kickingthefly wrote:pretty much all photography is gimmick/schtick tbh, its only meaningful/ culturally relevant form at this point is the teen selfie.
That's a provocative statement, care to elaborate?
kickingthefly wrote:pretty much all photography is gimmick/schtick tbh, its only meaningful/ culturally relevant form at this point is the teen selfie.
bels wrote:The aesthetic standards were defined by the tastes rich people who commissioned art/were patrons/owned museums/were collectors. Photography from the very start lacked of any kind of structure to dwell within/rebel against except for 'being accepted by the establishment' which they managed to do once colour film was invented (meant you could take black and white photos and they would be considered art)
INNIT wrote:well, novels developed simultaneously with capitalism and the printing press in the 19th century; they were very much a "popular" genre contrasted with poetry and, at this point, theater. 18th century novels were like, a different beast, and vary drastically across continental Europe in terms of acceptability (many 18th century works read like weird pomo novels without the chapters and were published anonymously).
but anyways, what we think of as aesthetic standards, at least the way you describe them, are usually applied retroactively by some sort of bourgeoisie class rather than being emergent with the form itself. we might say modernism rebelled against 19 century realism but it's not really until the "modern period" that the latter works are being valorized in the first place. that's the point that i was trying to make. i think that most emergent forms start off rather rhizomatic and that it takes time for elite classes to retrospectively decide "what's great," codify/striate things, etc. this process obviously speeds up in the ages of mechanical and digital reproduction.
(this is my weird defence of photography, a medium that i know nothing about)
soko wrote:Don’t know anything about photography in any meaningful way, but Interested in seeing if/when photography takes on the purposefully poorly-composed-all-things-in-life-given-equal-weight approach of autofiction in literature a la Shiela Heti or Karl Ove. What’s the photography equivalent of a bad prose stylist? If someone could link me?
*edit:
Interested in any kind of photography that doesn’t really do anything, anti-nostalgia, anti-romantic images.
Really digging that last one. Where's it from?
bels wrote:Photography never managed to establish an aesthetic standard before it was swarmed by adverts, photojournalism, holiday pics etc. Most 'art photos' are:
Visual punchline - Something with some kind of thematic contradiction or bait and switch
Uncommon sight - This is mostly just photojournalism and only of interest because it's a photo. (a photograph of god would be amazing, a drawing of god is pointless)
Appeal to authenticity - black and white or at this point medium/large format film photography or even just digital that's been edited to look as such. Looks 'good' because it appeals to baked in value systems of old (read expensive) things having superior aesthetics. Would have no appeal if it was taken with a bad camera (unless that camera was wielded by someone with enough social capital that they could claim the bad camera had some level of authenticity that was important). Basically audiophile art (it's just so much warmer looking/sounding)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest