The History of the Art of Photography

Old Perry

Thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss, plus iv to do a small bit of research around it (more to do with modernisation/rationality, but ive chosen photography to chart the changes) :P.

How has photography been modernised over the last few decades, old style vs new . whats been added to it in terms of technique and what constitutes a notable piece of photographic work, also has anything been lost or abandoned with the rise of the digital age. Not so much talking about the technological evolution but the science behind photography. Any thoughts, experience more then welcome..........

Scamp-

Someone's got an essay due!

Old Perry

No not at all .....its more of a just read about this inrelation to somethin youve an interest in and it may help you understand the processes involved.

sineadw

Old Perry wrote: »

Not so much talking about the technological evolution but the science behind photography.

What do you mean here? Just getting frames of reference

Old Perry

sineadw wrote: »

What do you mean here? Just getting frames of reference

I know, im still gettin my head around the idea aswell!.......not just how advancement in the technology of cameras/digital photography has changed but also how the actual pictures changed, or the rationale behind taking a picture for the purpose of 'art' has changed.....Maybe one (primitive) example would be that the first,second or third person to take a picture didn think 'oh i better follow the rule of thirds!', yet its worked its way into many pictures which would be thought to represent a technically good photo.

sineadw

Hmmm.. i think it very much depends on what you mean by the art of photography. Do you mean contemporary art photography (which really has very little to do with rule of thirds - the opposite in fact), or do you mean photos taken by hobbyists and pro photographers that have that rule of thirds aesthetic?

If it's the second you mean, then i think the digital era has emphasised the aesthetic, surface 'impact' of a photograph. I often see images that have huge dramatic skies lauded about the place, and quieter more cerebral images dismissed as 'snapshots'. Digital makes it easier to whack all the sliders to 11 (and before all the debate starts, I *know* you can whack the sliders in the darkroom too - I've done it ) and i think because of that, our eyes have become more used to the spectacular. Images seem to need to grab you by the proverbials a lot more than maybe 30 years ago. And i know there were huge sky photos 30 years ago, but they weren't being made by everyone, simply because of the enormous skill and time involved in doing that in the darkroom.

I'm not for one minute saying people don't take thoughtful images anymore. I'm just saying maybe it's more difficult for them to get noticed in the clamour.

JMHO, of course

humberklog

Old Perry wrote: »

technically good photo.

I wouldn't think that a technically good photo has much to do with good artistry in photography.

Aesthetic symmetry and climbing mountains before dawn might get you something generally pleasing to the eye. But unsharp investigative wonkiness wobbles the cerebral cotex.