Photographic Art rant
The next time you see a photo exhibit in a place that normally has other forms of art, play the Photo Art Point Game:
The exhibit gets
1 point for showing everyday objects/people
1 point for showing the "downside" of society
1 point for intentionally being of low technical quality, e.g. out of focus, shaken, noisy
1 point for emulating early photographic limitations, e.g. vignetting, strange coloring, defocused corners, poor contrast
1 point for ignoring common rules of composition, i.e. rule of thirds, leading lines, simplicity
1 point for being provocative, e.g showing violence, degeneration, or other semi-taboo matters
If you find one that scores 0 points, please let me know, and I will do my best to go see it. The "Earth from Above" series by Jean-Yves Bertrand gets 1/2 point (for showing downside of society in some cases), and is one I find absolutely stunning.
The one actual photo exhibit I found ("Brutalized", pictures of people bleeding etc) got 4 points, for showing everyday people, showing the downside of society, being provocative, and ignoring common rules of composition. The exhibits I found in London generally had at least 3 points.
Why the flying f*ck must photos be either ugly or documentary or both to be considered art?
The exhibit gets
1 point for showing everyday objects/people
1 point for showing the "downside" of society
1 point for intentionally being of low technical quality, e.g. out of focus, shaken, noisy
1 point for emulating early photographic limitations, e.g. vignetting, strange coloring, defocused corners, poor contrast
1 point for ignoring common rules of composition, i.e. rule of thirds, leading lines, simplicity
1 point for being provocative, e.g showing violence, degeneration, or other semi-taboo matters
If you find one that scores 0 points, please let me know, and I will do my best to go see it. The "Earth from Above" series by Jean-Yves Bertrand gets 1/2 point (for showing downside of society in some cases), and is one I find absolutely stunning.
The one actual photo exhibit I found ("Brutalized", pictures of people bleeding etc) got 4 points, for showing everyday people, showing the downside of society, being provocative, and ignoring common rules of composition. The exhibits I found in London generally had at least 3 points.
Why the flying f*ck must photos be either ugly or documentary or both to be considered art?