![]() So, there have been cyclical confrontations between the dominant public definitions of art at various times and photography’s concurrent definitions of itself. However, photographers-some of them, at least-have chosen to enter the “artistic” arena. The morphology of photography would have been vastly different had photographers resisted the urge to acquire the credentials of esthetic respectability for their medium, and instead simply pursued it as a way of producing evidence of intelligent life on earth. The problem has never been the lack of an audience, but rather the withholding of certain kinds of incentives: prestige, power, and money. ![]() The general public has always been interested in looking at photographs, even (perhaps especially) at photographs which were not certified as Art. The initial stage of this fight had more to do with the art establishment’s defensive antagonism toward photography than with the practitioners’ attitudes toward the medium, or the public’s. ![]() The first-which for all intents and purposes is finally over-was the fight to legitimize photographic imagery per se as a suitable vehicle for meaningful creative activity. These conflicts, centering around issues which have masqueraded as debates over style and even technique, are, in fact, philosophical clashes. ![]() WITHIN THE CENTURY AND a half of photography’s history, two recurrent controversies have had strong influence on its evolution into a graphic medium with a full range of expressive potential. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |