I'm no art major, but it seems to me that photography is the most technologically dependent of art forms. As the beginning of this chapter pointed out, when a new technology, such as cameras, emerges focus is usually given to its effects on society rather than the conditions and investments that led to it. Perhaps one reason is because it is easy to point to a tangible object. For instance, back in my major of environmental studies, it is easy to fall into blaming industrial-scale factory farming on tractors and pesticides rather than political decisions and economic conditions that resulted in the technological investments that made factory farming physically possible. Another reason may be that the previous social needs or conditions served by the new technology are not as dramatic in the construction of history than all the new possibilities that arise afterwards.
The discussion of whether photography is even an art or not appears similar to the difference of data and theory in the natural sciences. One one hand, pictures could be seen as just a carrier of 'facts' (pg 16), in which case photography would be a way of gathering and recording data. However, whether in science or simply while communicating, data or facts do not interpret themselves. Theory, however, can transform raw data into coherent understandings, and perhaps the pictures in photography into a coherent and distinct art form.
One more point I thought was interesting was the issue of photographs in museums. I would have thought that including photos in art museums would be a celebrated testament of photography as art, but instead, the book says that they are doomed to visual solitude. Perhaps one thing that makes photography unique then is that its natural home is not isolated in the museum as art for the sake of art, but out in the world, enriching magazines, empowering journal articles, and being liked on facebook.
Discussion points:
From an non-art major perspective: What is an art?
No comments:
Post a Comment