Image

Ella on Bench (August 2013)

Tags

, , ,

Share
Ella on Bench (August 2013)

Ella on Bench (August 2013)

Click image to see it against a dark background..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

Cloudy Day with Ella (August 2013)

Tags

, , ,

Share
Cloudy Day with Ella (August 2013)

Cloudy Day with Ella (August 2013)

Click to see large..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

Denny’s Crowd, Niagara Falls, Canada (August 2013)

Tags

, , , ,

Share
Denny's Crowd, Niagara Falls, Canada (August 2013)

Denny’s Crowd, Niagara Falls, Canada (August 2013)

Click to see large..
>Buy a 800×600 digital download of this image for only $1



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Role of Context and Tangibility in Art Appreciation

Tags

, , , ,

Share

One aspect of art appreciation that I think may be quite important is Context: the context in which you are viewing a work of art.

The Internet has made works of art (especially two-dimensional art) accessible to millions of people on their computers and other digital devices they typically own. Much art viewing is happening in this electronically mediated context.

So the viewing context is the computer or device screen/s that people use to view art, and also: websites, email, weather reports, word processing documents, cell phone snapshots, etcetera. A computer or digital device is a general viewing (and listening) platform for the communication of digital information; it is not specialized for viewing art. So the art gets “mixed in” with all the other digital information perused on one’s computer and/or digital device.

Compare this experience of viewing art with seeing it at a gallery or art museum where the environment affects and becomes part of one’s perceptual and emotional experience of the art. Even a coffee table book brings more “context” (e.g., the cover: its design, material and texture) to the viewing of visual art than does a computer or other electronic device. Sure, a website can provide some design surrounding the display of the artwork; but in most cases, backgrounds are best kept neutral or plain white or black so as not to take away from the appreciation of the artwork; this doesn’t leave much “context” except for the viewing device itself.

Related to the context (and somewhat bound up with it) is the tangibility of the artwork. The physicality of the artwork too affects one’s experience of it.

On one end of the spectrum is an ephemeral, slightly flickering (e.g., at 60 Hz or whatever…fast enough so you don’t consciously notice) digital image that goes away when you turn off your computer or electronic device. Sure, you can bring it back onto your screen when you click the power switch back on; but it’s clearly not a permanent physical element in your environment.

Contrast this with a 4 ft X 6 ft framed photo or painting on a wall that you can get up close to and see the details of the brush strokes or paper texture, the sheen off the print/glass/frame, the depth of the frame and its texture, its distance from the wall, its weight (if you have the opportunity to touch or hold it), and so forth. This object has a true (possibly commanding) physical presence and will decay and interact with its surrounding environment like any other physical object. This is an artifact, not just a momentary pattern of pixels.

Now, it seems likely that good and/or inspiring art is likely to show through regardless of the viewing context–whether on a PC monitor or at MoMA. However, I think few would argue that the environment in which artwork is viewed or the physical qualities of the artwork itself has no impact on the viewer’s psychological or emotional response to the artwork. Making a trip to an art gallery or museum is a clear signal to one’s senses that something special is happening–that you are somewhere other than home or work or on your commute–where a less than everyday experience is a possibility and should be prepared for and expected. The same with opening a beautiful new coffee table book that contains engaging printed images.

A human being’s intellect and finer sensibilities are not totally removed from their physical nature. People respond most (best?) to art that is also physically present. Maybe its a feeling of kindredness, I don’t know; but people seem to feel closer to something that shares their physical nature–maybe because it more fully engages their senses?

The importance of context similarly points to the relevance of multiple dimensions or sensory inputs regarding a human being’s experience of art: artwork is not experienced in a sensory vacuum, and whatever “surrounds” the artwork is inevitably part of one’s experience of it.

So, have art galleries and museums and physical prints and paintings lost their value and soon, all two-dimensional art will be viewed primarily on digital devices?

I think it would be pretty tragic because I suspect the value of art itself in peoples’ lives would decline and an important source of inspiration and enlightenment would be lost from peoples’ lives…and they may not come to realize it until the availability of physical art dwindles to the point of being hard to find.

 

 



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

No Mannequin (August 2013)

Tags

, ,

Share

No Mannequin (August 2013)

No Mannequin (August 2013)


Click to see large..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

Ella at Window (August 2013)

Tags

, , ,

Share

Ella at Window (August 2013)

Ella at Window (August 2013)


Click to see large..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

Ella in Bedroom (August 2013)

Tags

, , , ,

Share

Ella in Bedroom (August 2013)

Ella in Bedroom (August 2013)


Click to see large..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The Devaluing of Photography and a Need for Innovation

Tags

,

Share

When almost every electronic device out in the world–and almost every person has an electronic device; most have more than one–can take photos, then of course, the value of photography goes down. In general, photos have become less precious (unless it’s a special photo of your great grandmother–or similar–where there’s only one physical copy, for example). “Preciousness” is inextricably bound to scarcity.

The value of a photo as “artifact”–or in digital form, an image–has plummeted because there are so many of them. The mere existence of a photo or image is not very special in and of itself.

So we turn to the actual content of the photos since the currency of a photo itself is no more special than the existence of some printed words (for example).

Along with there being so many photos, there are fewer and fewer types of content that aren’t represented adequately or (more typically perhaps) in excess.

For example, when Sally Mann was taking romantic and moody black & white photographs of her children, few mothers were doing the same. Now, some huge percentage of mothers (some fathers) have cheap or expensive DSLRs and sets of purchased Photoshop filters, Lightroom presets, and/or other computer software that make their photos look similar to those Mann masterpieces (assuming they take enough photos–which cost no extra once you’ve got the digital photography equipment–to happen upon a few standouts).

The same with street photography: Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work looks almost passe amongst the current sea of thousands of street photos published daily on the web.

Older established photographers sometimes try to make a case about their work still being special because they’re still shooting film (e.g., using medium or large format film cameras that *very* few people use or know how to operate) or because they don’t have to shoot thousands of images to get their “keepers” that you, the viewer, end up seeing.

The problem is: the viewer doesn’t really care about process. A viewer (who isn’t a photographer) doesn’t care how many shots it took to get the few great ones on display. And while the use of film does have some effect on the look of the final image, almost any film quality can be emulated by a computer–at least nearly so–and probably close enough for most non-photographer viewers. Furthermore, the current quality of the images produced by digital cameras–even non-professional DSLRs–is good enough to produce high-quality prints; digital images are even commonly preferred by professional photographers for larger prints.

Ultimately, it’s not process or expertise that will make a photographer’s work stand out: it’s cleverness and creativity. The imaginative photographer will go beyond replicating the past. Being proficient or expert at doing (emulating) the photography of the past may be a necessary step in one’s evolution as a photographer, but it’s fatal in today’s photography climate as an endpoint–unless your goal is simply to be an accomplished photographic craftsman for hire.

To be a successful “photographer artist”, being expert at producing beautiful photos of flowers, sunsets, landscapes, art nudes, etc or Bresson-esque (or Winogrand-esque or Frank-esque..) b&w street photos isn’t enough to stand out and make photography a lucrative endeavor: there are too many others doing the exact same thing.

 

 

 

 

 



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

From Behind: Street Photography with Fam

Tags

, , ,

Share

Whenever I go on trips or vacations with my family, I almost always bring a camera along to take photos. Much of the photography I end up doing is candid, street-like photography. Sometimes I’m actually taking photos of my family; but other times, I’m trying to get photos of interesting things I happen to see in my environment as we’re walking along.

Typically, the children and my wife are in front of me. So when I go to take a photo, their backsides often end up somewhere in my shots…especially when I’m shooting at a wide angle focal length (which I usually am).

At times, this has driven me nuts. I’ll get these (at least to me) great street photos, but my son or daughter will be blocking a portion of the shot that messes it up! Sometimes I’m able to crop or Photoshop them out of the shot; but often, it’s not possible to remove them cleanly and I just have to accept the shot as is (either a ruined shot or somehow acceptable even with their backside in it).

On our latest family vacation, I again got a number of photos with their backsides (in a few cases, frontsides) in them. I thought it might be fun to actually highlight some of these instead of trying to fix or bury them as I usually do.

So these are from my latest family trip (two weeks this last August, 2013). If I get a positive response, maybe I’ll go back to our many previous family trips and assemble an even larger collection of these “From Behind” shots that I always seem to get in ample amounts…:).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Image

Ella (August 2013)

Tags

, , , ,

Share
Ella (August 2013)

Ella (August 2013)

Click to see large..



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!