Ch. 6 Reading Response

1-2 paragraph
least one question or discussion point.
an informal synopsis of the points that were of most interest to you and/or that you would like to discuss or think about further. Your question or discussion point should be written so that it can be posed to the group during class discussion and should include pertinent page numbers or paragraphs for reference, if necessary. These posts are due no later than 6 p.m. the evening before the chapter discussion (reminders are given on the calendar section).

Chapter six talks about Photography as "Art". It is quite a revelation to realize that photography was once NOT thought of as an art. There were many reasons why photography was and was not thought of as art, and in this debate, many dichotomies were discussed:
photograph as document vs. art
art vs. technology
picture taking vs. picture making
It wasn't until the notion of Conceptual Art that photography was really accepted into the "art" world. I wondering if there are specific characteristics of photography that helped make it more "conceptual"? Cannot paintings and sculptures be conceptual?

The book mentions the range of interpretation art can have. There are also many ways that will shape viewer interpretation. Some of these mentioned were framing, titles, and scale. It is interesting to ponder the fact that whether single images, or series, or sequences, no technique is neutral. Inaction is action - by keeping it simple, you are conveying something as well. Wells continue to touch of the lack of title implies that image is to 'speak of itself' (p.292).

Going along with shaping meaning, I found a quote in the text very intriguing and almost shocking. Wells says that curators are more like 'creators', because they put together exhibitions (p.301)- they more often than not will favor certain artists, or types of work. This is quite a shocking realization because curators essentially have the power in shaping the art world and how art is viewed by the public. This also comes to question rather if this will influence the integrity of artists and their work. Will they make certain types of work because they know that's the type of work, say, the MOMA usually exhibits, and they want their art in there?

Lastly, what struck a cord with me was the notion that photography "enhances sight" (p.277) and that the camera's depth of focus enables us to "see more than the human eye" (p.281) It is quite true that with the right lenses, photography allows us to see things that are farther away/ smaller/ more vividly than that eye can see. I once brought my camera to a party and was snapping pictures of the people there. I showed some people their picture, and one of my friend gasps "That is such a nice camera! The pictures are even better than real life!" What she meant was that the picture was much sharper/ crisper and vibrant than real life. I agree that sometimes, the world is a prettier/ more amazing place through photographic lenses because of the technology used. Photography has the power to take the real/ ordinary and make it have this WOW factor. This is precisely what inspires me as a photographer and what draws me in in this vast range of photographic art.


How do you personally judge "good" art?