I am self-taught as a photographer, never went to art school or had an art or photography course. "Life rhythms" is not art speak. I do not believe I ever said that photographs were only a representation. Some photographs are only that. Others are more than that. I would never say that about all photographs.
I was thinking about this a bit more today. We were recently in Italy and looking at paintings by the old masters. They are definitely "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art." To my knowledge, which iss, albeit, limited, no one ever referred to any of these paintings as "images." They are paintings.
Michael On 11/19/13 12:34 PM, Bill wrote:
I've thought for a while, and hope that I can now disagree politely, instead of just nay-saying. I'll try to be brief. You've said some things that raised red flags with me.First, your assumption of implication - that (art, a photograph - take your choice) is, by the dictionary definition, *only* a representation. "Only" is out of place here. A photograph, unless post-processed, is exactly a representation of what's before the camera. Where you place the camera and when you trip the shutter can, of course, make vast differences, but the essence of any photograph is depiction of the subject at hand.Second, I'm guessing you have spent too many years in "art school". When you speak of "life rhythms" and the "resonances that may be found in a work of art" you have crossed into the world of Art-Speak, where "it's art because I *say* it's arr", and I don't believe there's any validity to that world - it's simply a way of justifying wearing a beret.-BillOn Nov 19, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:The first definition of "image"---a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.That also is very true and would apply to many photographs as well, but that definition implies that all the work of art is--in this case a photograph-- is only a representation of what has been photographed. I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, but when my wife, Paula Chamlee and I make photographs we always want the photograph "to be more than what it is of" (to quote Paula). We want it to allude to life rhythms. Example: Edward Weston's pepper #30 is not only "a representation of the external form of a thing," It is that, surely, but it is so much more than that, No one in their right mind, I hope, would refer to that photograph as an "image." To do so, implies a lessening of the resonances that may be found in a work of art.Michael On 11/18/13 5:41 PM, Bill wrote:I was going to agree with you about "image" (I do agree that it's gilding the snapshot in an attempt to be...arty?) but then I thought i'd look up "image". The Oxford English Dictionary says image is:* 1a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art. * a visible impression obtained by a camera, telescope, microscope, or other device, or displayed on a computer or video screen.So, based on that, I'd say we make images. My splitting of hairs occurs when I say that I don't "take" pictures, I "make" them.-BillOn Nov 18, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Yes, we do not "shoot." We "make."We also do not make images. We make photographs. Images exist on either a ground glass or on a computer/other screen of some type. A photograph is an object---usually two-dimensionally flat, but not necessarily so. Anyone who makes digital capture and never makes prints cannot be called a photographer because they do not make photographs. They might be called image makers, however.Photographers who call their photographs "images" are being factually incorrect. To me using "images" instead of photographs is an (often unconscious) attempt at being high falutin.On 11/18/13 3:05 PM, Bill wrote:I half-agree. I agree that we make pictures, or images, but I do think that we shoot them. The thing is that "shoot" is only one step in the process. "Fire" isn't much good without "Ready..Aim...", and shoot isn't much good without "Meter...Set...Compose..." Then, after the reaady-meter-set-compose-shoot sequence comes the develop-stop-fix-wash-dry-enlarge-crop-expose-develop-stop-fix-wash-dry sequence. So, for me, "shoot" is a perfect description of 1/125th of a second of the whole process (with medium speed film and good light).-BillOn Nov 18, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:==========================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.On 11/18/2013 11:41 AM, Ken Sinclair wrote:I agree. We make pictures, we don't take or shoot them.Shooting... shoot.... shot ????? Its almost enough to make an old man weep KenP.S. It make me shutter ... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ =============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.=============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
