Take a look at the work of Martin Munkacsi - go to http://www.all-art.org/20ct_photo/Munkacsi1.htm for this and the work of other photographers.
Simply amazing that such work could be carried out in the early 20th century, capturing life with art in a manner which few could achieve today, with the most rudimentary of equipment. Just proves that equipment doesn't make the photograph, in fact with so many of these images, its the very softness of the images, sometimes blurred, which gives them their atmosphere - I feel that so many of todays' digital images are just too good, too sharp and sterile. At the Gloucestershire gallery 'wildlife in art', they have a mural sized painting of a tiger, precise in an amazing level of detail, equal or better than any digital camera could achieve today. Its stunning, and I guess its art by virtue of it being painted and its sheer size. But is it artistic? Same goes for photography.
Its a bit like my image recently shown in Warwickshire life (http://warwickshire.greatbritishlife.co.uk/article/picture-this--james-crockford-photography-competition--shortlist-40502/), to me the attraction of my image is that it looks like a painting rather than a photograph.... biased of course!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment