography, Realism, and Impressionism, the idea of “instantaneity” has also been expressed through paintings after the development of photography because photographs allow people to see motion in freeze-frame. It shows the influence of photography on the way people understood the world, which affects their way of seeing things around them. However, some artists such as Edgar Degas, who was also influenced by this new technology, “never saw photography as anything more than a useful tool”. I agree with him that photographs are perfect reference when we try to imitate the real world. However, I think there is something more to photographs than just "a useful tool".

From The New York Times article by Roberta Smith, the process of taking pictures through cellphones is extremely convenient in daily life. Even in art exhibition, people take pictures of artworks instead of appreciating them in that particular moment and environment. People no longer go to museums to see art, but they view art through their electronic devices, which is another major influence of photography. It is still confusing whether the photograph is the artwork or the artwork itself. From what I understood, I think a photograph of an artwork could also be the artwork if it shows the photographer’s unique way of seeing of the subject. Therefore, by adding something personal from the photographer, such as the emphasis of an area or the tilt of the camera, is the key to change a normal photograph into a piece of art.

onchanok

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

photography respond

Post  jidapa t. on Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:42 pm

Photography has been developed through time about six hundred years ago and still do as well as it's tool "the camera". Camera's function keep changing and become more complicated with varieties of version. The first camera is called "Camera Obscura" which invented to sketch objects more quickly and avoid the difficulties of perspective(global art history, p.1 ) and by using the same tool, one of the French inventor named Joseph Niepce using a polished pewter plate as a film to create a first photograph.(global art history, p.11 )Since then, photography has been widespread and many techniques of capturing photo has been generated depend on each photographer. In my opinion, photography is one kind of art in which the photographer can show their own perspective or express their emotion in the work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/arts/design/at-the-venice-biennale-art-is-a-photo-op.html?_r=2&ref=design

The website above tell me that camera has been accessed through the art. Many young generation use camera to capture their thought and show the picture to public in their own technique. As the technique is evolved the art of camera will never stop.

jidapa t.

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response #3

Post  Ayuthai on Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:52 pm

I am really sorry but I cannot see what inside this file.
I can't even download it, except only once, but its cannot be extract.
So, I hope you understand and give us another way to send this response.

Ayuthai

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

response 3

Post  Napat Neampinij on Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:59 pm

According to the documentary "The Genius of Photography," talking about the Camera Obscura. Artist use it for their painting to find the perspective point. This seem t be a link between the use of photography with the painting, because photography seems to be one kind of art after a painting. Nowaday, people does show a lot of interest in taking photos and playing with those cameras. Compare to what it has in the past where Camera Obscura was use just to find the perspective point of something. Refering what is said by Roberta Smith. Cameras became very useful and people use it quite often. In another word the images from the camera became a piece of art.

Napat Neampinij

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response 3

Post  Panitnaat on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:12 pm

Some people don’t consider photography as art but I disagree with their ideas because the way people take a photo can tell a lot about their sense of image composition, which is what artists must have.

It's interesting on how much photography evolved from an artist's reference for drawing into an actual art and how it has become more and more common to the society where only a few people doesn't have a camera in hand. In the past without photography, the only way to capture an ‘event’ is to make the artist paint it but it will never be as accurate or as real as taking a photo because the camera can capture every single detail that is happening at the moment it take a photo – no fantasies, no excess details (or the opposite) and the placement of everything in the photo is the exactly where it is.

The invention of photography really changed the world in both good and bad way. Example of benefits from photography is that history became more truthful because the evidence of the information now comes in a form of photography which captured the exact thing that happened rather than the painting which could tell false information. However, using photography for bad reasons like taking lewd photos and for revealing people bad secrets are the drawbacks of photography, it reveals the truth, whether you want to hide it or not.

For me, a camera is like a magical tool that stops time and put an image of that instance into a photo (the documentary says it is a "freezing time"). The next photo it takes will never be the same as the first because of time difference even of the slightest second. Simply said, the camera freezes time of that irreplaceable moment and viewpoint of the photographer.

