About photography Theory,

This is just a small text we had to write about photography theory...(sorry about the poor english! I'm trying hard to improve! he he he)

  

Essay: Photography theory.

The act of seeing is active; it is an act of choice. We see what we look at and so relate to it. We also became aware that we can be seen, and so are aware we are part of the visible word. This result in the understanding that others may see things differently (La Grange, 2005), and so on when we took someone else’s image, our understanding of it depends on our way of seeing. The famous Hungarian photographer Moholy – Nagy  used to attribute different types  of visions to photography: the  abstract seeing,  the exact seeing, rapid seeing, slow seeing, intensifiled seeing, penetrative seeing and distorced seeing (Clive, S., 1999).

So what photographs look like? And Why they look that way? What it  means?  This are the central questions who pushes  the progress (development ?) of the photography as art, but also restricts much of its beauty.

Photography theory lives in the gap between the way of seeing of the viewer and the way is of seeing by the person who has created the image results, but not just answering questions, but trying to bring elements for the dialogue wich exists in between art and spectator. Involving elements from history, philosophy, semiothics, photography theory try to create a back-ground for each piece of photographic art.

The way photographt theory and photography progress is different and it generates great concerns, because they can’t exist just by thenselves, or maybe their lone existance might take much of its shine.

The great Japanese photographer Nobuyoshi Araki argues that his pictures are just pictures, without a implicit meaning.  But others might find answers for their questions in his pictures.  The same way others photographer simply can’t  accept  the ideia  of working in such a  “shallow “ way.

There is also the spectator how just deny the background behind the photography art, or even those who just don’t care about , or even some who just can’t complain in what photography theory says about a picutre.

 Its there any knowledge, so certaing that no reasonable man can doubt it? (Russel, B., 1912). Can photography theory, in the future stick or full fill the lapse  that exists from the author and the vier? No, but sure it can make photography, as art, much more interesting.

 

REFERENCES:

ELKINS, J. (2007). Photography TheoryI.  1th ed. London : Routledge,

KLOSE, J. (2005). Arakimentari [videorecording DVD]. [U.K.] : Tartan Video.

JEFFREY, I. (2008).  How to read a photograph : understanding, interpreting and enjoying the great photographers. 1th ed. London : Thames & Hudson,

           

LA GRANGE, A. (2005).  Basic critical theory for photographers. 1th ed. Oxford : Kindlington.

 RUSSEL, B.(1971) .The ABC of relativity. 3rd revised ed. London : Allen & Unwin.

SCOTT, C. (1999) The spoken image : photography and language. 1th ed. London : Reaktion,

SZARKOWSKI, J (1980). The photographer's eye. London : Secker and Warburg.

Nobuyoshi Araki

 

Here is a link to a nice Araki's interview:  http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/artists_editions/reading_room/12.araki_interviewed_by_jerome_sans.1.htm