Generalizing too much leads surely to mistakes even though in some cases it remains possible to fix certain general features which might be considered relevant to determine the concept of “art”.
Art is a display of personal creativity together with a certain dose of skills for the practical realization of the final result.
I mean that a sculptor – for example - must not only have the idea of the composition of a statue, but also the practical talent to sculpture, to carve or to engrave, a manual practical ability which allows to use properly the necessary tools; the creative idea in
itself is not necessarily enough to get the final result which can be called a work of art.
It happens also that art is identified in a display of transgression in a work which might disturb the viewers and is supposed to impress individual sensitiveness through shocking means.
It’s a choice and as all choice might have a value, of course not absolute.
Photography is a particular kind of creative activity which I find difficult to call art in absolute. In most of case it’s not creative at all and it is not absolutely necessary to have any particular technical talent either.
But it’s obvious that also photography can be called art in some aspects, because there are photographers who can conjugate excellent knowledge of the technical means with personal very sophisticated creativity and a deep sense of the image.
It’s possible to make different attempts in photography, to experiment different effects and to convey ideas through pictures.
Conveying ideas and emotions, this is one of the main features of art, after all.
Coming back to my “speculations” on photography I think we can compare it to literature, in a way.
In order to write a good book creating and original plot is not enough, a writer must also be able to master the style and to know perfectly grammar and syntax and then be very accurate in the whole procedure.
In order to get a worthy photo, a photographer should know how to use all the options which a camera offers (a very sophisticated and expensive camera is not fundamental, even though can have an obvious importance) and should equally have the idea of what the photo might convey to the viewers. A good photographer should know the basic elements of a worthy composition and pay attention to the balance of all the elements which compose the picture and, last but not least, a good photographer should be very accurate and very self-critical and have all the possible respect for the subjects.
I’m afraid that too many amateur photographers take what I call “useless photos”, that is casual shots which don’t mean anything, which don’t convey any feeling, which are not accurate either.
I took many “useless photos” too, but I’m saved in most of cases by my deep self-criticism. Taking useless photos is not a fault, but keeping them and even posting them… well it’s a fault we would all avoid.
I’ll keep on with this topic next time. My half-hidden journal offers me this freedom…
RSS Feed