Panitnaat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response #3

Post  Pichayut Sirawongprasert on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:13 pm

We are introduced to a new way of seeing the world from the invention of photography. A world viewed from lenses. How did photography developed and advanced through time, the answer is found within the BBC documentary, “Genius of Photography”. Dating back to the early history of photography, people like Daguerre and Talbot had different ways of producing photographs, which are quite interesting to know. Then came George Eastman who had a huge contribution to the success and development of cameras. To be honest, with Eastman’s Kodak company, cameras were made available to the common people and since then photography became much more convenient and even popular to the world of art.

Is a photograph also considered art compared to a painting? We often come across this question, but the answer is different for everyone at every situation. However, it is quite interesting to hear what Chuck Close had said, “There are no accidental masterpieces in painting, but there are accidental masterpieces in photography”. Capturing an image can be done within seconds, while painting a picture takes years, but this does not mean photography is less art in my opinion. Photography deals with art in terms of composition, subject, setting, light, and other factors. Although taking pictures in recent days has transformed immensely than before, we can still tell which picture is art and which is not, moreover what is a good picture. If you don’t believe me, check your “likes” on instagram.

Pichayut Sirawongprasert

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Genius of Photography

Post  Channop on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:14 pm

The genius of photography begins with the generation of photography. It has been developed in the past till present day. The way that photograph has been taken as a beautiful artwork in the past is literally different. I remember when I was young the picture has to be recorded by the film and also couldn't see the photo that was taken. But now digital camera has become a part of our live. most of electronic communication tools have digital camera such as laptops, cellphone and even ipod. These can get life easier and more comfortable. Ruth Fremsom, the photographer for The New York Times said “Taking pictures of works of art or people looking at works of art. More or less” And obviously “percentage of art-viewing these days is done through the viewfinder of a camera or a cell phone” As it is much easier than using a traditional full service camera. I do agree with Roberta Smith about “The camera is a way of connecting, participating and collecting fleeting experiences.” As you can see now people are sharing their photo on social network and as camera is very convenient to take everywhere.
According to the BBC documentary, André Kertész was a great photography of the 20th century, He captured 2 photos of the same area but different date and eventually found out the differences between the photographs. It means time can affect everything from what you take and what you see. That is why I consider photography as an incredible artwork and it always makes you change the way we view the art.

Channop

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

"THE GENIUS OF PHOTOGRAPHY"

Post  Praewa on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:14 pm

Photography change behavior of human, it made others wondering how things happen in the picture by narrow the eye side crop off by a frame which is not random. It also made people questioning how come one picture can tell this much.Camera zoom the world in detail, human communicate through picture but sometimes they know what picture are going to look like. Thus it does't create the world the way you expected which is normal in my opinion because the picture shows so much in real detail and shows the real meaning it express the things photographer what they want people to see not like art that the artist is the one who express the photo and turn in to a master piece with out mistake unlike photography that capture everything not by picking small mistake area out.

''how can I possibly capture this evanescence moment and photography this thing was capture from time and fix it in place to answer to this '' Geoffrey Batohen. The world has changing in 19 century because photography change the way people see the world.When KODAK film came,it change the view of people not only the process but also make everyone look fun.They will do anything for you so people in those days were more encouraging to smile rather than serious masterpiece under the slogan ''YOU PRESS THE BUTTON,WE DO THE REST" KODAK .I'm astonished because before KODAK was create people used photography in opposite way.Most were made to use in serious pieces such as artist or architecture used photography to be able to capture a picture in detail though many experiment.

After the invention of photography in nowadays the different new develop of easier way to capture the photo is much more convenience. Although it may change the unique way of using full service camera but it still the device that use for created a photo by easier process for life style of people in this era.

Praewa

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I am sorry

Post  Donrawat on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:14 pm

I couldnt download the file same as others. I am not sure why. it's probably because of the network problem I guess.

Donrawat

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Photography as Art (Patorn Sangruchi)

Post  Patorn on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:16 pm

I think photography arises from the people-of-that-time’s struggle to record every nitty, gritty visual details of a certain single moment that are in front of them. Conventionally, these details are recorded in the form of paintings, which carries a lot of disadvantages in itself such as being time-consuming. What a painting portrays are also subjected to the individual perception of each artist, depending on what he is trying to show, both intentionally and unintentionally, and thus, does not present an accurate, unbiased, ‘snapshot’ of a particular object or scene. Photography solves this by producing a pictorial snapshot via the use of a machine instead of a person, and therefore eliminates prejudice.

However, one paradox remains: is photography an art form? In “The Genius of Photography”, Chuck Close mentions that when artists use photography in a way that is different in their own way so that their photographs are instantly recognizable as belonging to them, the photography becomes a form of art. I very much agree with this statement, as what is important in the contemporary art world is the thought process, not the product itself. One might argue that when a photo have a nice composition and interesting subjects, that photo can be describe as being artistic. I disagree. This photo is merely a nicely composed image, not a product of any particular and unique thought process.

Patorn

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Chapter3-4 respond

Post  Nattan on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:18 pm

I don’t see why not ? It’s really actually that photography is get alonge of art .in the past , people used camera obscura to assist in the capturing of image . It helped the artist to see naturally the lights .But today photography is essential to man ; corner of the world must using its . Everyday , every vocation and every reason , we constantly use its. I Have ever though that if the world no photograpy , Maybe we won’t know about How about the hisrtory ? , what the ancestors look like ? , what artrs is about ? and it was pretty obstacle !
Not only photography gives us much knowledge of history but also makes us to remember all of the moments we took . We think many issues in half second but when we saw the pictures which are memorable pics , enormous memory ‘ll appear in our mind .In conclusion , I can’t prejusdice about “ The genious photography “. It’s respectably article. Maybe I could tell that it’s a part of deveoping the world !

Nattan

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Genius of photography

Post  Felicia on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:24 pm

When Photography was invented, the people thought of the photography as a wonder. it was amazing how it can capture a moment of time and fit it in a place. The idea of an obscura camera makes artists and photographer experiments the process to produce an image on different medium. Henry Fox Talbot uses paper-based material to create an negative prints while Louis Daguerre uses mirror metal plate. Daguerre type is an unique technique, pretty and it has been described as an mirror with memory, however it cannot make a multiple reproduction from the original and this make Talbot type dominant. The artist and photographer were exploring way to find the method that are the cheapest, easiest and the most accurate which is a very difficult process.
Everybody assume that they know what picture is going to look like and it took a while for people to realized that in fact that photographic medium create a lot of surprises that it doesn't describe the world just the way they expected to( Galassi,P). I agree with this because camera helps us see more than our eyesight , perhaps make our way of seeing different. When an image is captured, it narrows our eyesight and shows us all little details of what was there. it is also intentionally where the image got cut-off and this why each image are different because the moment that the photographers capture the image, they already made the decision of what going to be in and out.

In the past, people appreciate the photography works as it is a difficult process and hard to make it beautiful. Nowadays, it is just too simple and easy to produce such an image that people lost the value of the photography works.When Photography was invented, the people thought of the photography as a wonder. it was amazing how it can capture a moment of time and fit it in a place. The idea of an obscura camera makes artists and photographer experiments the process to produce an image on different medium. Henry Fox Talbot uses paper-based material to create an negative prints while Louis Daguerre uses mirror metal plate. Daguerre type is an unique technique, pretty and it has been described as an mirror with memory, however it cannot make a multiple reproduction from the original and this make Talbot type dominant. The artist and photographer were exploring way to find the method that are the cheapest, easiest and the most accurate which is a very difficult process.
Everybody assume that they know what picture is going to look like and it took a while for people to realized that in fact that photographic medium create a lot of surprises that it doesn't describe the world just the way they expected to( Galassi,P). I agree with this because camera helps us see more than our eyesight , perhaps make our way of seeing different. When an image is captured, it narrows our eyesight and shows us all little details of what was there. it is also intentionally where the image got cut-off and this why each image are different because the moment that the photographers capture the image, they already made the decision of what going to be in and out.

In the past, people appreciate the photography works as it is a difficult process and hard to make it beautiful. Nowadays, it is just too simple and easy to produce such an image that people lost the value of the photography works.

Felicia

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response no.3 - Photography

Post  Nantawat on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:26 pm

I agree with the most of the posts here but I think that it’s questionable if photography can be seen as art. In my opinion it does not depends only on how photography has becomes more available but also how the viewers see the images. Of course, throughout history, photography has a big input on how we look at the world as stated in the BBC documentary “Genius Of Photography” that “The freezing time…this photography not only change the world but also the way people understood the world”.

