Re: Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
15Bit wrote: artd wrote:
I think the very fact that you are trying to separate the art from its context is a problem to begin with.
In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used....
I think you missed that I said that methodology can be be part of the context. In that sense, this is indeed a rather good example of that. But, you are also mistaken in equating \"methodology\" with \"gear\" in this instance. Because there is a lot more involved than just having the gear. It requires a process. Platinum printing with layers of pigment application is a rather labor-intensive process, and not exactly something anyone would be able to do just because they have the gear to do it.
But the methodology used is not the only context to be aware of here. The photo is a representation of the pictorial movement. In the era this was created, there was a controversey about photography being an actual art form, with some claiming it was a simple representation of reality (as opposed to painting, for instance, which required the artist to create his/her own interpretation of reality). The pictorial movement was a response to this line of thinking, where photographers searched for creative ways to manipulate images in order to impart a sense of emotion into them. To put it another way, photographers working in the pictorial tradition were trying to impart \"painterly\" qualities to their photos.
I think the Flatiron photo is a pretty good example of that. It uses a very deliberate process to achieve its unqiue, moody effect with a very well thought out purpose. And I think it\'s a great example of why context does how context can matter when it comes to art.
Re: Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
15Bit wrote: artd wrote:
I think the very fact that you are trying to separate the art from its context is a problem to begin with.
In which case this image is actually a poor example to use here, because much of its contextual value derives from the innovative methodology used in its creation. Or, in modern terms, how cool the gear is that was used....
I think you missed that I said that methodology can be be part of the context. In that sense, this is indeed a rather good example of that. But, you are also mistaken in equating \"methodology\" with \"gear\" in this instance. Because there is a lot more involved than just having the gear. It requires a process. Platinum printing with layers of pigment application is a rather labor-intensive process, and not exactly something anyone would be able to do just because they have the gear to do it.
But the methodology used is not the only context to be aware of here. The photo is a representation of the pictorial movement. In the era this was created, there was a controversey about photography being an actual art form, with some claiming it was a simple representation of reality (as opposed to painting, for instance, which required the artist to create his/her own interpretation of reality). The pictorial movement was a response to this line of thinking, where photographers searched for creative ways to manipulate images in order to impart a sense of emotion into them. To put it another way, photographers working in the pictorial tradition were trying to impart \"painterly\" qualities to their photos.
I think the Flatiron photo is a pretty good example of that. It uses a very deliberate process to achieve its unqiue, moody effect with a very well thought out purpose. And I think it\'s a great example of why context does matter when it comes to art.
May 06, 2013 at 04:00 PM
Previous versions of artd's message #11534661 « Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images. »
