http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/nov/13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries
The article “Why photographs don't work in art galleries" is presented
by Jonathan Jones tells us about why you cannot compare photos and
pictures. The point of view of the author is that photography is a miracle of
the modern word. Photos look fascinating on the pages of magazines or screen,
but it has completely different effect, when a snapshot is framed or backlit
and displayed vertically in an exhibition. Why?-asked you. Jonathan Jones has answer. Pictorial art is created with
time and great efforts, material complexity, textural depth. It requires talent
and craft, imagination and "mindfulness". A really good painting is a
rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set
it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. It is
absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as
much looking as a painting by the great artists.
As for me, I can't ,but
agree with author.Create paintings by himself, as if you take one
out of your brain, costs a lot of efforts and should be evaluated much more
expensive. Photo is also the product of human activity. But it, unlike the creative abilities, availables to
everyone. Of course, having a camera you cannot call yourself a professional
photographer, but it's an easier way to create an image. In addition, the picture,
seems to me, is more alive than pix. They are filled with soul and feelings of
the artist; we can feel that it had the author at the time of the writing
of this piece of art. One cannot deny that the photograph is also a kind of
fine art, but in comparison with the great masters of painting, it is not the
first place.
And now I want you to ask a few questions on this
topic.
- What is your personal opinion about failure of photos for display at
exhibition?
- How often do you visit museums, exhibitions and visual gallery? If yes, what kind of impression do you feel at an exhibition of photographs?
- Do you consider that many famous works of art are overrated? Why? Call them.
I find this article interesting because I have often wondered why the photos can't be on a par with the paintings in the galleries. The author's position is clear and understandable to me. Reading the article, I found answers to questions that couldn't find previously.
ОтветитьУдалить1) I always thought that the photos may be on a par with the paintings in the galleries. Beautiful and peace photo is also an art. It is not given to everyone, I think. Yes, we can all take a camera and take a picture of something. But whether it can become a work of art? No, I guess. And after reading the article, I have changed my point of view. Now I'm sure that the photos in the galleries lose the original beauty which they carried in themselves.
2) I can't say that I visit a museum or gallery very often. I go there no more than once a year. But I have never had to be at the exhibition of photographs. I can't say what I feel about it I can't say if I like it or not, because I've never seen such exhibitions. But I would love to visit it.
3) No, I don't think so. Each well-known work is recognized by a work of art, on which much time and inspiration have been spent. I can't judge it. I have no right for it I must say.
People from all over the world are interesting in art, and different divisions in it are discussed with enthusiasm. Moreover, this article was accessible to understand, so I was glad to read this review.
ОтветитьУдалитьTo my mind, photos and painting are two different things and we can't compare these types of art. I think, photos haven't failure for display at exhibition. Photos have their own swings and roundabouts. Not everyone can be a perfect photographer: a person should feel a play of a light and sense when you need to photograph.
I visit galleries, museums seldom. I have never been in exhibitions of photos, but I think it's rather exiting. Through photos a cameraman can convey sentiments of peoples, that will be fascinating for viewing.
I only understand a little all art, so for me the whole famous works can not be overrated. In my opinion, time shows us is this production is great or just a rubbish.
It is the very interesting article. It made me think about art.
ОтветитьУдалить1) I think that photographs and pictures are two different kinds of art. Each of them is interesting in its own way. I do not understand why photographs do not work in art galleries. Perhaps, some people think that it is created without great efforts, and it does not require talent, imagination and mindfulness. I do not think so. Many people take photographs, which are not appealing. In such case, I consider that this kind of art requires talent.
2) I have visited the exhibitions rarely. I have never been to the photograph gallery. I would like to visit it. I think I would like such exhibition.
3) I think it is not the truth. I do not understand in art a lot and I can not say something about it. In my opinion, if professionals consider that the certain picture is art, I can agree with it.