In the past, photography was used to help people to have a “shaper” and more detailed image that aids them in different ways (eg. Architects used photo to have a better knowledge of the site). The early photo types, were Calotype, which was invented by Talbot, he used paper that was coated with silver-salt to produced a negative and mirrored outcome. While another the Daguerreotype invented by Daguerreo used a polished metal plate to record an image, as a result, the image produced is not only in positive and not, mirror-reverse but Daguerreotype images only has that shiny quality that’s very unique, thanks to the used on the metal plate. The big disadvantage of those images were that they could not be reproduce, so automatically, people were viewing them more of a type of art because of its rarity. However with the invention of the first camera, “Kodak”, the idea of photography has become more industrial as it has become widely available for everyone as the technology had made photography much easier, as the famous Kodak quote says “you press the button, we do the rest”. Photography that used to be seen as mysterious and joyless in most people eyes had moved into what’s more fun and enjoyable. This can be seen in our modern world today, as camera has become one of the common items we own.

Ruth Fremson, a photographer from The New York Times, “Taking pictures of works of art or people looking at works of art. More or less” Fremson shows that nowadays, “percentage of art-viewing these days is done through the viewfinder of a camera or a cell phone” as it’s much more convenient and easier than the traditional way of taking photograph. Another reason why we found photography appealing is because “the art of photography was created with no theory, but with amateur discovery”, and it’s the idea of experimenting with new things, learning from mistakes that’s in our human nature.

In my opinion, I agree with what Chuck Close said on the BBC documentary, that,“There are no accidental masterpieces in painting, but there are accidental masterpieces in photography”. The brush stroke in paintings were deliberately created there, while in photography, the success of a masterpiece depends on the time, the position and sometimes, the luck of the photographer. Therefore, I think it’s more difficult to create a masterpiece in photography as there’re many factors that will affect the outcome. Interestingly, the discovery of photography has also influenced art such as painters were able to draw a more accurate perspective in their paintings and also unusual compositions and gestures can now be seen featuring in more paintings. Thus, I believe the answer to the question if whether, photography is art or not lies in itself, art such as paintings will always be art, while photography can be art, depending on how we see it. There’s no definite answer because of the unlimited ways that a photograph can be taken and the possibilities photography provides.




Nantawat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Photography

Post  Guntana on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:33 pm

As I wrote about how I disagreed with the quote ‘when the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image,’ written in chapter 1 of the book ‘Ways of Seeing’ by John Berger, the saying ‘the freezing time… this photography not only changed the world, but also the way people understood the world,’ stated in the BBC Documentary, totally supports my idea.

According to what Peter Galassi, chief photography curator, MoMA NY, mentioned in the video, ‘the photographic medium itself doesn’t clear what’s important and what’s not.’ I think this is the reason why photography different from paintings. We cannot absolutely control what is going to be printed on the paper. Even we focus on making something into a main point of a photo, what the audience sees will not be the same caused by their different perspective. In contrast, when a painter paints a painting, he or she already set it up. This fact makes photography special in its own way.

Moreover, as we can see that the cameras at the period of time are different from nowadays. They changed. This fact shows human’s improvements and evolutions. Therefore I would admit that photography is one of the greatest successes which can be found in human race.

