Thoughts and notes about the exhibition Cartier-Bresson: A Question of Colour.
A picture of the flooded river Ouse in North Yorkshire reminded me of one of the conclusions from the press photographer 2012 exhibition: Pictures of natural disasters have more impact if there is a human context.
Should photographs be photo-realistic, or has the line between photography and digital design become so blurred that the message is more important than the method? This essay looks at some different points of view, and concludes that the fundamental discussion should be about honesty and expectations, rather than Photoshop.
Can ad pictures, the epitome of commercialism, produced to a very specific brief for no other purpose than to sell, sell, sell, be works of art? Is there a conflict between the starving artists of yester-year and the highly paid PR executives of today? Or, is it actually a fact that all artists are in the business of selling?
Given yesterday’s criteria for what constitutes art, let’s look at photo journalism. What are the key objectives for a photo journalist, and how easy or hard is it to combine these with the artist’s objectives? Are artists good craftsmen, and are good craftsmen artists?
“What is art” is a controversial questions. Rather than trying to come up with my own definition, I start by Wikipedia’s definition and extrapolate from that. Scratching only the surface, I try to understand whether it’s the finished result or the creative process that turns some photos into art. I welcome your input and views.