The Diversity Of Photography


Status
Not open for further replies.

marcwang

New Member
Jan 9, 2003
1,112
0
0
East Singapore
www.pbase.com
Photography is such a diverse form of art. I have realised that sometime ago, but did not think too much about it. But of late, I have been pouring through a couple of books found in the university library, articles and galleries online, magazines..... and its broaden my perspective tremendously, but with mixed emotions.

The more common form of photography to beginners, amateurs and professionals in modern times, is clearly related to aesthetics. (I will discount the equipment chase as a form of photography, as much as probably half of the photography world thinks its photography). To put it simply, just a capture of plain beauty, be it nature of what have you. Well, I must say, as an amateur, I am captivated by beauty as well and I have a tendency to place aesthetics as the top priority when composing a photograph. This is not wrong, but just shallow, just skimming the definition of photography.

I have learn that photography is so much more profound, and diverse, possibly even so different, that the term photography might not be able to encompass its entire scope. I was reading a biography of Henri Cartier Bresson, and I see his pictures. Lots of portraits, very classic composition, like fine wine... its never easy to drink, and takes skill to appreciate. To be honest with you, that far exceeds my simple mind. I know those are classics, but I would enjoy "Through The Lens" by National Geographic alot more. And then I read a Biography Of Ansel Adams, who has a much more familiar style to me than Henri. Lots of Landscapes, and while he has put much thought into his pictures, sometimes even taking years to get the processing right (moon lit night", some shots look plainly boring to me. But, read on... and he'll explain the depth of it, it starts to make sense.

And then I moved on to the queer, unconforming, angst world of moderm contemporary photography. Shots of colours, shots of gashed wounds, wierd looking self portraiture. My simple mind, yet again, making sense out of the pictures. The aesthetics are pleasing to me, merely because of the harsh shocking colours, but otherwise.... composition are simply beyond my comprehension. Studying Ansel's and Henri's works before jumping modern photography is nothing short of shocking. While Henri and Ansel attempts to portrait realism at its best, modern art/photography brings u through a world that is so foreign, surreal in a cold and abstract manner. If Ansel defined photography, I find hard to link modern photography to photography. Sometimes, I find modern photography a little artificial. Different for the sake of attention, not self-will. Colours to distract. COnfusion for the sake of confusion. But of course, that's ME.

There are also more familiar types of photography, photojournalism, portraiture, sport, etc etc... which I shall not dwell too much on. But spending 3 hours on these 3 very different books has made me think. My style of photography is so simple, its almost embarassing. The clear focus on aesthetics has uncover my shallowness. And while I look for inspirations to move on, I get confuse..... as I discover the profoundness of the art.

As u can see.... this thread has gone quite out of focus sometimes, as my thoughts pour out in a confusing spiral.

Yours Thoughts ?
 

For me, photography is capturing that moment of feelings that i have of a place, event, thing, etc. Good pics should be able to bring back the same feeling and hopefully, share that feeling to those who view them. :)

Equipments adds on to the fun of photography for pple who wants to describe the feelings in greater details for viewers.

I myself do not possess any great equipments though. :p
I'm more towards taking pics for my fond recollections. :D
 

The overwhelming majority of people who take pictures with a camera (I would say > 95%) do it to capture memories of their loved ones or places they've been or things they've seen. Nothing to do with art.

Puts things in perspective doesn't it?
 

To summarise photography: is to show others what you see.

Some people have the ability and opportunity to put emotions into those frames. Others, just to record the events or scenes.
 

thanks for your contributions guys,

but do note that, I'm highlighting that photography is more profound than it seem. And it has so many types, that can get overwhelming.

Snapshots... are indeed a capture of history, and many do not aim to capture beauty, merely for memory sake (like birthdays, travel). But thats not just photography.
There is commercial photography, where the goal is pretty material, and the product is simply to capture the audience. Then there is photojournalism, which documents events. Sports photography, which also a branch of journalistic photography. ANd then there is the artistic classical photography, where the goal is expression.
 

marcwang said:
thanks for your contributions guys,

but do note that, I'm highlighting that photography is more profound than it seem. And it has so many types, that can get overwhelming.

QUOTE]
Precisely why CS has so many gallery sections. Profound indeed.
 

Photography is months of measurbating followed by a few moments where you bring your camera out for other people to admire.
 

OOPS I forgot to mention that you have to occasionally take pictures too! ;)
 

To me photography has to convey the emotion that the photographer has felt. Coming from playing much music, in performances I'd play what I feel at that particular moment in that performance for th audience. That's why many people say that when I play on the piano once, it will only happen once, because it will never happen again. To me, I am trying to take this technique learnt from my on-stage performances and transfer it into my photography. This has proved to be a steep learning curve for me but the more I get it, the more motivated I am.

To me, photography is the emotion for what the photographer wants his/her audience to see, and more to the fact - feel.
 

For me, I like to treat photography as personal. It is a moment that means something to the photographer & his audience.

& I feel that's essentially what photography should be about, or in fact all the other things about appreciation of things. To appreciate something of meaning.

So for the photographer, the most impt thing is who his/her audience is, is it him/herself, friends, upper echlons of photography, common folk, a special group he is photographing? I feel fine arts is profound precisely becoz of the wide range of audiences with different preferences.

I once read in the Straits Times abt a lesson in wine appreciation someone famous in that circle learnt from a master. He was asked to taste two different types & asked to comment on it. He stated his preference, & the master said that's all there is to know. It's about preference.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.