Guntana

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response 3

Post  Nathakit on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:33 pm

Photography is what you now see everyday, and people think that the picture is what you do with the camera but it is also a way of seeing. A photo is not just a picture but also a narrowed vision of the viewer’s eyesight, which can reveal so much within the frame of the picture. The photographer wants the viewer to see this particular shot of the photo he or she has taken and so its no longer random, but an intentional act. Photography is said to be remarkable, which can turn something ordinary into something extraordinary. Photograph doesn’t describe the world you expected to, it always transforms what it describes and controls that transformation. It is different from painting or drawing where the artists can capture a subject or paint something completely in non-existence, for example from the artists imagination whereas photography swallows everything up, capturing an event with all the details there is onto a piece of photographic paper, freezing time. By photography, people were able to project themselves into the medium. The photo can reveal so much, keep so much and can also tell stories beyond the frame of the photo. In “fixing the shadows” where people started to invent cameras around 1839, cameras and photography was seen as a phenomenon and people who are new to this unfamiliar technology were dumfounded. Louis Daguerre experimented on photography and produced photos that were not so conventional but produced images that showed “unbelievable amount of detail” and “they’re intimate”. Generally photographers would think that photography is a form of art but artists would not. Artist thinks that photography is not an art form because its industrialized and commercialized. Many people struggle to see which process triumphs but the determinant of that struggle would be how quickly, how cheaply, how accurately an image could be made, how widely it could be distributed which in the end comes down to money. Photographer’s wants to convey the meaning in the picture to the viewers as well as an artist would do in their artwork. Chuck Close said that photography “is the easiest medium in which to be competent but it’s the hardest medium in which to have personal vision that is rattily identifiable”. Although it is easy to capture photos but difficult to express the photographer views in their own way. So “there is no physicality to a photograph, nothing you can point and say this is the work of that artist hand”.

Nathakit

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

response #3

Post  Chayothorn on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:35 pm

Why do we see people cry when they look back into their old photo album? What do they see in those photographs? For me, photograph is more than just a picture; it contains memories in it whether it’s sad or happy. Photograph can just be a normal photo if that’s what we want it to be. Every photograph has its own meaning in it, but it depends on how the person views it. Some photograph might means a lot to one person, but means nothing to another. Peter Galassi said something that’s interested me, he said, “Everybody assume that they knew what these pictures were going to look like, it took a while for people to realize that in fact the photographic medium create a lot of surprises. It doesn’t describe the world just the way you expected it too.” I agree with Galassi, I think that photographs are more than what they appear, but some people don’t see it. They did not pay that close attention to the picture. David Byrne said something I disagree with, he said that putting a frame on the picture is like telling the viewer to ‘look at this, this is special.’ I don’t really think that putting a frame to the photo makes it more special. Maybe other people might think the same way as Byrne. Talking about the photograph, the quality of the picture in the past might not be as good as today’s, but somehow they’ve been use in the same way – to view things and capture memories. Camera is also another factor that make the photograph different from the past and the present. With the new technology we have, it makes it easier to produce a photograph. It started to get easier and easier since when the Kodak came out.


Last edited by Chayothorn on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

Chayothorn

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INDA Art History Response #3

Post  Prapasri Khunakridatikarn on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:36 pm

Invention of photogrphy doesn't affect on only the way people see things but also affect on the way people believe in things and how people live.

From 5:16: I actually agree on what the narrator says that Camera Obscura is an optical phenomenon that simple to create and hard to believe. As we know that Camera obscura needs only few components and a physics principle to create, Yes, it is really simple. However, the result of it is very spectacular. Artist back then used this camera to create their artwork by tracing the picture they got on their canvas. They trace three dimentional world on two dimentional plain. This is the basic principle for our cameras that are convenient.

Camera obscura still has problem that it cannot trace the image. So daguerreotype was invented. And later, Standford went to the west with horse not railroad with lots of equipment but at this time we can just bring a compact camera or DSLR that is not heavy from the east to the west. His journey this time actually helped the Americans at that time got to know more about the other side of their country better. This actually affected the belief of people at that time.

According to what David commented earlier, the more invention of photography makes the photograph becomes a lot more abstract that what it was. And in my opinion, it actually makes photography becomes mor artistic.

Prapasri Khunakridatikarn

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Genius of Photography Response

Post  Pathawee on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:38 pm

People in that time might find it hard to capture all those moments and details of the view, or rather the picture. Photography is like freezing the time of the places that are taken, at a certain moment. Unlike painting, because it took more time and a lot more amount of concentration, furthermore there are many differences between painting and photograph though both of them can express and tell everyone where, or what is it in the picture. But I did not say that one of them is not as good as another one, each of them do have different advantages.

Cameras can capture every little details and also consume less time, this is probably why many people nowadays choose to take photo more than painting. As time pass, you can see the development and improvement of the techniques of photography, like light effects, shadow effects, colour effects, and so on. In addition, all that I mentioned above would conclude my decision that, yes photography is a kind of Art.

Pathawee

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Response #3

Post  Thida J. on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:41 pm

Photography has developed itself through time. I agree that it is an amazing genius technology that has changed not only the world but the way that people understand the world. It represents period of time of people and places in each capture from time to time like what we do in the past, present, and future.

In fixing shadows, it's the beginning of the way camera develops its shadows and the starting of the 3D world. "You need darkness to see light" Talbot photographed an image that shows two different emotions, one with the negative and another one with the normal picture. It gives reverse tones and people have different aspect between them.

As Chuck stated “Photography is the easiest medium in which to be competent, but it is the hardest medium in which to have personal vision”. "no physicality to a photograph, nothing you can point to and say this is the work of that artist hand" I agree on his opinion that it's difficult and complicated to separate each photographer's photos.

Is it and art? In the artist view, "photography is not an art form because it is industrialize" it's not a form of art, it's only capture the picture not painting it. I argue that photography is an art form due to the unique ways when people capture a picture. They capture it different styles depending on their positions and how their photos come out. However, I see that every photographer have their own uniqueness in a picture.

Thida J.

Posts : 4
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Documentary Respond (Respond#3)

Post  Jitrin Rojanai on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:46 pm

In this documentary show how people expressions at photography as a form of art were and how it was change. In the past, there were two types of photography, which were daguerreotype and collotype. Daguerreotype, created by Daguerre, use the mirrored metal plate and some chemical to record the picture; instead, the collotype, by Talbot, use the piece of paper coated with silver salt to record the picture, which result in negative photography. However, because the photo can’t be reproduce. Therefore, people consider it as a form of art because of its uniqueness. However this idea was change when the first camera was made in the name of “Kodak”, because then the photography were available to everyone and then were view as an industrial instead of art. As Chuck Close had said “There are no accidental masterpieces in painting, but there are accidental masterpieces in photography.”, because now there are lot of amateur photographer and they just need only press the button and the can create a masterpieces of art without knowing it, unlike painting, which need lot more skills. Photography change behavior of human, it made others speculating how things happen in the picture by narrow the eye side crop off by a frame which is not random. It also made people questioning how come one picture can tell this much. Camera zoom the world in detail, human communicate through picture but sometimes they know what picture are going to look like. Thus it doesn’t create the world the way you expected which is normal in my opinion because the picture shows so much in real detail and shows the real meaning it express the things photographer what they want people to see not like art that the artist is the one who express the photo and turn in to a master piece without mistake unlike photography that capture everything not by picking small mistake area out.

Jitrin Rojanai

Posts : 3
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Khim: Response#3

Post  Khim Pisessith INDA on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:47 pm

What is seen through the lens and what is seen by the eyes are different. A new world can be created by the lens — the same, yet different world. When you take a glance at the scenery before you, you usually look at something that interests you or certain things within your focus at that particular moment. When you capture something with a camera, all of the scenery is reprinted on a frame, even unnecessary objects or an unknown person who was passing by at the time when the photograph is taken. Like what Peter Galassi said in The Genius of Photography, “The photographic medium itself doesn’t care what’s important and what’s not.” (20:14). I agree with the fact that this, the use of photography, has influenced people’s ways of seeing: you choose to see what you want to see, but the photograph does not, and that is why sometimes you get to see something that you would usually not notice when you look at it with naked eye. “All seen, but undiscriminating; the camera reveals the world teeming in detail.” (The Genius of Photography, 20:35).

From the New York Times article, the increase in figure of an individual who sees art via the viewfinders of a camera has been mentioned; the way we choose to see things is being shifted and altered, considering how often people tend to capture the sceneries they are seeing or their fleeting experiences via cellphones (not a traditional camera which is usually hold close to the eye, or the eyes themselves) and spend more time looking at the photographs rather than the actual thing: “Everyone else is wielding either a cellphone or a mini-camera and looking at a small screen, which tends to make the framing process much more casual. It is changing the look of photography.” (Smith, 2011, C7).

People yearned for accuracy, and realism fulfills their desire. It is said in the History of Modern Art by H.H. Arnason (Chapter 2: The Search for Truth: Early Photography, Realism, and Impressionism) that the search for certainty has been encouraged by the use of photography. “And photography would, in its turn, fuel this interest in finding — and documenting — objective truth.” (p. 17).



