Sunday, January 11, 2009
Are photographs really an Art?
Why do some people desire a painting than a photograph? What’s the difference between having a canvass, brushes, and paints from having a camera? But for some reasons, there are three essential components of what we call art. First, is the artist; second, is the medium; and third is the artwork. All of these are interrelated according to Tad Beckman.
Photographic art has a lot of definitions. It will depend on how we understand it. Others say it’s about creating a stunning image that is an interpretation of the panorama that you saw in your mind captured on film, rather than just a recording of what is already there. It is playing with the lights, weather conditions and the colors. Timing is everything. The most challenging is that there are some things that you can control but the weather throws out surprises that can add that hint of drama to a picture. These hindrances will result creativeness.
A photographer will capture an image that delights their eye. They will create something that is close to their heart. That is why a photograph is more than just a piece of paper with a representation on it. Well, they are allowing you to see how they perceive the world to be, one moment at a time.
Does subject matters? I assume it’s not. There are a lot of subjects. It is in the heart of the photographer on what really his passion. As for me, I like landscapes and sunsets. Others prefer sports, portraits and flowers. The image you captured is subjective. Your approach is different from your viewer’s approach.
It is in the heart and hand of the creator behind the brush, camera or pen that executes the creative vision. Not the tools used. Then photography really is an Art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Trekkers Comments