In the years 2007-2008 I'm me, although I do not take pictures of themselves involved in the discussions of the image- fotocommunity *; a platform, where (some) professional photographers (many) Amateur display their photographs publicly. The FC has several 'channels', among other things, one for landscape photos. During my employment with the significance of landscape painting for the release of 'the aesthetic' in the world and life of modernity, I came to the question whether the considerations which I had found in the history of landscape painting, as in landscape photography would prove, so the question of what it specifically for landscape, and what is specific to painting.
Here is an excerpt from a letter:
7th 9. 07
... I look at pictures not to a statement.
I must say in advance: I am advised to FC by a strange, almost 'theoretical' interest in knowledge. Seeking on the contrary there for pictures, the 'nothing state'. In other words, I look for the purely aesthetic at the pictures. I mean That which remains of the image visible, if you apart from all the possible meanings outside of the frame, so of all that somehow relates again 'real life' - and relates that reason somehow my advantage or disadvantage . So What not 'interested' but 'only shows' . According to Kant (that's my subject, I must not only that I must quote) is "the Beautiful" (= the time common name for the Significant aesthetic) that which 'appears as if' it to his purpose corresponds completely, apparently without but have a purpose at all! 'Purposefulness without purpose' or 'simple words, what its purpose as itself appears , which is aesthetically justified, the purely aesthetic.
These are, in fact only an 'idea', because, strictly speaking, 'there is' the pure -aesthetic, of course not. Even the colors themselves have (of any physiological brain Operations quite apart) always some 'life-world meaning'. White 'means' for example, for an Eskimo surely different than for an Amazonian Indians, and vice versa green. Then, and only red or blue or gold! Black not to speak of. Likewise, it makes a difference whether regular geometric ('Kunst') or irregular (' Natur') forms are used. - The aesthetic is thus at best relatively 'pure' and not absolute. This relatively pure but you can 'see' if you were to 'apart has'!
The "Art Gallery" in my Photo Home I try to show how the (unconscious) 'search for the purely aesthetic 'the visual arts - has in the way of abstraction out - that was mainly the painting: the mere ratio of surfaces, colors, lines and cut-off values. Though you should always keep in mind: Even a "purely abstract" image can be 'wild' or 'harmonious', 'clear' or look 'dark' - and is therefore still a 'reference to real life' and its interests. As I said: The purely-aesthetic 'there' at the end not yet. Therefore, the abstract painting eventually proved a dead end (which are, however, went only had to be able to prove around him, and what then emerged was an art as it would be merely decorative, if today stemmed from XY . the FC, which is as a photographer on my buddy list painted such pictures, but I do not trust me, it goes with to say.)
Yes, so much for the painting. But in the FC's is precisely not around paintings, but photos, and I realize that my way of seeing is allowed to play there, only a peripheral role. Photography is available - for the great majority - a 'hobby' or - for some - a livelihood, and when they quietly for a (s) a art holds, he's not dare to say. And it is really only ( I would say ) in resort. Namely, in some, not very frequent luck cases if you do not port it. (For if one intends to use the camera 'art' make is almost always reached kitsch kitsch or mannerism or mannered;. For it is found in many examples, FC)
The photo hangs in a very different manner than the paintings on the subject . The painter sits in front of a bare surface, and everything that should be shown at the end, he must himself doing anything, what he will not have, he can go away. The photographer has his 'motive'. He has even voted, probably true. But he has now times, 'as is'. Will he change anything, he has stuff on it Saddle , it's advance by setting the camera, then let it be with Photoshop. If he then changed his subject so that one does not recognize, you may ask quietly: Why he's elected then? Should he choose's throw away and yet a andres! Want to say: The pictorial technique he has chosen - the photograph just - the photographer embarked on from Things that are as to extract the one what he appears much ; significant enough to make it as appropriate with the possibilities of modern technology so hevorzuheben as the 'natural' way would not be possible. (If instead he wants to show what quite different, he should take up a brush and color.)
But there is a catch: For the painter (that is if he wants to be an artist ) it is clear that his Painting supposed to be art. And as expected today (quite rightly) that only the aesthetic him 'significant' is enough to be applied over the bald area. Is it the sensation, the decorative, the anecdote, a joke to him are 'significantly', we shall speak of practical art and crafts. The photographer must remain clear, however, that his photo represents an object. And there are a number of justifications, of which the art is the very last, that the happy exception. Photography is also justified as advertising, as an illustration, a revealing critique (at the time in culture), determined as reportage and still some others, but above all just here too as a hobby, in memory, as a curiosity. And from all these motives can publish their photos in the FC. This is me with my point of view clear and I am trying with my comments (mostly) to beat. But does publish: bring to the public. And since I lurk in my view, it must be reckoned with. The fact that some were offended that I am philosophically.
*) The FC has since subsided. But a few good pictures can be found again and again, as shown here!
0 comments:
Post a Comment