1. Arnason, H.H. (1969). The History of Modern Art. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
2. BBC Documentary. The Genius of Photography.
3. Smith, R. (2011). When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye. The New York Times. Retrieved September 11, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/arts/design/at-the-venice-biennale-art-is-a-photo-op.html?_r=4&ref=design

Khim Pisessith INDA

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Genius of photography

Post  Thanwarat on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:51 pm

In this BBC documentary, “the genius of photography”, Photography is a vision, which can convey meanings in that particular event. Photography can “turn something ordinary into something extraordinary”. Photography is different from artists artwork is that it freezes time onto a paper whereas an artist can improvise from his or her imagination.

A photo can also reveal so much and tell stories within the photo. Artists despise photography because it’s industrialized which involves money and so artists would no think that photography is an art form. A picture that a photographer takes contains meanings that they want to convey as well as artists.

Chuck Close said that photography “is the easiest medium in which to be competent but it’s the hardest medium in which to have personal vision that is rattily identifiable”. Which means that a photo can be taken easily but hard to express the photographers vision which is also hard to be unique due to the conventionality of photography.

Thanwarat

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Photography response

Post  Nitiwath on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:53 pm

It would be hard for a world without photography. What I could think of is all we could do to create a picture is drawing it out or painting it out which take times and is not always accurate. I hardly imagine how I would like to record my memories if not with photography. Chuck Close has said that “It’s the easiest medium in which to be competent, but it’s the hardest medium in which to have personal vision.” I am totally agreeing with this, because according to my point of view photography is too realistic and hardly express a strong feeling. Having a too much realistic depiction of picture will not be able to express the line as what others means does. However, photography is always to easiest means of competent and this the very strong point of it. In the past, photography is rare and is more valuable comparing todays. Having said this, it seems like photography are running backward, but in my point of view photography are meant to be made for a snapshot and capture all the memory we are passing in our life, and it is accomplishing it goal just like what Roberta Smith’s article “When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye” have said.

Nitiwath

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INDA Art History Response #3

Post  Alliya on Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:57 pm

It's amazing to think that a wonderful technology developed from such an weirdly unique machine as the 'camera obscura'. From it being used to measure perspective for a painting to what it is today. It evolved from awkward boxes and tents that takes immense amount of time and effort to produce a single image to small compact size that takes snapshots within milliseconds. "Photography is a marvelous discover, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds - and one that can be practice by imbeciles" (Arnason 21). The science that evolved camera is simply astounding.

From the article 'When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye' in New York times, it's true that cameras are everywhere nowadays. It's sold every where and almost everyone has them, whether it be a simple point-and-shoot or a professional camera. For me, photography became less of a deliberate form of art but rather art integrated into everyday life because of easiness of taking a photo. This isn't a bad thing but it actually make the photograph seems more real; in a way it becomes more personalized and related to our lives. As 'Ways of Seeing' stated, photographs shows the photographer's perspective. The article quotes, "For better and for worse, it has become intrinsic to many people’s aesthetic responses" (Smith). It's true since we only take picture of what our attention is drawn to.

Anyone can take a photograph as long as they have a camera which, unlike the old days, are everywhere. As Chuck Close said in the BBC Documentary the Genius of Photography, "There are no accidental masterpieces in painting, but there are accidental masterpieces in photography". I would like to briefly disagree that there are accidental masterpieces in painting but not quite as often. For me, camera are devices to capture the art already presented in our world. With some teachings, we can utilize it to its fullest and capture amazing things. Yet sometimes not even a professional can capture the exact moment at the exact angle. It occasionally needs a bit of luck, a tad of chance, one's intuition as a artist, and a steady hand. So yes, I agree there are accidental masterpieces in photography.

Works Cited
Arnason, H.H. The History of Modern Art. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1969. Print.
Berger , John . Ways of Seeing . London : British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. Print
"The Genius Of Photography." The Genius Of Photography. BBC. Television.
Smith, Roberta. "When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye." At the Venice Biennale, Art Is a Photo Op. New York Times, 4 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/arts/design/at-the-venice-biennale-art-is-a-photo-op.html?_r=1&ref=design#>.


Last edited by Alliya on Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:00 am; edited 4 times in total

Alliya

Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top


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