Ken Tanaka
pro member
I wonder now if it's really what I meant to say...
Long story, uh?
No, just angry.
So your denial of photography as an art form is anchored in your bad employment experience as a youth? To each his/her own.
I wonder now if it's really what I meant to say...
Long story, uh?
No, just angry.
So your denial of photography as an art form is anchored in your bad employment experience as a youth? To each his/her own.
Exactly, and I found my way on the lab, and better fulfillment than shooting...The point of the story is what makes a photo a piece of art is not always what ordinary people think it is. And the right people are not often granted for that. Everybody can take photographs (it's my point) and it's often the shadow-man that makes it stand from the crowd. (It's even better when there's a great photographer and a great lab tech working together.)
If we become more precise with your opinion, nearly everyone will agree. Let's leave "art" out of this, as it's an entirely separate concept for which an entirely different language and approach is required, beyond the reach of a photo enthusiast discussion site.
So let's just say this: "Behind many "good" photographs are often unseen hands that can occasionally transform ordinary photographs into extra-ordinary photographs."
But it simultaneously makes it the most difficult medium in which to distinguish oneself.
This past April the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA) hosted a symposium to tackle the obviously unanswerable, but provocative, question: "Is Photography Over?". The museum empaneled a relatively wide variety of renowned figures to discuss the subject -- curators, educators, photographers/artists, and a few professional navel-gazers. Some may find their remarks interesting reading.