photography philosophies, theories, art and critic

[eikin]

i think this is a super idea though i've never studied photography!

personally, i love philosophy, AND photography. so if we could merge both. WAH. it'll be perfect! ha.

but i guess you all are right, majority of the threads started under such a theme would just end off with 'don't think just shoot', but that shouldn't stop us right!

anyway, the signs 'thesis' was relatively interesting. read about a quarter so far. they should teach such things in GP (general paper) lah! HA.

oh. sorry i may sound like a noob to you all (cause all you guys here are like sages in the academic realm of photography).

everything has a start

 

[Kit]

cool ... i'm from architecture background, but you know we read almost anything, though sometimes not very indepth :bsmilie: i'm doing a module now actually ... have you read Deleuze?

indeed, if there are enough people around, we can start talking nonsense online :sweat: actually if can really find enough people with similar interest, can even plan for some ''experiments'' ... that'll be in the longer term though

5 minutes of Deleuze in half Italian English and I fall into a deep coma in the lecture theatre..... so you know where I'm going with this......

 

[frametology]

5 minutes of Deleuze in half Italian English and I fall into a deep coma in the lecture theatre..... so you know where I'm going with this......

ha. i was reading up on him and he seems pretty interesting what!!!

i like his way of 'doing' philosophy. buggery is what he calls it. ha.

anyway, whats it about delezue that he was mentioned?

 

[alvintang]

^^^ reading it for leisure purposes and reading them for exams and thesis preparations are 2 different stories. but glad you are enjoying it

another link for you which is more photography related
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/museo/3/jeffwall.htm

 

[frametology]

^^^ reading it for leisure purposes and reading them for exams and thesis preparations are 2 different stories. but glad you are enjoying it

another link for you which is more photography related
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/museo/3/jeffwall.htm

ha. i agree man.
i can't imagine if i were to be tested on plato or kant... i'll just die.

anyway, i was wondering. since you guys are pretty well trained in this field, why don't we submit pictures and let you guys use the different theories to 'analyse' them?? i just hope it won't become a C&C kind of thread. HA.

 

[Celebring]

for sure! it will be interesting to see how many are actually interested in this

just a link for a start>>>
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html

In all honesty, I couldn't get through more than a fifth of that article.

I'm reading series of essays by Galen Rowell (collected as Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography) which seem more interesting to me, even if not pure philosophy. They're currently talking about how people perceive photographs and presumably will lead on to what we can do to use that to our advantage. Probably find them more interesting because he brings up the findings of cognitive scientists, etc, which fit in more easily with my biological science background.

 

[victorianmedia]

I'm not sure whether Sontag and Barthes fall under "photographic philosophies" here...

I am certainly interested to read up on the works regarding the formative aspects of the photographic image. Such literature, although time-consuming, is a compelling read.

 

[alvintang]

yes, in fact they are not even close to being photography philosophies.
barthes' writings on semiotics is a basic knowledge for those who likes to get into the critics of fine art pieces (which is part of what the title reads). be it photography, paintings, installations etc.

 

[victorianmedia]

yes, in fact they are not even close to being photography philosophies.
barthes' writings on semiotics is a basic knowledge for those who likes to get into the critics of fine art pieces (which is part of what the title reads). be it photography, paintings, installations etc.

It is indeed rudimentary for a person to appreciate art to dive into the realms of photographic/artistic philosophy. As much as such literature makes a compelling read, I have not touched nor skimmed the surface of this realm of knowledge. Thus far, I do recognise that there are instances which indeed, these teachings lie beyond me. It is a very huge challenge to understand the dynamic realms of art, for the boundaries are ever-changing. I do not hold the belief that art can be grasped and known, for it is so subjective and objective in a single instance.

 

[alvintang]

art is indeed subjective, that is what makes them even more interesting because there are no right or wrong interpretations; it all depends on how much you know about the things happening around you. the more you are aware of them, the more you will be able to read the signs/connotations in an image. all these are dynamic, not static.

 

[victorianmedia]

art is indeed subjective, that is what makes them even more interesting because there are no right or wrong interpretations; it all depends on how much you know about the things happening around you. the more you are aware of them, the more you will be able to read the signs/connotations in an image. all these are dynamic, not static.

In which it can only be appreciated for what it is. As an art student, I should be most aware of that.

 

[Yatlapball]

Mmm... Not sure if I can contribute much, but photography is a significant portion in my Visual Anthropology module. So I guess it's very biased towards an interpretive approach for ethnographic purposes rather than your philosophical/theoretical stuff.

 

[eikin]

Mmm... Not sure if I can contribute much, but photography is a significant portion in my Visual Anthropology module. So I guess it's very biased towards an interpretive approach for ethnographic purposes rather than your philosophical/theoretical stuff.

i believe that will be as valid as any other perspectives. sounds interesting already